Monthly Archives: September 2016

“中国梦:西化还是蜕变?” (凤凰国际智库)

凤凰国际智库

 

“中国梦:西化还是蜕变?

解决全球经济环境危机的钥匙,在中国的过去”

2016年 9月  28日

Emanuel Pastreich(贝一明)

翻译:【明媚中国)翻译组】(裘成、周明暘、许兰)

导语

“为治愈积重难返的西方文化,很多西方人士在中国寻找良药。”本文的英文作者是Emanuel Pastreich(贝一明),美国人,现居韩国任亚洲研究所主管。他以一位对中国文化极其了解的西方人视角,讲述了“一个西方人的中国梦”。

“中国所拥有的伟大智慧、深厚的文化、长远历史的可持续农业传统、以及理性化低消费观的悠久传统,可以为人类发展引领另一种模式——即利用其生态和政治伦理传统,作为形成一种新的世界观的基础,替代当前以‘经济增长’和‘消费主义’指标为基础的世界观,构建一个崭新的国际社会和全球治理机制。中国拥有着构建能诠释新世界观价值体制所需要的哲学基础,甚至是艺术才能。”这,是他的中国梦。

中国能否从积聚财富和权力的激情之中回归,从往昔重视人性和智慧为先的可持续农业与经济之中寻找灵感,探索能真正融合经济发展和环境保护的另类发展模式呢?作者认为,中国的“一带一路”项目作为前所未有的机会,可以为所有中国人和发展中的世界诠释这样的一个“中国梦”,可以通过构建“新丝绸之路”来将世界引至正确的方向上。作为我们中国人自己,能否意识到这份早已掌握在手中的宝藏呢?

 

 

当今中国

近期我前往南京开会,抵达后嘱咐学生安排我去南京老城参观著名的夫子庙。这是我第一次到访南京,我期待着能探索这座古城的街道小巷,或驻足停留在某个古朴的茶馆里。

我早已认识南京,以及它明代以前的名字“金陵”,尽管此前我从未访问过。当我在东京大学和哈佛大学研究中国文学时,曾大量阅读过以南京为背景的诗词。对我而言,秦淮河的风貌早已在十七世纪的文学杂记中被描绘和勾勒出来,而小说《红楼梦》中所描绘的十八世纪南京的华丽府邸则更令人倾心向往。

然而,我对南京的寻觅扑了空,在当代南京纷乱的马路中,古时的金陵街巷毫无踪影。夫子庙周边的传统中国建筑已被蹂躏殆尽,取而代之的是呆板的混凝土楼房,充斥着各种快餐店以及贩卖T恤的小商店。虽然能找到出售好茶的商铺,但这里的绝大部分食物和配置都与曼谷的相差无几,或某种程度上跟洛杉矶的大同小异。没有什么特别的东西能够代表南京。这座城市的艺术气息和匠心氛围都已经消失,诗人和小说家就更加无从谈起了。

夫子庙里给人的感觉一点都不真实。墙体是混凝土灌注的,而非由石头或灰泥构成。木质结构加工粗糙,墙角边缘处理欠妥。劣质的家具摆放其间,平庸的书法作品被挂在墙上。

在南京的这个下午,我没有找到历史的深厚印记。这里完全不同于巴黎的圣母院或是奈良的东大寺那样,蕴含着动人过去的遗迹。我有印象曾读过这样的介绍,说南京的过去是中国人必须了解的一段历史,可是,那段逝去的文明与如今的一切关联甚少。

多亏我的学生做向导,我找到了一间传统茶馆,但起身离开时却心怀悲哀,我悲哀于这么多传统中国印记的消失,很大程度上,这并非因为文革,而应归咎于残酷无情的消费文化在中国的普及。我的这种哀伤的情绪当然也绝非因感情用事。

因为,真正的悲剧是,中国曾经给世界带来了最为庞杂的、支撑其复杂官僚系统与众多人口的体制,而这一体制的基础则完全有赖于可持续的有机农业。当美国农学家F. H. King在1911年写成《四千年农夫:中国、朝鲜和日本的永续农业》(Farmers of Forty Centuries, or Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea, and Japan)一书时,他提出美国应该尽早效仿东亚地区真正可持续农业的模式。可悲的是,中国却从美国最终引入了致命的复合肥和杀虫剂,可持续不复存在。在中国,年轻人已不再传承中国农业智慧,而这正是当下最迫切需要的。

