Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts

Sunday, December 29, 2013

2014年的讀書計畫

年前因為一個偶然的機會,拜訪一位企業界的前輩,被他滿滿一書櫃的歷史和希臘羅馬時代古典文學與哲學的原文書所震撼。這個年代還有人看這些書?我脫離英文系大一念的西洋文學概論很久了呢,為什麼這位根本也不是學英國文學的老前輩還會為這些「老古董」著迷?這也是我很有興趣找到答案的一點。

或許,正是因為資訊氾濫,新書汗牛充棟,更容易讓我們錯過一些這輩子應該要讀,卻一直被新事物分心而錯過的經典好書。這輩子看過太多大風大浪的人,反而更加明白流行終究是短暫的,過不了多久就會被遺忘,因而更加懂得珍惜一些歷經數千年歷史的淘洗,卻仍純粹如金的智慧吧。

今年我想給自己這樣的挑戰,把一些早該好好精讀的經典,看完並且在此分享心得。畢竟這些書在人類歷史洪流中,有其不可抹滅的影響力,是不該忽略的。不過畢竟時間有限,還是侷限在與自己的工作較有關連的範疇進行選擇。以下是我的2014書單:

1.  孫子兵法
2.  國富論(The Wealth of Nations)
3.  物種起源(The Origin of Species)
4.  自由論(On Liberty)
5.  科學革命的結構(The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
6.  風險社會(Risk Society)

我一直很好奇,為何《孫子兵法》會在西方社會引起注意與重視。一直到我在前一個工作,為了寫科技公司之間的專利鬥法,選擇用孫子兵法裡面的一些章節來解釋商戰的策略,才發現即便這本書寫在數千年以前,卻如此洞悉人性,到今日仍然準確。

善攻者,敵不知其所守;善守者,敵不知其所攻。

今天大家不斷在討論台灣的「悶」經濟,但過去十幾年,沒有投資在技術的創新,也沒有專注在困難的國際市場拓展上,卻想要和搶著簽訂自由貿易協定的國家,或是每年花GDP的三至五%在基礎研究和國際行銷的國家一樣坐收豐厚成果,簡直就是癡人說夢。

南韓在鴨子滑水努力於貿易談判時,我們在做什麼?日本與韓國大廠在研究東南亞市場行銷策略的時候,我們在做什麼?總覺得中國面板業者的技術不如我們,但產業鏈被取代時,才來驚覺人家進步的速度飛快嗎?我們不知其所守,不知其所攻,被打得落花流水,不是活該嗎?所以該好好讀讀孫子兵法,知恥雪恥,或許亡羊補牢,猶未晚矣。

很多相信政府應該多做一些事情,多提供一些福利給人民的人,或許總是把資本主義看作是洪水猛獸。但我很想挑戰這些人跟我一起把亞當史密斯的《國富論》看完。在還沒看完這本書以前,任何人都沒有資格完全否定它的價值。誰說資本主義就是只為1%的富人服務?亞當史密斯當年寫這本書時,想的卻是提升國家整體的富足與幸福。他花了很多的篇幅,企圖說明勞動應該獲得充裕的報酬(the liberal reward of labor),因為這不但有助於提升民間財富,也有助於人口的健康成長,更有助於產業的發展。是時候修正一下我們的偏見了。就算要爭取福利,也該了解羊毛出在羊身上,要求巧婦做無米之炊,是很不切實際的。

為什麼要讀《物種起源》?因為達爾文格物致知的認真研究態度太值得我們學習。或許這世界有太多人會認為,這本書就是真理,足以反駁基督教的創世論,但如果仔細閱讀,你會發現達爾文的態度卻是令人驚訝的謙遜。宇宙中有太多奧秘是渺小的人所無法完全理解的,我們只能從找到的證據去推論一些事情的演變。但即便是我們找到的,誰能說是完整的證據呢?追求真理,但不輕易否定任何可能,才有可能發覺一些人們連想都不想就忽略的重要事物,因而才有創新的可能。

彌爾頓的《自由論》,是闡說民主制度的重要著作。或許在無限上綱的要求個人自由與權利之前,需要了解到底完全無限制的自由真的是有益而無害嗎?如應有限制,那條紅線又該劃在哪裡?

《科學革命的結構》,是典範轉移(Paradigm Shift)這個片語的起源處。教育教給我們的,是過去的人所認定的和理解的運行定律,根基立在經驗之上。但如果只是把這些經驗奉為無可挑戰的神主牌,當世界在改變時,當典範在轉移時,遲鈍而拒絕承認的人,只有等著被遠遠拋在後面。這不是很值得現在閱讀嗎?

德國社會學家Ulrich Beck的《風險社會》,是我2006年寫碩士論文時大量引述的一本著作。看著每天發生的新聞,越來越覺得他當年眼中的德國社會,也就是今天台灣的寫照。或許在導讀這本書時,我可以輕易地找到非常多材料佐證。



這是個很有野心的讀書計畫?讓我們堅持下去,因為人生是需要沉澱的。在每天如火車轟隆隆快飛過去的喧囂中,我們需要一些可以定錨的信念,幫助我們免於迷失在眾說紛紜的無稽八卦中。

Sunday, May 12, 2013

世界上最難的任務





這部由消費品大廠P&G製作的母親節廣告,已在臉書上被很多人轉寄。看到片中母親們流下的淚水,以及驕傲的眼神,總是不由得感動得眼角泛淚。

母親節的周末和媽媽一起看「First Position」這部在關於幾個參加美國芭蕾舞新秀選拔賽的年輕孩子為夢想奮鬥的紀錄片,對照P&G的廣告,深深覺得,一個有天分的孩子能否成材,真的和父母家庭的支持,有莫大的關係。

不管是芭蕾舞也好,運動、音樂和美術也都一樣,要能培養出一項才藝到足以作為專業,都是需要熱情、投入、堅持和天分的。First Position裡面的幾個孩子,才十一、二歲就已經確認芭蕾是他們這輩子唯一想做的事情,每天自動自發拉筋、練舞、自律地控制飲食,忍受腳上不斷磨出水泡破皮的痛苦,只想一輩子可以馳騁跳躍在舞台上,如同沒有牢籠囚禁的雀鳥般,透過肢體語言奔放宣洩,寄託他們青春的歡悅與悲苦。十二歲的孩子對導演說,「有人覺得練芭蕾的孩子等於沒有童年,但我覺得挺合適我的呀。」

這是多麼早熟的孩子,懂事得令人心疼。但父母也得犧牲和投入很多,來陪伴與支持孩子的興趣與夢想,甚至在他們面對壓力、挫折、思鄉和身體的痛苦,想放棄的時候,必須做那牢如磐石,決不動搖和妥協的後盾。甚至有的父母,例如網球天王阿格西的父親,殘酷地扮演起嚴厲的魔鬼教練角色,切斷孩子任何的退路,硬逼著他們往前走,只因為他們知道,孩子的天賦不能就這樣白白浪費斷送在婦人之仁的驕寵上。

如何在過度控制和看似放任的尊重當中,找到平衡點?這真是為人父母很難的功課。「虎媽的戰歌」作者認為是自己的堅持,讓女兒們得以個個擁有極高的成就。但亞洲族群中,出類拔萃的「大師」卻比較少,可能是因為有非常多的孩子是因順從父母的期望,選擇那份職業,卻因本身並沒有那麼高的熱情,因此最終成了「匠」,而非「大師」。

每年,最難考上的醫學院,多的是順應父母或師長期望而去念的孩子。他們走這行,心裡想的是高薪與社會的尊重,但遇到七年醫學院生涯當中的壓力、住院醫師訓練的辛苦,以及開始工作後發現報酬沒有預期中高的時候,抱怨是免不了的,所做的決定也就會朝更輕鬆、更簡單、賺較多錢,和懸壺濟世,救人脫離病苦的理想,背道而馳。

