It is Sunday night and my lonesome roommate invited me to Chinatown for some wholesome, homesick remedy. After dinner, we decided that the night was still young, so we trekked through the snow to the nearest cinema and saw the Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton. Despite the clever script and splendid acting, the film wasn’t so brilliant that it is off your typical Hollywood chart. Nonetheless, some of the messages are worth pondering on. Though not the main focus of the film, we are reminded that behind the glamour and prosperity of corporate America likely lies something awfully wrong. Michael Clayton reiterates the existential theme that human lives and dignity are nothing but liabilities to other people’s profit and gain.
Not a novel theme; any average movie watcher could give you a long list of recent motion pictures that depicts something along that same vein. George Clooney’s earlier Syriana is probably a more remarkable one. The more classic Devil’s Advocate or The Firm are two other examples. This kind of Hollywood production has its merits: Their fictional stories have the potential to unveil the dark reality of seemingly desirable, or even neutral, nature of certain professions.
These films are accolade-worthy also because they elicit a much-needed sense of suspicion and awareness about the power holders in our society. Less partisan than Michael Moore’s documentaries (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), these Hollywood dramas can reach a broad crowd, and generate discussions beyond the fictitious scenarios used in the films. However, the flip side to such awareness is the possibility of habituation—a fancy way of saying “numbing”. That is, although these films can promote critical thinking and hopefully encourage us to question, too much of the same rhetoric could overwhelm people to a point that they rather treat it as merely a film, as mere entertainment. To be honest, how can one burden themselves with so many causes? It is hard enough to be told that this is a messed up world. Harder still is to accept one’s role and responsibility in them. What we might end up with is a mentality that goes like this: well, since the world and humanity are so doomed, there isn’t much I could do about it. So I might as well don’t. Another possibility: “oh, how horrible _____ is… now let’s decide what to watch next…” Good films change lives; too many of them change nothing.
I suppose the same sentiments are also shared by many “activists” and concerned citizens. As we are increasingly aware of the happenings in the world, we are also increasingly aware of the tragedies that take place EVERYDAY around the globe. Not too long ago we heard about the genocide in Darfur, which was described as the “next Rwanda”. Today, something strikingly similar is occurring in Kenya. Wouldn’t it be a fair bet that there will be another Kenya and another and another? And if so, how could anyone concern and devote themselves wholeheartedly to so many causes, all at once? How can an average Hong Kong activist equip and educate him or herself enough to campaign against all the horrible human-made tragedies, with conviction? Without conviction, how can any action be truly successful and meaningful? At the end of the day, is activism just another fancy form of entertainment? Just as we easily jump from one cinema to another watching different films about different weighty issues, do we also hop from one social justice problem to another? Is that fair to those who are suffering and dying?
I dare not offer any advice or insight on this matter as I also find myself finding new battles to fight before the one I’m engaged in is over. (Just look at the topics covered in my previous entries.) But I can suppose this: one must have a sense of conviction in whatever he or she choose to fight for, in order to stay true to it, or simply stay with it.
Conviction—a deep sense of belief—comes from within and it is very personal. How strong do/can I, a Hong Konger, really feel about the tragedy in Kenya in particular? Do I really “feel convicted”? It isn’t impossible but someone like Barack Obama would be a lot more convincing when speaking for the civil-war laden African country, not so much because he is a president-hopeful in the US than because of his Kenyan roots.
Conviction is a huge idea. It is a manifestation of who we are as an individual. It is connected to our history, personality, culture, aspirations, and faith. Sure, we could always be distracted, but I believe nothing would ever be able to take away that subtle tingling feeling in our heart. Conviction sustains us even when the world tells us we are wrong; it whispers to us when we stray.
We live in a post-modern world filled with too many post-modern possibilities and, indeed, anxieties. What 1984 was able to achieve six decades ago, no film could today—no matter how brilliant it may be—simply because there are too many of them. Likewise, we have witnessed too many 1989s in too many regions in the world. Such abundance results in the numbing of our mind and soul. We must therefore more actively cultivate our hearts so that we too can be attuned to that deep sense of personal conviction, which should inform us what are the areas we should act—act effectively—to bring about a better world. Conviction is not a burden, but a fuel for purpose, meaning and growth.
Christian Chan
January 27, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
2 則留言:
我同意信念是實踐社會公義, 個人道德責任的原點。不同的人生經歷, 教育, 環境, 宗教跟哲學的認知會塑造出不同的價值觀。從價值觀中再衍生出那個人的不同信念。
因為價值觀並不是恆常不變, 而是會受之前所述的種種影響(尤其是每天接觸到, 看到, 聽到的 - 人), 所以信念也會跟著這些而改變。
大家可能都聽過身邊的人說: "係咁架啦, 做人係咁架啦" 或 "係咁架啦, 打份工係咁架啦"... 這些聲音是否反映了說的人都是受其他人(或事物)影響而令信念迷失了呢?
看了本文想起要常審視自己的價值觀, 莫令信念迷失, 才不致淪為麻木不仁, 沒有靈魂的軀殼。
"知識就是力量" 人們常常這麼說。
讀畢xian 的文章當晚, 碰巧翻到龍應台老師的文章, 有一點拿出來再和應一下。
龍老師小時在台南貧窮漁村長大, 她覺得漁村裡悲涼的人物環境跟那濃濃的人情味之強烈對照, "使我清醒, 彷彿是錨, 牢牢定住我的價值"。
她坦言 "那'愚昧無知'的漁村, 確實沒有給我知識, 但是給了我一種能力, 悲憫同情的能力, 使得我在日後面對權力的傲慢, 慾望的囂張和種種時代的虛假時, 仍舊得以穿透, 看見文明的核心關懷所在。"
容我定論龍老師這種悲憫同情的能力, 正是從漁村生活建立的價值觀產生的一種強烈信念。知識, 或許能令人過富足的日子; 但要像龍老師一樣成為對華文世界具大影響力的思想家, 信念才是箇中的根蒂。
張貼留言