与此同时,在如今全球消费主义所主导的无情社会,中国传统所倡导的朴素、勤俭、敬老和谦逊的品质因具有替代作用而有着极大的吸引力。可是,当你来到中国想要再探寻这些传统的品质时,将会大失所望。

中国的西方梦

如今,为治愈积重难返的西方文化,很多西方人士在中国寻找良药。我当年之所以研究中国文学,也因类似的动机:物质主义和军国主义正在蚕食着美国赖以存在的制度。儒学、佛教和道教让美国人意识到社会还可以有另一面,而非皆为利来,皆为利往的生活。

还是学生时,我就受到了启发,它源自中国所提倡的勤俭以及道德上倡导的知行合一。古代的许多儒学名家在生活中实践着箪食瓢饮与淡泊名利的准则。即便是富贵人家也会避免奢靡浪费和虚荣浮夸,他们将文化与修养视作最为崇高的目标。中国过去所展现出的文明形态主要在于维持农村与自然的和谐,这种形态保证了文明得以延续千年。

然而当我今天造访中国时,却目睹了同样在美国存在且令人唏嘘的对物欲生活的盲目崇拜。我惊讶于中国人用餐时的挥霍浪费,对非生活必需品的热衷与无节制的消费。在一百年前,这样的行为想必会招致中国人的鄙夷——而即使在今天气候剧烈变化的时代,这样的消费举动也是可耻的。如今,中国的年轻人会随手丢弃瓶子和塑料袋,就像他们的美国同龄人一样,从不会考虑这样做的后果。

最悲哀的莫过于中国官员同样将扭曲的经济理论和拜物主义作为了衡量政绩的标准,而这些标准的执行已经在西方国家造成了极大的损失。中国人已习惯于充斥着可随意掷弃用品的大商场,他们将高性能的战机视为国力的象征。我对此很敏感,因为作为一个美国人,我目睹过自己的国家因此而偏离正轨,在消费幻象丛生的社会里,它的国民正为了躲避更为残酷的社会现实而寻找庇护。

美国为世界树立的是道德的反面教材。这不仅仅由于我的国家在近二十年的时间里卷入了一系列的非法战争,而更因为美国的眼光仅盯在关注自己国家的切身利益上,它从未尝试建立更高的标准来向世界做出有意义的改善,或为世界做楷模。美国在环境政策或关注贫穷问题上的不关心以及无作为都可证明这一点。

相反,当今的中国正在引领全球发展中国家的前进步伐。非洲和亚洲诸国把中国作为成功发展的模范,它们从北京获得的援助款数目也节节攀升。世界上每五个人之中就有一个中国人,中国对世界的影响力是任何其他国家都不可比拟的。中国的文化正直接影响着非洲和南美,很多发展中国家竞相向中国学习。对许多发展中国家而言,中国改革发展的诀窍比美国德国这些发达国家的经验更容易拿来借鉴利用。在人口不断增长、国际影响力不断扩大的诸多国家中,中国对人民需求与欲望的影响力是巨大的。中国传播给发展中国家的价值观将对未来产生巨大的影响。

中国在塑造全球文化、普世价值与常识的进程中扮演着重要的角色,肩负着日渐增大的使命,因此,普通中国人民的言行举止对地球的未来就有更加关键的作用。世界各国,尤其像越南、印度、尼日利亚、缅甸,以及印度尼西亚等等中国过去并没有过多关注过的国家,现在都把中国当作它们经济发展甚至文化发展的标杆。如果中国向它们呈现出一个良好的发展模式,世界就会有一个更光明的未来;如果中国展示的是盲目消费,人类的未来就注定是黑暗的。原因很简单:这些国家会在全球范围内复制中国的发展模式,不管这种模式是好是坏。“中国梦”不应鼓励人们去消费,去住豪宅,去浪费资源,并且用麻木的消费来定义和装扮幸福。这是美国犯下的悲剧性错误,它给世人们传递的是错误的信号。

中国所拥有的伟大智慧、深厚的文化、长远历史的可持续农业传统、以及理性化低消费观的悠久传统,可以为人类发展引领另一种模式。然而,针对以消费作为根基的美国发展模式,中国在目前还没有对此提出一个根本的替代性发展路径。

中国梦

许多中国人都想要一个强大的中国,可以捍卫自己的利益,将鸦片战争(1839 – 1842,1856 – 1860年)后遭受的屈辱永远地留在身后。中国增强国力以抵抗外国势力的愿望是可以理解的。但不幸的是,为体现大国实力,其方式往往在模仿美国所钟爱的国家权力的外衣,比如建造航母和坦克,而不是处理类似气候变化这样真正的安全威胁。

中国一直在争论是否应进一步接受新自由主义,或者恢复毛时代的传统。回归更传统的经济、生态和治理手段并没有被视作第三种途径。习近平主席在两种途径的争论之间提出了“中国梦”的中国全球化愿景。

“中国梦”所描绘的“中国复兴”是“实现整个国家以及每一个中国人的理想”。中国梦是寄希望于每个中国人努力合作去实现一个更好的国家和更好的世界而提出的。可是,对很多中国人来说,他们期待着一个充斥着豪车、到处是高速公路、高耸的摩天大厦和消费品爆满的商店的富裕中国。他们梦想着能够在昂贵的餐厅消费,点上吃不完的堆在一旁的食物。大多数的中国人将这种“西方的美好生活”视为进步,然而作为西方人自己,我们已经能从身边处处觉察到这种生活必将走向崩溃毁灭的征兆。

我们不应该美化传统中国,儒家的严苛要求和对妇女的限制并不值得推崇。与此同时,中国人应该看到他们不应将“过去”仅仅视为克服的对象,而可以将它作为未来的灵感。中国传统文化认为,学生应从小培养阅读诗歌,学习伦理和哲学,而不是工商管理和市场营销。知识分子应对社会和治理国家保有责任心和承诺,而政府官员则是视人性至上的这些知识分子。我们需要的,是更接近E. F. 舒马赫在《小的是美丽的:一本把人当回事的经济学著作》(Small isBeautiful: Economics as if People Mattered)一书中提出的发展道路:一条介于“鲁莽的实利主义”和“守旧的传统主义”之间的“中间道路”。

中国没有像欧洲人和美国人曾做过和仍在做的那样,掠夺世界的人民和他们的自然资源来发展经济。也许我们可以想象这样一个未来,中国并不加入“全球掠夺者俱乐部”,而是回归原来她重视人性和智慧为先的可持续经济,为所有中国人和发展中的世界重新诠释“中国梦”。

中国人必须要将对长期的经济、环境正义的关注融入到这个“中国梦”中,这在很大程度上也是传统儒家和道家文化的核心价值观。中国应该利用其生态和政治伦理传统作为形成一种新的世界观的基础,替代“经济增长”和“消费主义”指标为基础的当前世界观。中国拥有着构建能诠释新世界观价值体制所需要的哲学基础,甚至是艺术才能。明清时期的中国人就已具备设计并完成能跨越几个世纪的农业和灌溉设施的能力了。

也许对中国传统可持续农业概念的重新发掘,可以作为必要的起点来激励创造一个“能真正融合经济发展和环境保护的综合体,对经济与环境两个领域都起到导向作用”,就像约翰·费弗在他的文章《新马克思》中所提到的那样。问题是,中国人是否能够意识到这份早已掌握在他们手中的宝藏?

中国相关的传统学术可以在这个重建过程中发挥重要的作用。我们可以设想未来的某一天,写出《治平篇》的洪亮吉或者创作出《农政全书》的徐光启,会像亚当·斯密、卡尔·马克思或者约翰·凯恩斯一样受到世界的认可,前者为融合经济、农业与生态所做的努力,丝毫不亚于后者为一个忽视环境因素的经济理论所做出的贡献。

无论中国是否准备好在世界舞台上扮演领导角色,都已没有关系,因为它早已被推到了舞台中心。不管美国媒体会怎么说,过去三十年里美国文化的严重衰退,以及美国知识分子惊人的不负责任,已将美国卷入到了一系列国际与国内难题,阻碍着美国在国际社会扮演中心角色。

拥有雄厚财政实力、科学专业性以及体制和文化的深度和广度的中国,是全世界唯一一个能够扮演这种全球角色的国家。此外,因为中国在亚洲是(文化)霸主,可它形成霸主不像过去的英国、法国、西班牙和德国那样通过殖民,中国有希望促进构建世界各地公平环境。但是,这最后一点也还远没得到保证,因为关键在于中国是否具有足够的创造力和道德权威,使其从积聚财富和权力的激情之中回归,并能批判性地评估其传统文化所能为中国和世界提供的替代性发展路径的价值。

今日的中国梦必须从根本上区别于美国梦。这个中国梦将会鼓舞不仅是亚洲,还有非洲和南美洲的人民。中国梦所描绘的应该是一个可持续发展的世界。在这个世界里人们不会沉浸于消费而无视气候变化的威胁。