從事新聞工作的人也是一樣。我已被問過太多次,為何沒有選擇繼續留在外商銀行安逸的翻譯工作,而要回到媒體。「熱情」是你很難跟人講清楚的一種東西。有熱情,別人眼中辛苦的工作,你都甘之如飴;沒有熱情,再舒服的工作,你也會難以忍受。沒有人把刀子架在我們脖子上,要我們去找題材報導,但我們就是會主動去尋找有趣的,有價值的,對公眾利益重要的,感人的,以及值得被注意的趨勢,只因為這是我們熱情之所在。成就感在哪?我反而覺得不是獎金,或是不是寫出封面故事,或能不能得到上司的肯定,或是得獎不得獎。我覺得是,有人提到某個他看過的報導(甚至他都不知道原來作者是你),讓他非常感動,決定做某個決定來改變現狀。

大陸中央電視台的記者柴靜,在她的「看見」一書中提到,有次她要做個採訪,當事人拒絕了很多其他媒體的採訪,唯獨接受了她,說「你是那個進去非典病房採訪的記者,我知道你」。

而當初為何自告奮勇,不怕危險,到隔離病房報導非典(SARS)?她當時原可置身事外,但想到萬一日後小孩問她:媽,非典那時你做了什麼呢?她若只能答:「那時你媽天天看電視關心疫情」,就真的完全沒法原諒自己,因此就自動請纓,上前線報導去。

之前遇到的創投大老在談他會選擇投資哪種創業者時表示,除了基本的各種要素外,他只投有熱情的,「為了錢做的,往往都不怎麼樣」。

一針見血。如何培養孩子對學習、對服務、對專業的熱情,而不是為了成績、為了入學甄選、為了名利地位才做?這恐怕才是讓孩子不輸在起跑點的關鍵。

Friday, April 12, 2013

時間地圖



終於忙完一個段落,好開心!抱歉最近實在時間管理不佳,不過還是在片段的等車時間當中看了本好書,介紹給大家。

商務印書館出版的《時間地圖》,其實應該是本回頭書了,1997年初版。它是我誤打誤撞跑到商務印書館在王雲五紀念館對面的小書店裡,因為不敵帥哥店員的微笑和小禮物(一個購物袋和幾張書籤),而決定一定要消費以申謝忱的結果。

讀完的心得:如果每本人類學/社會學的書都能這麼有趣,這麼平易近人,這麼犀利卻幽默的把人類社會中複雜而難以描述的時間概念,清晰的用實際的例子和旁徵博引的文學作品與研究數據,講給讀者聽到懂,而且還不時會心一笑,那當個人類學/社會學學者肯定是人生最大的樂趣。

沒錯,故弄玄虛,故作姿態,把簡單事物與概念複雜化和賣弄專業詞彙的作品,請自動退下吧。你們可能想讓人覺得你們很有學問,但對一個讀者來說,如果一個概念無法在一分鐘裡讀懂到底在說些什麼,簡直等同於從頭頂飛過,船過水無痕的無意義囈語罷了。

言歸正傳。原來時間,不但會隨文化而有不同的社會規範,也會因人而異而有相對的認知。在人人把遲到當便飯的巴西,在會見地位崇高的人物時,可必得要準時,因為遲到的人會被看成傲慢而無禮。愛因斯坦的時間相對論很經典:和一個美女相處兩小時,你會覺得是兩分鐘;但在熱爐子上坐兩分鐘,你會覺得是兩小時。

工業城市的時間過得比農村快;擁擠的城市裡,人們行進的速度也較快。人家越肯花時間等你,表示你的地位越高。如何利用人們對時間的價值感來增進銷售?賣場的限時特賣總是會吸引一大堆婆婆媽媽搶購一些後來覺得自己根本不需要的東西,只因為人們總是覺得取得時間越有限的東西,越機不可失。

在這裡,我必須大大讚賞一下譯者的譯筆。非常精準而到點的傳遞了作者所表達的意念,沒有太多累贅的虛字,讀起來非常流暢。

為什麼我們的作家中,沒有這種能把學術的議題寫成如此有趣又開啟人眼界的科普或社科作品呢?

