Hyperlink to the source text in Chinese: 别在思考上偷懒
Chongqing
officials' eerily oppressive approach is really funny: I was invited
to give a talk at a forum, and it was canceled on the grounds that
fire safety requirements had not been met. However, some of my
friends didn't give up trying, and at last they managed to organize
in a bar a talk that was more like a question and answer session. The
audience was from the younger generations, most were students.
The
theme was movies, we discussed Chinese movies shot by foreigners;
education in movies; and movies I enjoyed. These would of course led
to discussion on many social problems, because they are closely
related to our lives, and our rights. And I felt they were all
anxious, eager to have an answer, or the answer, to whatever problems
they have; this mentality may not be limited to individuals, nor is
it just a reflection of the youthfulness of these people, it is, I'm
afraid, a sentiment that is spreading across society. Such sentiment
is understandable: it is a response from the masses who are
increasingly disappointed with the government; it could be used as a
wind vane to observe this society.
Because many
among the audience were from the younger generation, who were eager
to learn from me more about this society, I tried to answer them,
cautiously, refrained from giving any conclusions and from saying
anything decisive. It was not out of fear of telling the truth that I
did so, it was because I felt it necessary to bear in mind not to go
too far with groundless saying; I need to avoid misunderstanding and
to prevent guiding others to the opposite direction of my thinking.
Just like Mr. Lu Xun made criticism and the regime used him. That was
not entirely his fault, but one should be aware that words could have
recoil like guns: if you didn't make yourself clear, then things
would easily go wrong. This is something that we speakers and writers
should pay close attention to.
Of course, we should write what we
think when we are writing some everyday articles; but when we are
discussing complex social issues, we would have to try hard to avoid
giving just one answer. Without doubt, the impatient young people
would not feel satisfied if they are not given the one and only
answer, but as someone who frequently speaks about public issues, I
think it is not appropriate to change one's thinking lightly because
of opposition or applause from others. There may be many people who
disagree with me, that doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong. So long
as it is my own thinking, it follows my conscience, I'd still go on
even if tens of thousands of people disagree with me. I do not speak
or write to get applause, I speak only what I think. I would not,
because of others' approval, go a step further down the direction
that I do not agree with or have yet to think over. Whether people
clap or not is not what motivates me to put pen to paper. I focus on
judgments I make, basing on the materials, evidence, and facts I
gathered. Although this may produce something that please nobody, it
is my long held principle toward writing and speaking to insist
thinking independently. Just like I would not endorse the “Twelve Suggestions to Dealing with Situations in Tibet (關於處理西藏局勢的十二點意見)”
simply because it was written by my friends Wang Lixiong and Liu
Xiaobo. I endorsed it because I agreed with it, or else I would have
voiced my opposition instead. Likewise, I would not change my
thoughts because of an emotionally-charged audience, or when I am
overwhelmingly accused as being a traitor; the sheer size of the
crowd is not the reason for me to change my thoughts.
To say something
absolute, something that others dare not speak, this would of course
earn one praises for being “courageous”. Nevertheless, being seen
as courageous is not what makes me speak, I speak because I want to
share my views on social problems. At times you may not find my views
agreeable, I hope you could understand; and if you find it agreeable,
then that doesn't mean you would feel the same toward all my other
opinions, because I am not you. If you agree with me, you can of
course show your support; if you don't, you can voice your
opposition. I do not need unconditional support from anyone, not even
my family and friends; they have the freedom to think differently
from me, and to criticize me.
Difference in viewpoints doesn't make
people enemy, this is a view I have long emphasized. Difference in
opinions may be caused by a number of factors, such as different
basis points of interests, or difference in information obtained, or
even different interpretation to the same information, which is
perfectly normal to me. Those who see different opinions as enemies,
as opponents that must be eliminated should change their mindset. In
so doing we could avoid repeating the old path of hatred education
and class struggle.
The questions raised last night were all worth
pondering, my answers in haste were probably too brief , or maybe
they were not to the point as I was worried about the recoil my words
might have. But those answers I gave were my thoughts, my inner
thoughts, and I was quite satisfied that I managed to do so. Yet
those who demanded the one and only answer, or the absolute answer,
to their questions, their way of thinking made me feel slightly
unsettled. No one could solve social problems once and for all; it is
all the more impossible for anyone to come up with a basket of
solutions. Those “Jacks-of-all-trades” who appear to be able to
tackle any problems any time are exactly the type of persons we
should guard against. I believe in Sir Karl Raimund Popper's
piecemeal social engineering, and I believe in Friedrich August
Hayek's theory of gradual progress. I would rather fail you than to
give you the one and only answer which, in fact, I do not have; I can
only list out several options, and help you become aware of what you
are choosing from. To me the preference for the one and only answer,
this way of thinking is exactly where problems with our education
lie. Those who prefer a one and only answer or prefer others to give
them one and accept it are typical lazy thinkers, they give up
completely their right of thinking freely; the drawback of this is
felt in every aspect of our life. This is one of the root causes of
our rights being often deprived unknowingly.
The many “one and only
answers” found on textbooks, especially those ridiculous ones for
fill-in-the-blanks practices in language textbooks, are results of
conjecture. When it comes to social issues which are more complex
than textbook questions, how can there be solutions that would
resolve problems once and for all?
April
4, 2008, 9:15 at Shapingba, Chongqing
No comments:
Post a Comment