中国梦里应该包含哪些具体的元素呢?我认为低消费文化应该是中国梦的核心之一。中国历史上知识分子对社会的深切关怀与承诺应该是中国梦必不可少的一部分。传统儒家文化中的远见卓识——制定三十年到七十年的长期经济计划也应蕴含在中国梦中。中国人民为子孙后代着想的能力是中国文化中至关重要的部分,它也应该成为中国梦的核心。

中国梦可以成为一种全新的精神文化,这种文化建立在中国悠久的人与自然和谐相处的哲学传统上,建立在邻里互相关爱和睦相处的人文传统上,建立在以诚信道德为本的经商理念上,建立在保护环境避免浪费的自然观念上。在中国梦的图画中,人们满足于家庭的温暖、阅读写作的乐趣、精神生活的充实,而不是被淹没在消费的冲动、飙车的刺激、饕餮的盛宴、或是炫富的兴奋中。

如果中国展示出的中国梦,是怀有深刻社会责任感的中国人关注生态环境、追求世界和平的画面,那么亿万世界人民会吸收中国梦所传达的讯息,并用他们自己的方式模仿中国这个崇高的榜样。

大多数中国人仍然没有意识到,现在是中国承担责任去提倡世界新秩序,引领世界走向和平与可持续的未来的时候了,而不再是她的选择。有的国家会选择另类发展途径,有的国家则应肩负起应有的责任。中国处在后者的位置,世界也正在等待着中国的决定。

“一带一路”的未来

正好在这一刻,当中国被呼吁在全球经济中发挥核心作用时,她已经推出了“一带一路”战略。中国已邀请世界各国来参与这个项目,推动欧亚大陆诸国的一体化与合作。

到目前为止,“一带一路”专注于基础设施建设和资源开发。这些项目对于发展一个可持续的未来有时会有作用,但在许多情况下并非如此。项目重点至今是石油、天然气和其他原材料流向中国,以带动进一步的增长和投资。而亚洲基础设施投资银行(AIIB)、新丝绸之路基金(NSRF)、上海合作组织(SCO)、丝绸之路黄金基金和矿业发展基金,这些机构都与保护环境几乎没什么关系。以驱动消费来表征国家实力的做法并不是什么好征兆,因为中国对食物和能源的消费对整个世界有着如此重大的影响,正如莱斯特·布朗在他的书《谁来养活中国?》(Who will Feed China?)所说的那样。

不过,“一带一路”项目才刚刚开始,中国还是有可能用它来建立新的机构、政策和惯例,将世界最终引至正确的方向上。

“一带一路”是前所未有的机会,原因有两个。首先,它提供机会,遵循《联合国宪章》的规定来构建一个崭新的国际社会。该宪章目前不幸地被欧美完全遗忘。其次,它给我们提供了在人口密集的地球上构建合适的全球治理机制的可能性,一个不像世界银行那样由私人股权基金和跨国公司所主导的全球治理机制。

“一带一路”项目需要全球合作,而非由中国一言堂。这将提供难能可贵的机会来创建以共识为基础的、非超级大国主导的全球体制。但要想实现这一点,必须需要各国都能认真看待“一带一路”,不仅仅只是把它当做挣钱的机会,而是把它作为造福人类的一项创举。

中国也应该更深远地思考与“一带一路”项目息息相关的常用词——“新丝绸之路”。“丝绸之路”让人想到的是唐朝通过如撒尔马罕和安集延等陆上贸易中心,以及连接中国、印度、波斯和非洲的海上通道所建立起的中国和欧亚大陆的陆路贸易通道。然而,丝绸之路不仅仅只是金钱与贸易,它还包括了中国、中亚、印度和波斯之间的深厚的文化交流,带来了佛家哲学思想的兴盛,以及一幅幅敦煌洞穴的精美壁画、一件件长安的精致的瓷器和雕塑、一首首李白和杜甫的优美诗篇。

这条“新丝绸之路”能避免重蹈西方经济发展的破碎之路、而将视野投向实现人类最高的文化价值之上吗?能将重心少放在新建大量机场,而多放些在发展可持续的生态有机农业上吗?能多开展些生产可持续替代能源的合作项目,而少一些采掘石油燃料和金属的项目吗?