特別是,現在大家都想搞文創,有厲害的導演,有充足的資金,有優秀的演員,就是缺乏超有想像力又很有創意和深度的劇作家。既然現在博碩士學歷人才供過於求,容我建議,要不要考慮一下把所學的東西,寫成有趣易懂的書,成為自成一格的作家?或是劇作家?

如果台灣能有人寫出像時間地圖這麼有深度又有趣的書,我保證我一定會去買。

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Salute to Mary Douglas -- Goodbye, Maestra!

Obituary Richard Fardon Friday May 18, 2007 The Guardian

Dame Mary DouglasBrilliant and prolific anthropologist famed for her social theories about cosmology, consumption and risk

Dame Mary Douglas, who has died aged 86, was the most widely read British social anthropologist of her generation. If she had to be recalled for a single achievement, it would be as the anthropologist who took the techniques of a particularly vibrant period of research into non-western societies and applied them to her own, western milieu. Within her lifetime, this was so far accepted within British anthropology as to become almost lost to view. Posterity should restore most of the credit to her, and remember her as an innovative social theorist and for her contributions particularly to the anthropological analysis of cosmology, consumption and the analysis of risk perception.

She was born in San Remo, Italy, the first child of Phyllis Twomey and Gilbert Tew. Her parents had stopped off en route to home leave from Burma, where her father served in the Indian civil service. Mary and her younger sister, Patricia, lived with their mother's parents in Totnes, Devon, until they were old enough to become boarders at the Sacred Heart Convent, in Roehampton, south-west London. After the early death of her mother, closely followed by that of the maternal grandfather to whom she was devoted, Mary found a sense of security in the relatively hierarchical, secluded and safe world of school. Her Catholic commitments and social preferences were set for life.

School was followed by wartime Oxford, where she read philosophy, politics and economics, and then by war service in the Colonial Office, where she met the social anthropologists. Intrigued by the subject, she returned to Oxford in 1946, initially to take a two-year conversion course, and then to register in 1949 for her doctorate in anthropology. The postwar re-establishment of the institute of social anthropology by Professor (later Sir) EE Evans-Pritchard was one of the major events in the development of the discipline; it educated an extraordinarily high proportion of Tew's generation, who went on to redefine the nature of contemporary anthropology. None, however, made a greater contribution to this than she did.

She undertook her fieldwork (1949-51 and 1953) in the Belgian Congo, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It eventuated in both a DPhil in 1952 and a monograph, The Lele of the Kasai, published in 1963. Her description of the matrilineal Lele, their gerontocracy, complex marriage arrangements and cults - most memorably that of the pangolin, or scaly ant eater - became a minor anthropological classic, but would not by itself be the reason for her fame. Civil war prevented further fieldwork, and Douglas did not return to the country, known from 1971 to 1997 as Zaire, until 1987. For all that she was a gifted field researcher and ethnographic writer, her wider renown was never based on her reputation as a fieldworker or on her ethnographic writings, although these established her competence within the profession.

In 1951, after a brief appointment at Oxford, she married James Douglas. Like her, he was a Catholic and had been born into a colonial family (in Simla, while his father served in the Indian army). James joined the Conservative party research department just as Mary took up an appointment at University College London (UCL), where she was to remain for a quarter of a century, and was professor of social anthropology from 1970 to 1977; a distinguished fellowship followed in 1994. If James was considered to be academic for a party official, and Mary unusually immersed in matters close to home for an anthropologist, an invitation to the Douglas dinner table soon dispelled any mystery.

In 1966, Douglas published her most celebrated work, Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. This book is best remembered for its stylish demonstration of the ways in which all schemes of classification produce anomalies: whether the pangolin for the Lele, or the God incarnate of Catholic theology. Some of this classificatory "matter out of place" - from humble house dust in her Highgate house to the abominations of Leviticus for the Hebrews - was polluting, but other breaches of routine classification had the capacity to renew the world symbolically.

