~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edward W. Said, Representation of the Intellectual, The 1993 Reith Lectures,
Edward W. Said (1935-2003)
Edward W. Said, Representation of the Intellectual, The 1993 Reith Lectures,
Said的書讀得不多，只是記得有一段時間，讀書的朋友差不多都在台上都擱着一本Orientalism 。當中的觀點，用在分析中國當代藝術(家)如何在西方世界出賣國粹，還是大派用場。
從中大的語文戰線、教學的困惑與讀者對民間記者的質詢中退下來，問題好像通通都在指向讀書人(知識份子)應該如何自處、又如何與社會相處。枕邊書錢穆校長的《師友雜憶》雖然能夠給予精神上的支持，但時移勢易，Said的這本子更能貼近在資本主義社會與西方霸權底下，讀書人的處境、矛盾與應守本份。Said的提醒，既不浪漫，也沒有英雄；更時刻提站在「我們」一邊的知識份子，容易對「他們」提出的雙重標準。且抄錄幾側與大家分享：
“ […] intellectuals as exile and marginal, as amateur, and as the author of a language that tries to speak the truth to power.” (p. xiv)
Said 是巴勒斯坦流亡人仕，但流亡不是亡國者的專利，而是知識份子社會狀態的比喻，並換取向權力說真話的位置。
讀得書多未必就是知識份子。Said引用Gramsci 對「傳統知識份子」(traditional intellectuals)與「有機知識份子」(organic intellectuals譯成「投機」可能更貼切) ；與Foucault 對「專門知識份子」(specific intellectuals)與「世界知識份子」(universal intellectuals)，以對知識運用方式作更仔細的區分。(pp.3-8) 回想起在中大論壇那位王維基校友兼校董，那種權威的口脗，借用的就是當代社會對「投機知識份子」的崇拜，所賦予的更大發言權。
“ In the United States the bigger the scope and power of a newspaper, the more authoritative its sound, the more closely identified it is with a sense of a community larger than just a group of professional writers and readers […] The editorial use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ refers directly to the editors themselves of course, but simultaneously suggests a national corporate identity, as in ‘we the people of the United States.”(pp. 21-22)
如果說獨立媒體是小/分眾媒體，所以不在此限，那便是雙重標準。然而獨立媒體的民間記者報導，要求的是作者/書寫本體自報家門，並化大「我們」為小「我」；並以「公民責任」來打破「專業」所劃定的知識禁區。
“The intellectual today ought to be an amateur, someone who considers that to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to raise moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized activity as it involves one’s country , its power, its mode of interacting with its citizens as well as with other societies.” (p.61)”
這在上回也提過了，要當個負責任的公民，真累人。
“[…] the intellectual is an individual endowed with a faculty for representing, embodying, articulating a message, a view, an attitude, philosophy or opinion to, as well as for, a public. And this role has an edge to it, and cannot be played without a sense of being someone whose place it is publically to raise embarrassing questions, to confront orthodoxy and dogma (rather than to produce them), to be someone who cannot easily be co-opted by governments or corporations, and whose raison ďêtre is to represent all those people and issues that are routinely forgotten or swept under the rug.” (p. 9 / 重點由筆者所註)
與「專業人仕」迴避自身立場的所謂「客觀」不同，知識份子說話的重量不以其於學院裡的職級、或對專業知識的掌握來衡量。知識份子的發言權，甚至不是因為其在道德上的高位，而是「個人」於對值價的堅持與維護。或許Said提出以「業餘」抗衡崇尚工具知識的當代社會意識形態，聽來好像有點兒戲，但如果耐心閱畢全書，便會發覺「業餘」並不等同民粹與平庸，押上的是個人的整體人格與信用。一言以閉之，知識份子之使命是追求自由與知識(p.44)。這說來與錢穆對新亞師生「求學與做人」異曲同功。
對所謂的「業餘」的更仔細闡述，此處不贅。然有些篇章讀來像篇宣言，但Said行文詞峰銳利，不避嫌疑。在只講知識就是力量而講值價與承擔的今日，要當知識份子，此書實在借得一讀。而我也不避嫌疑，臨急包佛腳讀書，是為藝術中心「I-City」下周的講座作準備：
《健動身份》
日期及時間：19/03, 3pm
講者：七字頭@大酒樓─ 馮程程、梁寶山、梁展峰
七字頭大酒樓策劃
( http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=8784&group_id=61 )
张法：「后殖民理论：从赛义德到斯皮娃与霍米·巴巴」 ( http://www.islambook.net/xueshu1/list.asp?id=2906 )
(特別鳴謝魂游借出藏書；梁展峰與我重提這部舊作。)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
夜來寒氣迫人，明天繼談近期教學的一點困惑，並周保松、盧浩文編的大部頭：《政治哲學對話錄》。
另新亞後記待續。
沒有留言:
發佈留言