評論
打印
Here are some things you may know about Lena Dunham, if you happen to have opened the pages of any New York periodical at any point in the last few years. She is the youthful impresario behind HBO’s series “Girls,” which has launched at least one think piece for every viewer in its audience; she is also the show’s star, in which capacity she frequently disrobes; and she is the author of a memoir-ish new book, which debuted to much attention last week. She is also a frequent agitator for liberal causes, most famously in the ad she cut for President Obama in 2012, which compared the experience of casting one’s first vote to, well, a different sort of magical first time.
過去幾年里，只要你在任何一個時間，湊巧翻開過任何一本紐約刊物，你對莉娜·杜漢姆(Lena Dunham)的了解可能是以下這些：年紀輕輕就成了HBO劇集《都市女孩》(Girls)的管理者，這部劇集已經(jīng)促使坊間對劇集的每一個觀眾都準備了至少一篇觀點文章；她還是個劇集的主演，在其中頻頻寬衣解帶；她寫了一本帶回憶錄色彩的書，上周出版的時候引來不少關注。她還時常宣揚一些自由主義思想，其中最著名的是2012年為奧巴馬總統(tǒng)剪輯的一條廣告，片中她把一個人第一次投票的經(jīng)歷，跟生活中另一種奇妙的第一次相提并論。
Here is something you might not know about her: She has a number of reactionary admirers.
以下是一些你可能不知道的：她有不少思想反動的崇拜者。
I’m using “reactionary” rather than “Republican” advisedly: I don’t mean to imply that Tea Party activists are lining up to buy “Not That Kind of Girl,” Dunham’s comic (sort of) foray into non-fictionalized self-exposure, or that there’s a Fox News talk show waiting in her future.
這里我用“反動”而不是“共和黨”，是經(jīng)過一番考慮的：我不是在暗示，茶黨激進人士在踴躍購買《不是那種女孩》(Not That Kind of Girl)，也就是杜漢姆那本用（類似）漫畫手法進行非虛構自曝的首次嘗試，或者她有朝一日會在Fox新聞頻道(Fox News)做個脫口秀。
But within the small (but fun!) world of cultural conservatives who watch too much HBO, Dunham has a fan base. Let me explain why.
然而在看了太多HBO的文化保守人士那小小（但好玩！）的世界里，杜漢姆是有觀眾基礎的。容我解釋一下為什么。
Like most television shows about young urbanites making their way in the world, “Girls” is a depiction of a culture whose controlling philosophy is what the late Robert Bellah called “expressive individualism” — the view that the key to the good life lies almost exclusively in self-discovery, self-actualization, the cultivation of the unique and holy You.
和多數(shù)講述年輕都市人打拼生活的電視劇一樣，《都市女孩》是對一種文化的描繪，其中的主導哲學就是已故的羅伯特·貝拉(Robert Bellah)所稱的“表現(xiàn)型個人主義”——這種哲學認為，幸福生活幾乎完全要靠自我發(fā)現(xiàn)、自我實現(xiàn)，陶冶一個獨特而圣潔的你。
This is a perspective with religious and political corollaries: It implies a God-as-life-coach theology, the kind that pulses through Oprah Winfrey’s current revival tour, and a politics in which the state is effectively a therapeutic agent, protecting the questing self from shocks and deprivation.
這樣的看法免不了要往宗教和政治方面發(fā)展：它暗含著一種“神乃生活之導師”的神學，跟此刻貫穿在奧普拉·溫弗瑞(Oprah Winfrey)復出巡回演說中的那種同屬一類，它是一種政治，政府在這里的角色實際上是負責療傷，讓苦苦追尋的自我免遭震蕩和貧窮的侵擾。
And to be a cultural conservative today means, above all, regarding expressive individualism as an idea desperately in need of correction and critique.
而最重要的是，身為一個當下的文化保守人士，意味著要將表現(xiàn)型個人主義視為一種亟需糾正和批判的理念。
Often the roots of this kind of conservatism are religious, since biblical faith takes a rather dimmer view of human nature’s inner workings, a rather darker view of the unfettered self. But the conservative argument is also a practical one: We don’t think expressive individualism actually makes people very happy.
這種保守主義往往是植根于宗教的，因為奉守經(jīng)文的信仰，會對人性的內(nèi)心思緒持有一種更暗淡的看法，對不受約束之自我的看法也更陰暗。但是保守派的理據(jù)同時也是很實際的：我們不認為表現(xiàn)型個人主義真的能給人帶來幸福。
We have some sociological evidence for this contention, in the disintegration that has proceeded apace in poorer communities as American society has become more individualistic. But further up the income and education ladder, life is much more prosperous and stable, which means that the case against expressive individualism rests on impressions and experiences — on hard-to-prove generalizations about narcissism, anomie and quiet desperation among the young and well-to-do.