In Natural Symbols (1970), Douglas began to answer the question that arose from this: what kinds of society are best able to support the complex symbolism that makes the best society possible? The book took exception to some 1960s cultural trends - notably the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and student revolts - and presented the first of many attempts to correlate features of institutional organisation with patterns of belief and morality. Her conclusion - that differentiated, hierarchical and bounded institutions provided the most condusive environments for complex thinking and symbolism - remained the same, whatever changes her theories underwent.

From 1977 until the mid-1980s the Douglases took up a variety of appointments in the United States. This period coincided with the publication of Mary's work most explicitly concerned with contemporary society. Her collaborative research on British consumers, The World of Goods (1979) with Baron Isherwood, was a pioneering work of the contemporary anthropology of consumption. In it, she argued both that contemporary consumption had ritual aspects that defined lifestyles, and that the increasing emphasis on individual consumption threatened a crisis in collective provision. If consumption was a form of communication, then those individuals who consumed less also communicated less.

While at the Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1977-81), with the late Aaron Wildavsky she co-authored Risk and Culture (1982), an analysis of risk perception and critique of alarmist environmental groupings that sparked a feeding frenzy among reviewers. At Northwestern University, Illinois, she occupied a chair jointly in anthropology and religious studies (1981-85, and then as professor emeritus), and published a string of articles on contemporary religion and social commitments.

On her return to Britain, back at UCL Douglas continued to publish a volume of her collected essays or a new book every few years, while being showered with professional honours and other recognitions, including a CBE in 1992 and a DBE this year. While a new generation of anthropologists might have forgotten how late this recognition came, Douglas, who had a particular fascination with the sociology of forgetting, did not. It was only in 1989 that, returned from the US, she was elected a fellow of the British Academy. Before her emigration, many in the anthropological establishment had considered her work marginal to the mainstream tradition, an indication in itself of how much the discipline changed during her career.
Two preoccupations were particularly apparent in Douglas's later work: refinement of her theoretical statements, notably in How Institutions Think (1986) and Missing Persons (1998), and a return to the analysis of the Old Testament that had been an important feature of Purity and Danger. This became the particular fascination of a trilogy that engaged her for two decades: 1993 saw the publication, after unusually protracted labours by the standards of Douglas's productivity, of In the Wilderness, a meditation on the literary construction and social context of the Book of Numbers; Leviticus as Literature followed in 1999, revising ideas about the Jewish dietary codes that Purity and Danger had made famous; and in 2004 Jacob's Tears completed the series, asking who had edited the Pentateuch, and how their aims might explain its textual form.

An invited lecture series allowed Douglas to collect her ideas about the poetics of ring composition, the technique in which texts are formed in circular patterns, in what she described as a summation: An Essay on Ring Composition appeared to her delight earlier this year. Aside from seeing her father's collected essays on fishing into print (they are promised soon), and hoping to collaborate with Congolese Lele scholars on a book using her 1950s photographs of material culture, she had completed all the work she felt she had in her.

Douglas's theoretical commitments to stability, loyalty and completion were evident in her own life: one marriage (from 1951 until James's death in 2004); one family home (from 1956 until she moved to a flat in Bloomsbury a year ago); leaving aside her American sojourn, half a century of service to UCL; and a lifetime of practising Catholicism. A similar singlemindedness was evident in her espousal and refinement of the theories she developed from her Oxford years, and her advocacy of the social policies that flowed from them.

As a colleague she could be intransigent in what she considered matters of principle, and she never dissembled her estimation of others. Her sense of humour was acute and in later years she enjoyed playing to her own reputation, gleefully recalling just how objectionable she had made herself to some American colleagues whose political correctness irked her, and accepting academic honours with mild irony, given what she recalled as her years in the wilderness. A wide circle of friends outside anthropology, and the like-minded within, will remember her capacity for encouragement and support of younger colleagues, an enthusiasm and curiosity that age only accentuated, and her boundless energy. She inveighed against exclusion; her hospitality was genuine and her home open to so many visitors that only the self-discipline of her work habits and her writing facility allowed her to achieve so much.

She is survived by her three children, Janet, James and Philip.

· Margaret Mary Douglas, anthropologist, born March 25 1921; died May 16 2007