我们的经济规划遗漏掉了精神层面的需求,关于这一严重缺陷,英国社会改革家R·H·托尼(R. H. Tawney)曾论述道:

最显而易见的事实反而最易被忽略。

现有的经济秩序,以及已推行的、重建该秩序的诸多举措,行之不通,其原因就在于忽视了这样一个真理:即便是再普通的人也是有灵魂的,任何物质财富的增加都无法弥补不当的经济规划对人的自尊或自由造成的伤害或妨碍。

不注重人灵魂价值的工业势必会激怒人性,导致经济发展被周期性地破坏以至于陷入瘫痪。因此,经济规划若要避免这种境况,就必须让发展带给人经济以外的价值,即精神价值。

这也适用于新丝绸之路。我们设想的新丝绸之路,其利益应当首要是文化与精神,而不只是物质与经济上的。

尽管目前并无迹象显示会有这样的转变,但过去的中国曾向世人证明过,这些根本性的转变——或蜕变——是可能的。绝大多数中国人都还未意识到,中国的过去蕴藏着全球难题的答案。而利用这些智慧,或许是扭转我们世界文明崩溃之局的最后的机会。

 

 

 

英文原文标题:”Chinese Dream: Western Imitation or Radical Alternative?”

The solution to the global economic and environmental crisis lies in China’s past.>

Foreign Policy in Focus

原文链接:http://fpif.org/chinese-dream-western-imitation-radical-alternative/

 

文中提及的作品:

F. 舒马赫. 《小的是美丽的:一本把人当回事的经济学著作》 (Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered)

约翰·费弗. 《新马克思》http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/the-new-marx_b_1245612.html

莱斯特·布朗 《谁来养活中国?》 (Who Will Feed China?: Wake-up Call for a Small Planet)

 

George Washington is rolling over in his grave tonight

I have been reading through Washington’s farewell address. He writes very succinctly about the problems that the United States faces today as a result allowing itself to be seduced into this imperial structure of alliance. He notes the internal corruption that results from external engagements. It seems as if the United States is beyond any simple cure at this point. 
 
Washington notes:
 
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
 
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
 

Read more of this post

기후변화를 모르는 환경운동연합?

2016 9 22 저녁 제가 환경운동연합과 지구의벗이 공동으로 개최한 2016 후원의밤: “생명안전을 위한 약속 참석 했어요. 환경에 깊은 관심을 갖고 계신 친구들을 만나서 좋았지만, 실망이 많았어요.

특히 그주제: “생명안전약속과 함께 합니다 문제가 많다고 생각 합니다.

이것이 바로 위험한 약품을 가습기에 사용을 추천한 영국계 기업 OXY(옥시) 암시하는 표현이고 그행사에서 주로 제품의 안전성에 주목하고 있어요.

제품에 뭐가 들었죠?” 환경운동연합펙트 체크 하세요”  라는 표현도 썼어요.  행사 소개 하는 글은 여기 있어요.

 

이제품에 뭐가 들었죠?” 환경운동연합펙트 체크  하세요

제품안전성이 매우 중요 것이지만 매우 한정 환경 정의 에요.

심각한 환경문제들: 온난화, 사막화, 해수면상승, 바다의 죽음 중에  이런 일상생활에 있어서의 좁은 환경에만 집작 하는지 모릅니다. Read more of this post

Seoul launches signage for smart phones

Clearly the increase in accidents due to the carelessness of smart phone users was behind the launch of this signage by the city of Seoul. I must say that it would have been better to include images of drivers using cell phones as well.

 

smart-phone1smartphone3

“한국인만 모르는 일본 과 중국”

오늘 교보문고에 가보니까 제 책 “한국인만 모르는 다른 대한민국” 옆에 일본외교관 미지가미 히로시 (道上尚史)씨 (현재 주두바이 총영사) 가 쓰신 책 “한국인만 모르는 일본 과 중국” (중앙북스 2016년) 이 있었어요. 아직 읽지 못 했짐나 매우 재미있는 책 같아요.
%eb%8b%a4%eb%a5%b8-%ec%9d%bc%eb%b3%b8-%ec%a4%91%ea%b5%ad-%eb%91%a5%e3%84%b7

교보문화 정치사회코너

%eb%8b%a4%eb%a5%b8-%ec%9d%bc%eb%b3%b8-%ec%a4%91%ea%b5%ad

 

 

 

道上尚史 기타 서적은:

 「日本外交官、韓国奮闘記」 (文春新書)

Love and Consumer Culture

We cannot talk about sex and love without considering consumer culture. The explosion in the circulation of things since the industrial revolution, and especially over the last decade has made everything a target for consumption. Humans are no exception and we consume each other as products (saying to ourselves, as we are taught by the mass media, that it is “love”). But in fact we care much less about each other because we do not have the time or inclination.