這個論點是有一些社會學證據(jù)的，只需要看看在美國社會進一步趨向于個人化的同時，一些相對貧困的社群的瓦解。然而順著收入和教育的梯子再往上爬，生活就會變得富裕而穩(wěn)定許多，就是說對表現(xiàn)型個人主義的反駁主要是以印象和體驗為依據(jù)——對年輕人和富人群體中的自戀、失范和默默的絕望進行難以自圓其說的歸納。
Those impressions, those generalizations, are rarely reflected in pop culture. The best of contemporary TV is dark dark dark, but it’s the darkness of exotic realms — Westeros or Walter White’s meth lab, mob life or deep Louisiana. The defining portraits of younger, well-educated blue-state life, from “Friends” to “Sex and the City” to their imitators, are essentially propaganda for expressive individualism, sometimes allowing room for nuance but never for a real critique.
這些印象，這些歸納，很少能在流行文化中得到反映。當代電視的最佳創(chuàng)作就是陰暗陰暗再陰暗，但那是一種來自奇異世界的暗——維斯特洛大陸(Westeros)或瓦爾特·懷特(Walter White)的冰毒廚房，黑幫江湖或深處腹地的路易斯安那。從《老友記》(Friends)到《欲望都市》(Sex and the City)乃至它們的仿制品，對年輕的、受過良好教育的藍州（代指價值觀傾向于自由主義，政治上支持民主黨的州）生活進行的典型描繪，本質(zhì)上就是表現(xiàn)型個人主義的宣傳廣告，偶爾能有些細微的指摘之處，但對一個真正的批評者來說始終是不值一提的。
Except for “Girls.” The thing that makes Dunham’s show so interesting, the reason it inspired a certain unsettlement among some of its early fans, is that it often portrays young-liberal-urbanite life the way, well, many reactionaries see it: as a collision of narcissists educated mostly in self-love, a sexual landscape distinguished by serial humiliations — a realm at once manic and medicated, privileged and bereft of higher purpose.
《都市女孩》是個例外。杜漢姆的劇之所以有意思，之所以能在最初那批擁躉者心中激起某種不安，是因為它對年輕自由派都市潮人生活的描繪，往往是符合……呃……反動分子的看法的：它是浸淫在自愛教育中的自戀者發(fā)生的碰撞，其性愛劇情因為一系列的恥辱而顯得引人注目——在這個世界里，人們既是瘋癲、嗑藥的，又高人一等卻缺乏崇高目標。
Now there is plenty of charm and fun and human interest on the show as well, and I’m quite sure that Dunham does not intend the reading I’ve just offered. More likely she agrees with Elaine Blair, whose New York Review of Books article chided the show’s “nervous” liberal critics, and praised “Girls” for depicting the ways in which, thanks to the sexual revolution, “all of us can know more people in more ways than was ever previously allowed,” with “the ultimate prize to be wrung from all of these baffling sexual predicaments” being “a deeper understanding of oneself.”
這部劇也不乏魅力、笑料和人情味，而且我相信我在這里的解讀并非杜漢姆的本意。她更可能認同的是伊蓮·布萊爾(Elaine Blair)，后者在《紐約書評》(New York Review of Books)中的文章指責了該劇的那些“神經(jīng)質(zhì)的”自由派批評者，贊揚《都市女孩》把性解放之下，“我們大家都可以通過更多以往不被允許的方式結識更多人”這一點呈現(xiàn)了出來，而它的“終極回報就是從一件件令人困惑的性愛尷尬事件中”，“對自我產(chǎn)生更深刻的理解”。
This is Expressive Individualism 101. But the show is observant enough, artistic enough, to allow room for contrary interpretations. There are scenes — an extremely dark sexual encounter involving an otherwise likable male character near the end of season two — that make Blair’s sexual happy-talk seem frankly absurd. There are moments — a messed-up daughter’s encounter with her feckless dad, a character’s rant against her close friends’ self-absorption — that are almost puritanical (in a good way!) in their moral perspective.
這是一堂表現(xiàn)型個人主義基礎課。但是這部劇足夠敏銳，足夠精美，給相反的闡釋留出了空間。有一些場景——第二季接近尾聲時有一次極端陰暗的性遭遇，所涉男性角色本來還頗招人喜歡——讓布萊爾的那些關于性的打趣顯得很荒唐。有一些瞬間——一個生活混亂不堪的女兒和不負責任的父親的相遇，一個角色對其密友的自我沉醉的發(fā)泄——則有著清教徒般的道德視角（好的那種！）
Any reactionary affection for her work is doubtless unrequited. But it’s merited, because Dunham is doing a rare thing: She’s making a show for liberals that, merely by being realistic, sharp-edge, complicated, almost gives cultural conservatism its due.
反動人士對她的作品的喜愛無疑是單相思。但這是它應得的，因為杜漢姆在做的不是件尋常事：她在為自由人士做這部劇，但僅僅因為夠真實、犀利、復雜，幾乎幫文化保守主義說了句公道話。
