買辦即賣國? 尊重並協調貿易者及看守者的角色

安全和繁榮的目標,常有相互衝突的時候。不管在設計或營運一個資訊/信息系統、城市或國家,常在這兩個目標中調整。要求資訊系統使用者、市民、公民忠誠是集體安全感的必要。然而,和其他資訊/信息系統、城市、民族國家的交流也是集體繁榮成長所需。這兩者的緊張關係有時會製造敵對關係。交易者被視為叛徒,或買辦即賣國。以下我以連結三部作品的方式,提供一個故事範本來同時看待中國和美國網路上的公共討論環境。這三個作品分別是由中情局情報老將安東尼所寫「情報社群的兩種文化衝突的挑戰」,由美加城市評論家簡‧雅各布所著的「城市與國富論」及由新加坡的中國歷史學家王賡武的演說稿「中國復興民族主義」。

第一,結合理論與實踐的洞察及想像,安東尼從城市評論家簡‧雅各布的著作提出,人類社會的進化為求生存有兩種基本模式。像其他動物一樣,人類社會第一個模式是『看守者』徵候,取得並保有重要資源,如食品和領土。但和其他動物完全不一樣的是第二個模式『貿易者』徵候,人類社會會互通有無進行貿易和交流,不僅原物料可以交換,具有附加價值的產品、服務與想法也可以進行交流和交換。下表由Olcott(2010)摘要並對比這兩者人類社會群體為求生存的根本(但不同)的「準則」思維。

  • 表   簡雅各布斯的兩種人類生存兩種不同「準則」或崇尚的操守。 (Olcott , 2010)
『看守者』徵候 『貿易者』徵候
避免貿易 避免動武
展現英勇 競爭
順從並有紀律 對創新及新奇事物開放
尊重層級 探取行動並有企業心
忠誠 雙方志願協議
有仇必報 尊重契約
為達目的可耍手段 為達目的發表異議
充份休閒 勤奮
財大氣粗 精打細算
出手慷慨 為生產力而投資
排他搞小圈圈 易和陌生人及外人進行合作
展現剛毅 促進方便效率
宿命 樂觀
珍惜榮譽 誠實

Olcott(2010)旨在用這『看守者』-  『貿易者』的對偶觀念來解決一個具體問題:如何讓美國政府的情報界和其他機構、學者、分析師進行交流以讓情報界面臨多變的世界?換句話說,如何調合具有強烈安全意識的『看守者』同時讓  『貿易者』可以和外界交流?美國從冷戰到日益網絡化的世界的歷史背景來看,這是特別有價值的發問。Olcott(2010)也正確地強調「準則」這個詞,包含不只是對行為思想的差異(例如「排他搞小圈圈」對上「合作,很容易與陌生人和外國人」),還包含某些倫理道德上的不同優先順序(如「忠誠」對上「雙方志願協議」)。

Although Olcott (2010) aims to develop the concept pair of Guardian and Trade Syndromes to solve a rather specific problem for a specific community: how to better modernise the U.S. intelligence community by connecting to other agencies and also scholars, analysts, etc. outside the confines of its circle.  Or put it more succinctly with the concept pair of Guardian and Trade Syndromes, how the security-minded guardians work with the information traders both inside and outside? It is particularly valuable question given the shift of the historical context from the Cold War to the increasingly networked world.  As Olcott (2010) rightly highlights with the term “precept”, the difference is important not only because they guide behaviors and thinking (e.g  “be exclusive” vs. “collaborate easily with strangers and aliens”), but also because they contain certain moral and ethical elements (e.g. “be loyal” vs. “Come to voluntary agreements”).

I believe that what Olcott (2010) has summarised Jane Jacobs’ ideas for the U.S. intelligence community can be generalized to other domains, including the cyber-security (e.g. firewalls vs. “civic technologies”), governance of common-pool resource (e.g. the deletionist vs. exclusionist debate in Wikipedia), immigration policies (e.g. “Great Wall of Mexico” vs. working visas), and city planning (e.g. natives vs. new comers).  After all, the original formulation by Jane Jacob is about human society in general.  Both Olcott (2010) and Jacob believes that for human social groups to sustain themselves, they need the both value systems working together with creative tensions with fruitful outcome.  Although it is worth mentioning that the trade syndrome is what makes human beings different from animals.

It is then important to recognise Jane Jacob’s other book on cities and modernity, particularly the book “Cities and the Wealth of Nations”, arguing that the cities, rather than nation-states, are central to political economy.  One does not have to agree with Jacob to recognise the historical trend of urbanisation is crucial for many developing countries to govern their political economy.  McKinsey Global Institute, for example, has an impressive animation showing the trends of China’s urbanization from 2005 to 2025 , along with various indicators such as GDP, jobs, energy and water consumption.

So the following question is this: how the Jacobs’ ideas of Guardian and Trade Syndromes provide universal explanation for Chinese and American politics, as raised in the beginning of the essay?  Though it may be overgeneralizing too much by reducing complex Chinese and American politics to Jacob’s pair concept of Guardian and Trade syndrome, it is still worth doing as an intellectual exercise to see where fits and where does not.

For the United States, the national politics has been divided mostly by democratic constituency versus republican constituency.   Geographically, each state can be categorised roughly into red states and blue states, a convenient construct for U.S. media and political pedantry.  Still, if one takes into account the population of each states and the finer-grade data, the urban-rural divide seems apparent.  Republican-leaning red regions mostly cover the less cosmopolitan rural areas, whereas Democrat-leaning blue regions heavily concentrate in the more populous and cosmopolitan areas.


Source: Mark Newman, released under creative commons license

What is more important than the geographical or urban-rural difference shown above is the two different precepts that both define the overall “American values” in different ways.  The increasingly polarised U.S. political scene matches the Guardian versus Trader Syndrome with striking resemblance.  The Democrat-leaning blue states, particularly with coastal port cities such as California and New York, have been valuing the contribution of immigrants and benefits from the global trades, whereas the Republican-leaning red states, particularly those with borderlines with Mexico like Arizona, may have social conservative values such as believing that American exceptionalism (“be exclusive”) and American patriotism (“be loyal”) are under attack when the Democrats are in power.  Despite the possibility of grossly over-generalization, the political/Internet meme of “real America” versus “fake America” fits well with the Guardian versus the Trader difference.  Being a political community with a massive continent in the middle and few key port cities connecting to other cities with both Internet connections and trade networks in both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, the U.S. political economy seems to have the cultural and moral tensions between the two precepts of being “Guardians” and “Traders” of the USA.

Why does this have anything do with China, which seems to be a totally different country with different cultural and value system than the U.S.?

In fact, when a famous U.S. historian on China, John K. Fairbank, writes an history chapter on the Republican China 1912–1949, he uses the metaphorical construct of Maritime and Continental China.  Though it may be a bit “historical” or “outdated” to describe the current China, the concept has been updated by a Singapore-based China historian Wang Gungwu, in his speech on “The Revival of Chinese Nationalism”, using the similar metaphoric construct to explain the psychological and geographic tensions about the attitudes towards recent China’s rise in the early twenty-first century.  As shown in the following quotes, Jane Jacob’s pair of “Precepts” or valued behaviors (Guardian vs. Trader) seems to be evident:

首先, 沿海及南方省分有特定支持貿易並經濟繁榮的國族情緒,符合『貿易者』徵候的描述:

 (談到鄧小平改革開放政策所獲得的經濟成果)沿海省分在靈敏地回應對香港台灣企業家提供的刺激後, 經歷了幾乎令人難以置信的成功經歷。‧‧‧甚至在對 『大中華』的觀感日漸發展上,有時投射作為一個中國國協,若不構成全球性的中國國協,至少是一個區域性的中國國協。 雖說這個區域性的中國國協是用經濟的方式形成,它展現了是南方及沿海中國人的企圖心,一種一直面向大海及大洋求生計及繁景的國族情感。

其次, 有另一種國族情緒可能會從地理上(如內地農民)及組織上比較內部(如建制集團的官員,軍人及文人)的位置上發聲:

然而也有另外一種中國,一個內陸鄉村的中國。這個中國的文化遺產和精神狀態可以從傳統官員及文人的價值觀找到,現則是普遍地通過農民對社會文化價值變遷的懷疑中表達出來。對這沉默的大多數人來說,過去十年經濟奇蹟仍是遙遠的,若還不到遙不可及的程度的話。經濟發展在他們眼中,被認為是由海外外部力量所產生的,而其帶來的好處,也只有在沿海地區和少數幾個大城市才看的到。一直與他們相伴的是,發達區域與內陸區域間生活水平的尖銳反差,還有,各種道德敗壞的刺耳故事。如果精神腹地的國族主義訴求的被激起的話,與沿海發達省分不同的是,他們會訴諸相當不同的記憶和本能。

其三, 就像美國內部民主黨可以被丑化成不堪的「社會主義者」或「非美國人的外國人」, 在中國大陸同樣地, 沿海地區包括台灣及香港的「極端」例子, 也是被外國消費主義及異族的意識型態如言論自由、民主選舉、及民意調查所洗腦。

這一切都鼓勵另外一種型態的復興民族主義:國家需要拯救,要回歸到有更好的計劃及及對那些不道德及邪惡的人給與更繄控制。這包括糾正內陸及沿海地區間月日益不平衡的發展上。這復興民族主義的具體表現,無論在時間及空間上都更為深遠,就是要恢復中國一貫奉行的大陸的世界觀。根據這種觀點,海洋利益已經過於狹窄和僅為自我服務,從大陸世界觀人來看, 中國沿海在整個歷史的行為證明了這一點。位於中央內陸來的官員及士兵長久以來懷疑在周邊地區熱情商人的忠誠度。近代中國史上,農民革命家戰勝沿海國族主義者的領導,點出一個既定模式; 而文化大革命的許多特徵文革也指向同一種模式。有一股內在力量推往拉大陸中國的歷史位置,恢復其優勢,那種可以超越較富有且有可疑算盤的海洋中國的優勢,而這心態認知的海洋中國,包含了香港與台灣,他們代表的正是財富的極至化身。
更重要的是中國最近內部的發展。經濟改革愈成功,就更威脅到現行的政治制度。鄧小平的大膽的改革已挑戰共產黨,使其之排除僵化和無效率,使其從”死亡之手”的中央計劃經濟走向以”有形之手”和”無形之手” 的新組合治理。放鬆管制已經釋放出比預期中更大的能量。經濟增長一直都不是均衡的,受惠的沿海地區的發展速度,遠遠超過相對受到忽視的內陸。政府的許多部門也未能與時並進。這情況讓積極進取和大膽的人受惠,但不幸的,受惠的也包括貪婪和腐敗的人。因此,大多數百姓的情緒是需要更一個強有力的方向感,需要更多對經濟成長的制衡監督,甚至懷念起當所有事情是比較可預測的,更踏實的往日時光。

Comments (choose your preferred platforms)

Loading Facebook Comments ...