Remember that the Romantic movement came with the industrial revolution. It was both an attempt to escape from the horror of what Walter Benjamin called “the age of mechanical reproduction” resulting from the industrial revolution and the “great transformation” remaking human society and also a product thereof. Ironically many efforts to find something human and natural that gives shelter from a world gone mad with consumption are themselves products of that trend. Starbucks is the perfect example. A cozy space that seems more human, more natural, closer to a world we wish existed. But Starbucks, or the I Phone are as much a product of that ruthless mechanical reproduction (and now mechanical consumption) as anything.

I have not seen much discussion of the linkage of the various disturbing trends in our society, in our politics, to the rate of technological change. But I would argue that if we cannot see that link, we cannot see anything at all.

 

“Korea’s impulse economy” (JoongAng Daily September 12, 2016)

JoongAng Daily

“Korea’s impulse economy”

September 12, 2016

Emanuel Pastreich

 

 

There I was standing in the stationary store the other day, lined up to purchase pens, pencils and some printer paper before the start of classes. When I reached the counter, I was struck by a gaudy stack of candy bars and other sweet treats. But this is a stationary store, I thought, why am I seeing all these unhealthy snacks?

The answer is obvious: the candy bars are placed in the most visible place, even though they have nothing do to with stationary supplies, because retailers hope that customers will impulsively buy them even though they have no need for them, and they are not nutritious.

You would never have found candy bars piled up in a stationary store in Korea 15 years ago. Back then stationary stores had a clear purpose of supplying people with the paper and pens that they needed to conduct their business, or to pursue their studies.

All that has changed forever. Stationary stores are about tempting people to buy things that they do not need, and that impulsive behavior is considered essential to successful business.

The same principle holds true in bookstores. Once places where students burrowed away to read books about politics, literature and philosophy, now the books are being replaced by stuffed animals, backpacks and trivial accessories.

And every restaurant hangs a sign in front featuring glowing photographs of tasty foods designed to appeal to casual pedestrian’s cravings.

We have adopted a new normal, the assumption that the economy should be focused not on what people need, nor on what is good for our society, but rather on making money persuading people to buy impulsively through an appeal to their most base desires, without a concern for whether the purchase is necessary.

The dangers that result from making impulse and short-term satisfaction the driving force for the economy are tremendous. Human activity has no greater meaning than satisfying base cravings and imagined needs. The citizen becomes a consumer who has no higher ethical purpose for his actions; there is no longer a greater national plan than to consume without thinking about the future, and thereby to generate profits.

Such an approach to economics is alien to Korean culture. The central values of Korea are restraint, humility and an understated self-control in dress and in daily life. Such a culture of restraint extended even to the well-off families who lived in relatively modest homes in traditional Korea (certainly compared with the chateaus and town houses of their peers in Europe).

Thrifty Koreans valued every single grain of rice and threw nothing away. It was the simple and unadorned worth of simple objects that was central to Korean aesthetics.

The tragedy of an economy of impulse is not just the needless waste, but rather the loss of any sense of “why” in the lives of people. They just do things because others do so, they are consumers, but not citizens or family members. For that matter, the understanding of causality will ultimately break down, with people feeling that events simply happen without any relationship to their own actions.

Many young people are pushed to consume, but they do not know why they do so. They feel compelled to engage in such behavior because of social pressure, or because of marketing, but they derive no satisfaction for it. The individual feels increasingly alone, without meaningful friends or meaningful possessions.

There is a darker implication of an economy based on impulse. It encourages cultural decadence, a decadence that creeps into all aspects of society, conservative and liberal, and eats away at the ability of individuals to determine right and wrong, to conceive of a better society or make moral judgment.

As we lose the ability to think for ourselves, to control our own actions and to articulate a response to serious social problems, we cease to be members of a society.

A generation of Koreans raised to think that impulsive actions are a positive will not have the patience or the self-control to wrestle with contradictory facts or separate complex truths from convenient fictions. We risk losing the ability to imagine a future for our society and to work actively for that goal. Indulgence will lead us into fatal passivity, and we will find ourselves dragged along by developments that are beyond our capacity to understand.

Read more of this post

Climate change and the sin of false monumentality

 I have been so deeply disturbed at the spectacle of civilized men and women walking by indifferent in the streets of Seoul, indifferent to the worsening air quality and to the rise in temperatures as a result of the acceleration of climate change.  They are like their brothers and sisters around the world. I think that at some level they know something is wrong. But the respond by simply laughing and acting like they are enjoying themselves. No degree of logic can break through to them.

It seems to be a rule of thumb in Seoul that one mentions the unusually hot weather when meeting people, but does not say anything about climate change at all, as if it were a forbidden topic, something akin to incest or child abuse  that must not be mentioned.

Even more disturbing is the drive in Seoul to build more big buildings and drive more cars, bigger cars, perhaps in the hope that such actions will help the economy, but they are rather a nail in our coffin: every single skyscraper, every single automobile.

The greatest sin is false monumentality, the frailty of humans to think that building something bigger than required will enhance our experiences and make life more significant, make our civilization more complete. But it is a treacherous lie; and now the truth is out.

I feel a pain every time I am given a disposable cup, every time I ride an automobile and every time I take an airplane. I am seriously thinking of declaring I will never fly again, but I lack the bravery, and fear the tremendous isolation that will result. I recently designed a new pin for the Asia Institute that will be available from next week. Do let me know if you would like one.

stop-climate-change-2

But there is no easy solution for this predicament. All I am sure of is that the solution must start with me. And of course Korea has in its past of frugality and respect for nature and for objects the solution to that problem. But in the blind rush into modernity, many Koreans have lost sight of that prize.

It is in this context that I started rereading E. F. Schumacher’s classic book Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. I am even more deeply appreciative of the wisdom in this book, and even more deeply disgusted that we have not been able to do anything since it was first published in 1973. I was impressed by the following quote at the opening of Small is Beautiful which I think sums up the emptiness of our project and the need to find spiritual content, for material things can never fill the terrible chasm in our commercialized lives.

 

 

Few can contemplate with a sense of exhilaration the splendid achievements of practical energy and technical skill, which, from the latter part of the seventeenth century, were transforming the face of material civilization, and of which England was the daring, in not too scrupulous, pioneer. If, however, economic ambitions are good servants, they are bad masters.

The most obvious facts are the most easily forgotten. Both the existing economic order and too many of the projects advanced for reconstructing it break down through their neglect of the truism that, since even quite common men have souls, no increase in material wealth will compensate them for arrangements which insult their self-respect and impair their freedom. A reasonable estimate of economic organization must allow for the fact that, unless industry is to be paralyzed by recurrent revolts on the part of outraged human nature, it must satisfy criteria which are not purely economic.

 

(

(H. Tawney Religion and the Rise of Capitalism)

“ ‘왜’ 라고 묻지 않는 한국의 충동 소비자” (중앙일보 2016년 9월 10일)

중앙일보

“ ‘왜’ 라고 묻지 않는 한국의 충동 소비자”

2016년 9월 10일

임마누엘 패스트라이쉬

 

일전에 나는 문구점에서 줄을 서고 있었다. 개학에 대비해 펜•연필•프린터용지를 사기 위해서였다. 계산대에 섰을 때 나는 현란한 모습으로 포장된 캔디바•사탕•초콜릿 같은 제품의 무더기와 마주쳤다. 하지만 그곳은 문구점이었다. ‘문구점에 건강에 안 좋은 간식이 이렇게 많이 눈에 띄는 이유는 뭐지’라고 나는 생각했다.

답은 뻔하다. 캔디바는 문구류와 아무 상관없지만 제일 잘 보이는 데 배치돼 있다. 캔디바는 손님들에게 필요도 없고 영양가도 없지만 손님들이 충동적으로 캔디바를 살 것이라고 상점 주인들이 기대하기 때문이다.

15년 전 한국에서는 요즘과 달리 캔디바를 쌓아 놓는 문구점을 발견할 수 없었다. 그때 문구점에는 사무나 공부에 필요한 종이와 펜을 사람들에게 공급한다는 뚜렷한 목표가 있었다.

모든 게 바뀌었다. 문구 상점은 사람들을 유혹해 그들이 필요하지 않은 물건을 사게 만든다. 비즈니스가 성공하려면 그러한 충동적인 행동을 유도하는 게 필요하다고 인식되고 있다.

같은 원칙은 서점에서도 적용된다. 학생들이 정치•문학•철학에 대한 책을 몰입해 읽던 자리의 일부를 동물 봉제 인형, 백팩 등 사소한 소품들이 차지하고 있다.

모든 레스토랑은 빛을 발하는 듯한 맛있는 음식 사진을 넣은 간판을 내걸고 있다. 우연히 레스토랑 앞을 지나가는 행인들의 욕구에 호소하기 위해서다.

우리는 뉴노멀(new normal)을 수용했다. 오늘의 경제는 사람들에게 필요한 것이나 사회에 좋은 것에 집중하지 않는다. 대신 사람들의 가장 원초적인 욕구에 어필해 그들이 충동적으로 물건을 사도록 설득한다. 그런 식으로 돈을 벌어야 한다는 게 뉴노멀의 가정이다. 그들이 구매한 물품이 진정 필요한 것인지는 고려의 대상이 아니다.

충동이나 단기적인 만족을 경제의 원동력으로 삼는다면 그 결과는 지극히 위험하다. 원초적인 갈망이나 허구적인 욕구를 만족시키는 것 외에는 인간 활동에서 더 큰 의미를 찾을 수 없게 된다. 시민은 소비자가 된다. 자신의 행동에서 그 어떤 상위의 윤리적 목표도 찾을 수 없는 소비자다. 뭔가 보다 위대한 국가적 계획은 더 이상 없다. 소비자들은 미래에 대해 생각하지 않는다. 그들을 노리는 영업하는 사람들은 이윤 추구 외에 관심이 없다.

경제에 대한 그러한 접근법은 외부에서 침투한 것이라 한국 문화와 맞지 않는다. 한국의 핵심적 가치는 인내•자제•겸손, 그리고 절제된 의복이나 일상생활에서 발견되는 검소함이다. 전통 사회에서는 잘사는 집안도 이러한 절제의 문화를 실천했다. 옛날 한국의 잘사는 사람들은 그다지 대단하지 않은 평범한 가옥에서 살았다. 유럽의 부유층과 달리 그들은 으리으리한 대저택이나 타운하우스에서 살지 않았다.

근검절약을 강조하는 전통 한국인들은 밥 한 톨도 아꼈으며 아무것도 내다 버리지 않았다. 한국의 미학에서 핵심적인 자리를 차지한 것은 아무런 꾸밈이 없는 소박한 물품들이었다.

충동 경제의 비극은 단순히 불필요한 낭비에 국한되지 않는다. 사람들의 삶에서 ‘왜’라고 묻는 감각이 사라진 게 문제다. 그들은 그저 남들이 하는 대로 따라 한다. 그들은 소비자일 뿐이지 시민도 아니고 가족의 구성원도 아니다. 인과관계에 대한 이해도 궁극적으로 붕괴한다. 사람들은 모든 일이 그저 우연히 발생한다고 느낀다. 자신의 행동과 벌어지는 일들 사이에 어떤 관계가 있는지 모른다.

많은 젊은이가 소비하라는 압박을 받는다. 그들은 자신들이 왜 소비하는지 모른다. 그들은 사회적인 압력이나 마케팅 때문에 소비 행동에 착수하도록 강요되는 느낌을 받지만 소비에서 만족을 얻지 못한다. 의미 있는 친구나 의미 있는 소유물이 사라진 가운데 개개인은 점점 더 외롭다.

충동을 기반으로 하는 경제에는 더 큰 어둠이 내재돼 있다. 충동 경제는 문화적 퇴폐주의를 부추긴다. 퇴폐주의는 보수와 리버럴(liberal)을 따지지 않고 사회 곳곳의 모든 측면에 스며든다. 옳고 그름을 가려내거나, 더 나은 사회를 구상하거나, 도덕적 판단을 할 수 있는 능력이 퇴보한다. 우리는 독립적으로 생각하고, 행동을 통제하고, 심각한 사회문제에 대응하는 능력을 상실했다. 그렇기 때문에 우리는 더 이상 사회의 구성원이 아니게 된다

한국의 젊은 세대는 ‘충동적인 행동은 긍정적인 것’이라고 생각하도록 교육받고 있다. 이런 세대는 모순적인 사실(事實•fact)을 이해하는 노력에 필요한 인내력이나 자기통제력이 결여될 것이다. 편의적인 허구와 복합적인 진리를 구분하는 능력도 없을 것이다. 우리는 우리 사회의 미래를 상상하고 능동적으로 미래 목표를 위해 일하는 능력을 상실할 위험에 빠져 있다. 꼭 필요 없는 사치가 치명적인 수동성으로 이끄는 가운데 우리는 이해 능력을 벗어난 사회의 전개에 끌려다니는 우리 모습을 발견한다.

Read more of this post

Calligraphy for “Earth”

I had an opportunity to attend an exhibition of calligraphy at the Gyeongbok Gung Station in Seoul last month that featured work by Korean, Chinese and Japanese artists. One Japanese woman produced this remarkable piece which features a version of the characters for “Earth” (地球)in which that latter one,  球, is shaped like the Earth. She told me that it was based on a Zhuan script version (篆書)version. I am afraid that I did not get her name. But here is a photograph.

 

ere