Tuesday, December 2, 2014

An Elucidating Analysis of the Generation Gap

The Umbrella Movement seems to have brought Hong Kong's older and younger generations to an irreconcilable position in terms of values and world views. This article is one of the best that I've read so far that has shed a light on the dichotomy between the two camps of thoughts. (See my translation of the salient passages further down).

Here's the link to the InmediaHK article

Here are the salient passages:-

[那班扮似「理性」「中立」之「沉默大多數」的世界觀,當然包含很多想法與立場,他等亦非人人一樣,但大概而言,總能找到某些共通想法。佔領爆發後,諸君必定聽過有人發表以下論述,均是基於那種世界觀:

一)同學如果真心要建設美好的香港,就讀好書,然後加入政府,在建制內帶來改變;
二)有理想是好事,但做人都要實際,要懂得妥協;
三)香港一直以來都繁榮穩定、自由開放,不要破壞社會和諧;
四)你們還年輕,被政客利用了也不知道;
五)特首很難做,不可能完美的,大家應該要寬容一點;
六)不要出去「搞事」吧,用心一點讀書,關心一下自己的前途;
七)佔領是犯法的,總之犯法就是錯,請不要再錯下去。

然後只要你到佔領區隨意問一位年輕人,對以上論述有何看法,相信其可以毫無困難地逐一反駁:

一)我等真心想香港好,因此希望改變整個政治制度。無在外抗爭而建制自行改革,歷史上從未有之;
二)我等確實有理想,但查實人人皆應有理想。我們不是不顧實際,而是嘗試打破現狀,建立更美好的家園。歷史告訴我們,現實是可以改變的;
三)香港七、八十年代經濟起飛,確實帶來繁榮穩定。但近年制度的漏洞逐漸浮現,貧富差距日益擴大。而北京政府肆意要赤化香港,打壓我們的自由,港府又無視港人的民主訴求,已經到了不得不反抗的地步;
四)我們很清楚自己在做甚麼,如果以為泛民政客可以煽動、利用我們,實在太天真。他們已經過氣了;
五)特首確實難做,但我們爭取的不是換特首,而是換制度。你們對擁有公權力的政府可以很寬容,為何對無權無勢的示威者卻如此嚴苛?
六)抗爭、佔領不是「搞事」,而是爭取公義、改變社會。自己個人的前途固然重要,但香港這個家園的前途更重要。讀聖賢書,所學何事?就是盡義至仁!
七)公民抗命本身就是要認罪的,不違反法治。犯法不一定錯,如果法律阻礙我們尋求公義,就不需守法。即使不談公民抗命,試問歷史上那一場追求民主之群眾運動,乃靠嚴守法律而取得成果?假若東歐群眾均不犯法,可有所謂「蘇東波」?

以上兩大套論述之衝突,就是本人所謂「世界觀」之衝突。當然每項論述均頗為粗疏,難免過分簡化。要深入討論,可逐一研究。然拙文的目的不是要爭論佔 領之對錯,而是展示當今之爭論,不是純粹的口舌之爭,或一般意義上的「政治爭拗」(「政治嘢,各有各講啦!」),而是兩套價值體系的衝突「沉默大多數」 所秉持之信念乃「維持現狀」、「穩定」、「繁榮」;佔領者之旗幟則是「改變」、「自由」、「公義」、「自主」。有人說此乃世代之爭,大概而言也算準確。不 願變者, 不一定就是既得利益者。責罵年輕人、反對佔領者中,也有生活艱難的。不論貧富,那種世界觀就是固定在其心中,牢不可破。此種價值體系,何以建立?所有世界 觀、價值體系,均是知識、所受教育、所接收之訊息,加上個人經歷糅合而成。大家成長經歷不一,很容易煉成相異之世界觀。呂大樂的《四代香港人》大概有類似 論述,雖非嚴謹之作,仍值得一讀。明白了「世界觀」之衝突如何煉成,則不難明白為何佔領發生後,不少父母與子女爭論不休,大家彷彿活在平行時空裡:我看到 警察冤枉記者,你卻看到記者打警察。

「沉默的大多數」不願走出自己心中那安穩的世界(縱使其實那只是殖民地植入的、虛妄的安穩),不願當家作主。現在不是很好嗎,何必自找麻煩?只要有 人照顧餵飼(縱使那是惡徒),大家安安穩穩,那就好了。佔領人士和不少年輕人卻要成長,想要打破框框。成長是很痛苦的,但人必須成長,方能有明天。每當我 等適應了一環境,就不想改變,想留在那裡,直到永遠。但成長就是要跳出那comfort zone,自己前路自己揀,方能走得更遠。現在是年輕人想成長,而以中年人為主的「沉默大多數」卻拒絕成長。]

Brief Translation:-

The two opposing camps of thoughts (or values/world views) are:-

(From the Silent Majority camp):

1) If the students truly want to build a better Hong Kong, they should study hard and then find a government job and bring about changes within the establishment.
2) Having an ideal is a good thing, but one must also be pragmatic and be ready to compromise.
3) Hong Kong has always enjoyed prosperity and stability and is a free and open city; don't destroy the harmony.
4) You students are still young and can easily be misled and used by politicians/demagogues.
5) The Chief Executive's job is not easy - no one is perfect; we have to be more tolerant.
6) Concentrate on your studies and don't go out to stir up trouble; you should care more about your future. 
7) Occupying public space is illegal; an illegal act is wrong, period. Please stop your movement.

If you had a chance to stroll through any of the protest sites, you would most certainly hear these counter-arguments to the above points from any of the youngsters:-

(From the Umbrella Movement camp):

1) It is our cherished wish to make Hong Kong a better place. The only way is to reform the whole political structure. History shows us that the establishment cannot be expected to reform of its own will without being instigated by struggles from the outside.
2) It's true that we do have ideals. Everyone should have ideals. We are not being impractical - we are only striving to change the status quo and build a better home. History tells us that change is possible.
3) Hong Kong did enjoy prosperity and stability when the economy flourished in the 70s and 80s. But in recent years systemic weaknesses have become obvious and the wealth gap has been widening. At the same time the Beijing government intends to mainlandize Hong Kong and suppress our freedoms while the Hong Kong government plays deaf to our democracy demands. We have been forced into a corner where we have no alternative but to resist.
4) We are absolutely clear on what we are doing. If you think that the Pan-Democratic Party politicians are able to influence or use us in any way, you are just being naive. They belong to the past.
5) We know the CE's job is a difficult one. But it's not just about changing the CE - it's about changing the system. Why is it that you can be so tolerant of the government who holds all the power, but you are so harsh towards the protesters who are without power or wealth?
6) A protest or occupying movement is not an attempt to stir up trouble - it is a struggle for social justice and for change. Our own future is certainly important to us, but the future of our home city is even more important. This is what education is all about - we have to be civil humans who care about our community.
7) Civil Disobedience implies that participants are ready to admit their guilt - this does not contradict the spirit of rule of law. Committing an illegal act is not necessarily wrong. If the law impedes a citizen's pursuit of social justice, then he/she does not have to abide by that law. Civil Disobedience apart, is there any democratic movement in history that could have taken place effectively with participants strictly abiding by the law?

In sum, the stance of the "Silent Majority" is about keeping the status quo and letting stability and prosperity rule, while that of the protesters is about pursuit of change, freedom, social justice and autonomy.  All world views and values are formed from education, knowledge, receipt of information, combined with personal life experiences and backgrounds. They thus vary according to a person's growing trajectory.

It seems that the Silent Majority are the ones who refuse to leave their "comfort zone" to seek change and to grow, while the students and protesters are eager to change and grow. Change and growth entails pain, and that's why most people try to avoid it.


No comments: