Dinner at Joanne's

1 It was snowing heavily, and although every true New Yorker looks forward to a white Christmas, the shoppers on Fifth Avenue were in a hurry, not just to track down the last-minute presents, but to escape the bitter cold and get home to their families for Christmas Eve.

2 Josh Lester turned into 46th Street. He was not yet enjoying the Christmas spirit, because he was still at work, albeit a working dinner at Joanne's. Josh was black, in his early thirties, and an agreeable-looking person, dressed smartly but not expensively. He was from a hard-working family in upstate Virginia, and was probably happiest back home in his parents' house. But his demeanor concealed a Harvard law degree and an internship in DC with a congressman, a junior partnership in a New York law firm, along with a razor-sharp intellect and an ability to think on his feet. Josh was very smart.

3 The appointment meant Josh wouldn't get home until after Christmas. He was not, however, unhappy. He was meeting Jo Rogers, the senior senator for Connecticut, and one of the best-known faces in the US. senator Rogers was a Democrat in her third term of office, who knew Capitol Hill inside out but who had nevertheless managed to keep her credibility with her voters as a Washington outsider. She was pro-abortion, anti-corruption, pro-low carbon emissions and anti-capital punishment, as fine a progressive liberal as you could find this side of the Atlantic. Talk show hosts called her Honest senator Jo, and a couple of years ago, Time magazine had her in the running for Woman of the Year. It was election time in the following year, and the word was she was going to run for the Democratic nomination. Rogers had met Josh in DC, thought him highly competent, and had invited him to dinner.

4 Josh shivered as he checked the address on the slip of paper in his hand. He'd never been to Joanne's, but knew it by reputation, not because of its food, which had often been maligned, or its jazz orchestra, which had a guest slot for a well-known movie director who played trumpet, but because of the stellar quality of its sophisticated guests: politicians, diplomats, movie actors, hall-of-fame athletes, journalists, writers, rock stars and Nobel Prize winners – in short, anyone who was anyone in this city of power brokers.

5 Inside, the restaurant was heaving with people. The head waiter at the front desk looked at Josh as he came in.

6 "Can I help you?"

7 Josh replied, " Yes , I have an ..."

8 "Excuse me, sir," the head waiter interrupted as two guests arrived, "Good evening Miss Bacall, good evening Mr Hanks," and clicked his fingers to summon another waiter to show them to their table.

9 "Now, sir ...," said the head waiter. "...do you have a reservation?"He shrugged his shoulders. "We have no spare tables whatsoever, as you can see."

10 "I'm meeting a Ms Rogers here tonight."

11 The head waiter looked at Josh up and down, and asked, "May I have your name?"

12 Josh told him, and although the waiter refrained from curling his lip, he managed to show both disdain and effortless superiority with a simple flaring of his nostrils.

13 "Let me see," said the head waiter. "Well, yes, we do have a table for a Ms Rogers, but will she be arriving soon?"

14 Josh had encountered this doubtful treatment before but was not intimidated.

15 "I'm sure she will," said Josh. "Could you please show me to her table?"

16 "Come this way, sir." The head waiter led Josh through the restaurant to a table at the back, and pointed.

17 "Thank you. Could you get me a Martini, please?" said Josh. But the head waiter was impatient to go back into the heady swirl of New York society, everyone clamoring, or so it appeared to him, for his attention.

18 The table was close to the bathroom and right by a half-opened window, apparently positioned where an icy breeze from the Great Lakes, passing down the Hudson Valley, would end its journey.

19 Suddenly there was a moment's silence in the restaurant, only for the noise to resume as intense whispering.

20 "senator Rogers!" said the head waiter. "What a great honor it is to see you at Joanne's again!"

21 "Good evening, Alberto. I'm dining with a young man, name of Lester."

22 The head waiter blinked, and swallowed hard.

23 "Yes, senator, please come this way," and as senator Rogers passed through the crowded room, heads turned as the diners recognized her and greeted her with silent applause. In a classless society, Rogers was the closest thing to aristocracy that America had. Alberto hovered for a moment, then went to speak to a colleague.

24 "It's good to see you again, Josh," said Rogers. "Let's have something to eat, then I'd like to talk to you about a business proposition."

25 Alberto returned, bent half double in almost laughable humility.

26 "senator, as this table is so cold , so uncomfortable, I was wondering if ..."

27 senator Rogers waited and then said quietly, "Go on."

28 "I was wondering if you'd like a better table, in the middle of the restaurant, so you have a better view of everyone." So everyone has a better view of you, he might have said. "You'll be much more comfortable, and ..."

29 Alberto paused. senator Rogers looked around.

30 "I agree, this isn't the best table in the house. But you brought my friend here, and I guess this is where we'll stay. We'll have my usual, please."

31 After two hours, Rogers and Josh got up to leave. There was a further flurry of attention by the staff, including an offer by Alberto to waive payment of the bill, which Rogers refused. As they were putting on their coats, Rogers said, "Thank you, Alberto. Oh, have I introduced you to my companion, Josh Lester?"

32 A look of panic, followed by one of desperate optimism flashed across Alberto's face.

33 "Ah, not yet, no, ... not properly," he said weakly.

34 "Josh Lester. This is the latest recruit to my election campaign. He's going to be my new deputy campaign manager, in charge of raising donations. And if we get that Republican out of the White House next year, you've just met my Chief of Staff."

35 "Absolutely delighted to meet you, Mr Lester, a real privilege, I'm sure. I do hope we'll see you both again in Joanne's very soon," said Alberto.

36 The senator looked at Alberto.

37 "No, I don't think that's at all likely," replied senator Rogers.

38 Rogers and Josh stepped out together into the cold night air. It had stopped Snowing.

X

喬安妮餐廳的晚餐

1 雪下得很大，雖然每個(gè)真正的紐約人都盼著過(guò)一個(gè)白色的圣誕，可還在第五大道購(gòu)物的人們卻行色匆匆，他們不但要在最后一刻前挑選到心儀的圣誕禮物，還要避開嚴(yán)寒，回家和親人們共度圣誕夜。

2 喬?！とR斯特拐進(jìn)了第四十六街。 他還沒來(lái)得及享受圣誕的氣氛，因?yàn)樗栽诠ぷ?，雖說(shuō)只是在喬安妮餐廳吃一頓工作餐。 喬希是黑人，三十出頭，長(zhǎng)得平易近人，穿著時(shí)髦得體，卻不華貴。 他來(lái)自弗吉尼亞州北部，父母都是辛勤工作的人，或許只有回到父母家里才最讓他感到幸福。 單從他的行為舉止，別人看不出他擁有一個(gè)哈佛法學(xué)院的學(xué)位，一段在華盛頓特區(qū)跟從國(guó)會(huì)議員實(shí)習(xí)的經(jīng)歷，還有紐約一家律師事務(wù)所初級(jí)合伙人的身份。 他才華橫溢，思維敏捷，聰明過(guò)人。

3 這次會(huì)面意味著喬希要過(guò)了圣誕夜才能回家了。 他并沒有因此而不高興，因?yàn)樗姷娜耸强的腋裰莸馁Y深參議員喬·羅杰斯，此人是全美曝光率最高的名人之一。 參議員羅杰斯是民主黨人，現(xiàn)在是她的第三個(gè)任期，對(duì)于國(guó)會(huì)山的一切她了如指掌，盡管如此，她還是盡力維持住了在她的支持者心中作為一位華盛頓局外人的信譽(yù)。 她支持墮胎，反對(duì)腐敗，支持減少二氧化碳排量，反對(duì)死刑，可以說(shuō)是大西洋岸的美國(guó)能找到的最完美的進(jìn)步自由派人士。 脫口秀主持人們稱呼她“誠(chéng)實(shí)的參議員喬”，幾年前《時(shí)代周刊》提名她參加年度女性的角逐。 明年就是選舉年了，有消息稱她將參加民主黨內(nèi)總統(tǒng)提名的競(jìng)選。 羅杰斯在華盛頓見過(guò)喬希，她覺得喬希很有才干，于是就邀他共進(jìn)晚餐。

4 喬希打了個(gè)冷戰(zhàn)，他打開手里的紙條核對(duì)了一下地址。 之前他沒來(lái)過(guò)喬安妮餐廳，但對(duì)于它的鼎鼎大名卻早有耳聞，倒不是因?yàn)檫@里的飯菜有多美味，其實(shí)這里的菜品屢遭惡評(píng)，也不是因?yàn)檫@里的爵士管弦樂(lè)隊(duì)有一位知名電影導(dǎo)演客串吹小號(hào)，而是因?yàn)檫@里匯集了有頭有臉的賓客，可以說(shuō)是星光璀璨，他們中有政客、外交家、電影明星、載入名人堂的體育明星、記者、作家、搖滾明星、諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)得主等等——總之，這里的每一位客人都是這座權(quán)力之城里的一個(gè)不一般的人物。

5 餐廳里面人頭攢動(dòng)。 喬希走進(jìn)來(lái)時(shí)前臺(tái)的領(lǐng)班看了他一眼。

6 “您需要幫忙嗎？”

7 喬?；卮鹫f(shuō)：“是的，我有一個(gè)……”

8 “對(duì)不起，先生……”看見有兩位客人走了進(jìn)來(lái)，領(lǐng)班打斷了他的話?！巴砩虾?，巴考爾小姐，晚上好，漢克斯先生?！苯又蛄藗€(gè)響指招呼服務(wù)生帶他們?nèi)胱?/p>

9 “好吧，先生，請(qǐng)問(wèn)您預(yù)訂座位了嗎？”領(lǐng)班聳了聳肩，說(shuō)道，“您也看見了，我們沒有空余的座位?！?/p>

10 “我今天晚上要在這兒和一位名叫羅杰斯的女士會(huì)面?！?/p>

11 領(lǐng)班把喬希從頭到腳打量了一番，然后說(shuō)：“請(qǐng)問(wèn)您怎么稱呼？”

12 喬希向他報(bào)了姓名，雖然領(lǐng)班好不容易才忍住沒撇嘴，但他還是鼓了鼓鼻翼，顯示出了他的不屑以及自然而然的優(yōu)越感。

13 “讓我查一下。”領(lǐng)班說(shuō)道。 “哦，對(duì)了，我們的確為一位羅杰斯女士預(yù)留了一張桌子，可是她馬上就到嗎？”

14 喬希過(guò)去也有過(guò)被人懷疑的經(jīng)歷，但他沒有被嚇到。

15 “我肯定她很快就到。能煩請(qǐng)你帶我去她的座位嗎？”喬希說(shuō)。

16 “那這邊走，先生?！?領(lǐng)班把喬希領(lǐng)到餐廳靠里處，指了指一張桌子。

17 “謝謝，請(qǐng)給我來(lái)一杯馬提尼酒，” 喬希說(shuō)。 可那位領(lǐng)班還沒等他說(shuō)完就迫不及待地要回到紐約上層社會(huì)那令人陶醉的紛亂中去，至少在他看來(lái)，那里的每一個(gè)人都在召喚著他，希望得到他的注意。

18 這張桌子離衛(wèi)生間很近，還緊挨著一扇半開的窗戶，好像從五大湖刮來(lái)的刺骨寒風(fēng)正好沿著哈得孫峽谷吹進(jìn)來(lái)，在這兒結(jié)束了它的旅程。

19 突然間，餐廳安靜了片刻，緊接著又響起了一陣熱烈的竊竊私語(yǔ)聲。

20 “羅杰斯參議員！”領(lǐng)班喊道，“能在喬安妮再次見到您真是太榮幸了！”

21 “晚上好，阿爾貝托。我要和一位年輕人吃飯，他叫萊斯特?！?/p>

22 領(lǐng)班慌得直眨眼，還咽了咽口水。

23 “好的，參議員，您這邊走?！?當(dāng)羅杰斯參議員穿過(guò)擁擠的餐廳時(shí)，不斷有人回過(guò)頭來(lái)，他們認(rèn)出了她，并默默地跟她打招呼。 在一個(gè)不分階級(jí)的社會(huì)里，羅杰斯近乎是美國(guó)的貴族。 阿爾貝托在周圍轉(zhuǎn)了一陣子，然后走過(guò)去和一位同事說(shuō)了幾句話。

24 “很高興又見到你，喬希，”羅杰斯說(shuō)。 “我們先吃點(diǎn)東西，然后我要跟你談?wù)勔环萆虡I(yè)建議書的事。”

25 阿爾貝托回到餐桌旁，深深地彎下腰，那謙卑的樣子簡(jiǎn)直有點(diǎn)可笑。

26 “參議員，這張桌子太冷了，坐著不舒服，不知道……”

27 羅杰斯參議員等著，然后輕聲地說(shuō)道：“接著說(shuō)?！?/p>

28 “不知道您愿不愿意換張好點(diǎn)兒的桌子，到餐廳中央去，這樣您就能看到餐廳里的每一個(gè)人了?！?這樣餐廳里的每一個(gè)人都可以看見您啦，他本是想這么說(shuō)的。 “那樣您會(huì)覺得舒服得多，而且……”

29 阿爾貝托停了下來(lái)。 羅杰斯參議員看了看四周。

30 “我同意，這兒不是屋子里最好的座位，但既然你把我的朋友帶到了這兒，我想我們就呆在這里好了，上我平時(shí)點(diǎn)的菜吧。”

31 兩個(gè)小時(shí)后，羅杰斯和喬希起身準(zhǔn)備離開，這又引起店員們的一陣騷動(dòng)，個(gè)個(gè)都主動(dòng)來(lái)獻(xiàn)殷勤，其中就包括阿爾貝托，他提出來(lái)要給他倆免單，但被羅杰斯拒絕了。 他倆披上外套，羅杰斯說(shuō)：“阿爾貝托，謝謝你。噢，我給你介紹我的同事喬?！とR斯特了嗎？”

32 阿爾貝托的臉上先是一陣驚恐，然后又閃過(guò)絕望中的一絲企盼。

33 “啊，還沒有，不……還沒正式介紹過(guò)。”他低聲下氣地說(shuō)。

34 “喬希?萊斯特。他是我剛剛招收的競(jìng)選班子成員。他馬上就要成為我競(jìng)選團(tuán)隊(duì)的副經(jīng)理了，將負(fù)責(zé)募集捐款。如果明年我們把那位共和黨人趕出白宮的話，你現(xiàn)在看到的就是我的白宮辦公廳主任?！?/p>

35 “非常高興見到您，萊斯特先生，非常榮幸，真的。我衷心希望很快能在喬安妮餐廳再次見到二位?！?/p>

36 參議員看了看阿爾貝托。

37 “不會(huì)了，我覺得沒有這種可能了?！绷_杰斯參議員回答道。

38 羅杰斯和喬希一起走進(jìn)寒風(fēng)凜冽的夜色中。 雪已經(jīng)停了。

I, we, they

1 A medium-sized Swedish high-technology corporation was approached by a compatriot, a businessman with good contacts in Saudi Arabia. The company sent one of their engineers – let me call him Johannesson – to Riyadh, where he was introduced to a small Saudi engineering firm, run by two brothers in their mid-thirties, both with British university degrees. Johannesson was to assist in a development project on behalf of the Saudi government. However, after six visits over a period of two years, nothing seemed to happen. Johannesson's meetings with the Saudi brothers were always held in the presence of the Swedish businessman who had established the first contact. This annoyed Johannesson and his superiors, because they were not at all sure that this businessman did not have contacts with their competitors as well – but the Saudis wanted the intermediary to be there. Discussions often dwelt on issues having little to do with the business – like Shakespeare, of whom both brothers were fans.

2 Just when Johannesson's superiors started to doubt the wisdom of the corporation's investment in these expensive trips, a telex arrived from Riyadh inviting him back for an urgent visit. A contract worth several millions of dollars was ready to be signed. From one day to the next, the Saudis' attitude changed: The presence of the businessman-intermediary was no longer necessary, and for the first time Johannesson saw the Saudis smile, and even make jokes.

3 So far, so good; but the story goes on. The remarkable order contributed to Johannesson being promoted to a management position in a different division. Thus, he was no longer in charge of the Saudi account. A successor was nominated, another engineer with considerable international experience, whom Johannesson personally introduced to the Saudi brothers. A few weeks later a telex arrived from Riyadh in which the Saudis threatened to cancel the contract over a detail in the delivery conditions. Johannesson's help was asked. When he came to Riyadh it appeared that the conflict was over a minor issue and could easily be resolved – but only, the Saudis felt, with Johannesson as the corporation's representative. So the corporation twisted its structure to allow Johannesson to handle the Saudi account although his main responsibilities were now in a completely different field.

4 The Swedes and the Saudis in this true story have different concepts of the role of personal relationships in business. For the Swedes, business is done with a company; for the Saudis, with a person whom one has learned to know and trust. As long as one does not know another person well enough it is convenient to have present an intermediary or go-between, someone who knows and is trusted by both parties. At the root of the difference between these cultures is a fundamental issue in human societies: the role of the individual versus the role of the group.

5 The vast majority of people in our world live in societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. I will call these societies collectivist, using a word which to some readers may have political connotations, but it is not meant here in any political sense. It does not refer to the power of the state over the individual but to the power of the group. The first group in our lives is always the family into which we are born. Family structures, however, differ between societies. In most collectivist societies the "family" within which the child grows up consists of a number of people living closely together; not just the parents and other children, but, for example, grandparents, uncles, aunts, servants, or other housemates. This is known in cultural anthropology as the extended family. When children grow up they learn to think of themselves as part of a "we" group, a relationship which is not voluntary but given by nature. The "we" group is distinct from other people in society who belong to "they" groups, of which there are many. The "we" group (or in-group) is the major source of one's identity, and the only secure protection one has against the hardships of life. Therefore one owes lifelong loyalty to one's in-group, and breaking this loyalty is one of the worst things a person can do. Between the person and the in-group a dependence relationship develops which is both practical and psychological.

6 A minority of people in our world live in societies in which the interests of the individual prevail over the interests of the group, societies which I will call individualist. In these, most children are born into families consisting of two parents and, possibly, other children; in some societies there is an increasing share of one-parent families. Other relatives live elsewhere and are rarely seen. This type is the nuclear family (from the Latin "nucleus" meaning core). Children from such families, as they grow up, soon learn to think of themselves as "I". This "I", their personal identity, is distinct from other people's "I"s, and these others are not classified according to their group membership but to individual characteristics. Playmates, for example, are chosen on the basis of personal preferences. The purpose of education is to enable the child to stand on its own feet. The child is expected to leave the parental home as soon as this has been achieved. Not infrequently, children, after having left home, reduce relationships with their parents to a minimum or break them off altogether. Neither practically nor psychologically is the healthy person in this type of society supposed to be dependent on a group.

X

我、我們、他們

1 有一位瑞典商人和本國(guó)的一家中等規(guī)模的高科技公司進(jìn)行了接洽，這位商人在沙特阿拉伯有許多關(guān)系良好的客戶。 于是，該公司派了一名工程師——就叫他約翰尼森吧——去利雅得，經(jīng)這位商人引見，和沙特一家小型的工程公司合作，這家公司由一對(duì)兄弟經(jīng)營(yíng)著，他倆三十五歲左右，都擁有英國(guó)大學(xué)的學(xué)位。 約翰尼森要做的是代表沙特政府協(xié)助一項(xiàng)建設(shè)工程。 但是，雙方在兩年間進(jìn)行了六次接觸均無(wú)結(jié)果。 每次約翰尼森和沙特兄弟商談時(shí)，那位最初幫他們建立關(guān)系的瑞典商人都在場(chǎng)。 這令約翰尼森和他的上司感到非常不快，因?yàn)樗麄儾桓铱隙ㄟ@位商人是否跟他們的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手也有來(lái)往，但沙特人卻執(zhí)意要介紹人在場(chǎng)。 他們經(jīng)常討論一些與生意毫無(wú)關(guān)系的話題，比如莎士比亞，哥倆都是莎士比亞迷。

2 正當(dāng)約翰尼森的上司開始懷疑公司花大筆旅費(fèi)派人去洽談是否明智時(shí)，利雅得那邊來(lái)了電報(bào)，邀請(qǐng)約翰尼森迅速趕赴利雅得， 因?yàn)橐环輧r(jià)值幾百萬(wàn)美元的合同已準(zhǔn)備好，等著他來(lái)簽。 一夜之間，沙特人的態(tài)度也發(fā)生了變化：那位中間商再也不用出場(chǎng)了，約翰尼森還第一次看見沙特人笑了，他們甚至還相互開起了玩笑。

3 到現(xiàn)在為止，一切都進(jìn)行得不錯(cuò)；但故事還沒有結(jié)束。 由于得到了這份大訂單，約翰尼森被提拔為另一個(gè)部門的經(jīng)理，他也因此不用再管沙特那單生意了。 另一位國(guó)際交流經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的工程師被提名接替他的工作，約翰尼森還親自把他介紹給了那兩位沙特兄弟。 幾星期后，從利雅得發(fā)來(lái)一份電報(bào)，兩位沙特兄弟威脅說(shuō)要取消合同，僅僅是因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)有關(guān)交貨條件的細(xì)節(jié)問(wèn)題。 他們請(qǐng)約翰尼森去協(xié)助解決。 約翰尼森到利雅得后才發(fā)現(xiàn)，雙方的矛盾源于一個(gè)很容易解決的無(wú)關(guān)緊要的小問(wèn)題，但沙特人覺得一定要約翰尼森代表公司出面才能解決。 因此，瑞典公司不得不打破慣例，允許約翰尼森處理沙特那邊的生意，雖然他現(xiàn)在的職責(zé)是管理另外一個(gè)完全不同的領(lǐng)域。

4 在這個(gè)真實(shí)的故事里，瑞典人和沙特人對(duì)人際關(guān)系在商業(yè)中的作用有著不同的理解。 對(duì)瑞典人來(lái)說(shuō)，他們是在和一個(gè)公司做生意；但對(duì)沙特人來(lái)說(shuō)，他們是在和一個(gè)他們了解并且信任的人做生意。 只要他們對(duì)某個(gè)人還不夠了解，就會(huì)讓一位雙方都認(rèn)識(shí)并信任的中間人或介紹人在場(chǎng)，這樣做會(huì)比較方便。 這兩種文化的差異源于人類社會(huì)的一個(gè)根本問(wèn)題：即個(gè)人角色與集體角色的問(wèn)題。

5 世界上大多數(shù)人都生活在團(tuán)體利益大于個(gè)人利益的社會(huì)里, 我把這類社會(huì)稱作集體主義社會(huì)，集體主義這個(gè)詞在某些讀者看來(lái)具有政治意義，但我在使用這個(gè)詞時(shí)不帶任何政治色彩。 它并不是指國(guó)家權(quán)力對(duì)個(gè)人的壓制，而是特指團(tuán)體的力量。 我們生命中的第一個(gè)團(tuán)體向來(lái)都是我們出生的那個(gè)家庭。 但不同社會(huì)有著不同的家庭結(jié)構(gòu)。 在大多數(shù)集體主義社會(huì)里，小孩子成長(zhǎng)的“家庭”有許多人生活在一起；有父母，有兄弟姐妹，還有比如爺爺、奶奶、叔伯、姑姑、傭人及其他的家庭成員。 這種家庭在文化人類學(xué)上被稱為擴(kuò)展型家庭。 小孩在成長(zhǎng)的過(guò)程中就學(xué)著把自己看作是“我們”團(tuán)體中的一員，這種關(guān)系并不是出于個(gè)人的選擇，而是與生俱來(lái)的。 “我們”團(tuán)體不同于社會(huì)上眾多隸屬“他們”團(tuán)體里的他者。 “我們”團(tuán)體（或內(nèi)部團(tuán)體）是個(gè)人認(rèn)同感的主要來(lái)源，是個(gè)人應(yīng)對(duì)生活艱辛所能依賴的唯一的安全保障。 所以每個(gè)人一生都忠于自己的內(nèi)部團(tuán)體，而背叛這個(gè)團(tuán)體是個(gè)人所能犯下的最嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤。 個(gè)人和內(nèi)部團(tuán)體之間會(huì)逐漸建立起一種相互依存的關(guān)系，這種關(guān)系既有實(shí)用價(jià)值，又能給人心理上的依靠。

6 世界上還有少數(shù)人生活在個(gè)人利益大于團(tuán)體利益的社會(huì)里，我把這類社會(huì)稱為個(gè)人主義社會(huì)。 在這類社會(huì)中，多數(shù)小孩出生在由父母和孩子組成的家庭里，當(dāng)然，可能還會(huì)有兄弟姐妹；在某些社會(huì)中，單親家庭的數(shù)量呈逐漸上升的趨勢(shì)。 其他的親戚住在別處，彼此很少見面。 這類家庭被稱為核心家庭（源于拉丁詞 nucleus，意為“核心”）。 核心家庭里的孩子在成長(zhǎng)過(guò)程中，很快就學(xué)會(huì)把自己看成是“我”。 這個(gè)“我”——即他們的個(gè)人身份——區(qū)別于其他人的“我”，而且這所謂的其他人并不是以不同團(tuán)體的成員身份來(lái)區(qū)別的，而是以個(gè)人特點(diǎn)來(lái)分類的。 例如玩伴是根據(jù)個(gè)人的喜好來(lái)選擇的。 教育的目標(biāo)是使孩子最終能自立。 孩子一旦有了自立的能力，父母就會(huì)鼓勵(lì)他們離開家。 孩子離開父母家后，與父母的往來(lái)頻率通常會(huì)降至最低點(diǎn)，或者完全斷絕往來(lái)。 在這類社會(huì)里，一個(gè)健全的人無(wú)論在實(shí)際生活中還是在心理上都不會(huì)依賴一個(gè)團(tuán)體。

Destination Europe

For many Africans it’s their first glimpse of Europe: a tiny island in the Mediterranean, between Tunisia and Sicily. Technically Lampedusa is part of Italy, and therefore the European Union. But it is closer to the shores of North Africa, and as such is the first unplanned stop for thousands of Africans on a desperate journey to seek a better life in Europe. At best, the journey – for which they have paid up to €2,000 to the gangs which control the illegal trade – is uncomfortable, in appalling hygienic conditions and under a merciless sun. But sometimes the horrendously overcrowded boats do not make it, and days later bodies are washed ashore along Europe’s southern coastlines.

Those people who arrive in Lampedusa are promptly rounded up and sent to a detention centre where the authorities decide whether or not to grant “asylum”, which gives the immigrant the right to stay. Many are sent back to where they come from. Some manage to land secretly, avoiding immigration officials – but they do not always realize they are on a tiny island, and surprise local inhabitants by asking for the railway station.

And yet, in spite of everything – the dangers of the journey, the ambivalent attitudes of governments, and the hostility of many local people – some of them do manage to start a new life. The fact is, without immigrants Europe’s economy would come to a standstill. Immigrants do the jobs that Europe’s ageing population no longer wants to do; and some of them integrate quickly, learning the local language, taking an active role in society and, ultimately, acquiring citizenship.

Italy is a comparatively recent destination for immigrants from developing countries; five million immigrants account for about eight per cent of the total population. In Europe as a whole the figure is closer to 12 per cent; northern countries such as Germany, France and the UK have been experiencing the phenomenon of mass immigration for around 50 years. Though immigration has been an accepted feature of modern European societies for some decades, 2015 saw a very large increase in asylum seekers, partly due to the war in Syria. This sudden increase in numbers has caused political difficulties in some European countries.

X

目的地——?dú)W洲

對(duì)許多非洲人來(lái)說(shuō)，這里是他們第一眼看到的歐洲：一個(gè)位于地中海的、突尼斯和西西里島之間的小島。嚴(yán)格地講，藍(lán)佩杜薩島是意大利的領(lǐng)土，因而屬于歐盟。但是該島離北非海岸更近些，因而也成了成千上萬(wàn)的非洲人第一個(gè)計(jì)劃外的?？空?。他們不顧一切，去歐洲尋求更好的生活。他們向從事此項(xiàng)非法生意的黑幫支付高達(dá)兩千歐元的費(fèi)用，可是旅途極不舒服，衛(wèi)生條件極其惡劣，而且還要遭受烈日的暴曬。這還算好的了，有時(shí)候，那些嚴(yán)重超載的船只到不了對(duì)岸，幾天之后海水會(huì)把他們的尸體沖到歐洲南部的海灘上。

那些到達(dá)藍(lán)佩杜薩島的人則被迅速集中起來(lái)，押送到拘留中心，由那里的官員決定是否允許他們“避難”，允許避難就是給移民居住權(quán)。許多人會(huì)被遣送回家，有些人則偷偷地登陸，躲開了移民官——但他們往往沒有意識(shí)到他們是在一個(gè)小島上，當(dāng)他們?nèi)ハ虍?dāng)?shù)厝舜蚵牷疖囌镜奈恢脮r(shí)，當(dāng)?shù)厝藭?huì)感到很吃驚。

然而，即便有諸多的問(wèn)題——旅途的危險(xiǎn)、政府模棱兩可的態(tài)度、許多當(dāng)?shù)貚u民的敵意——有些人還是開始了新的生活。事實(shí)上，如果沒有移民，歐洲的經(jīng)濟(jì)就會(huì)停滯不前。移民從事的工作都是歐洲日益老齡化的人口不愿意干的。有些移民很快就融入了當(dāng)?shù)匚幕瑢W(xué)會(huì)了當(dāng)?shù)氐恼Z(yǔ)言，積極投身社會(huì)活動(dòng)，并最終獲得了公民權(quán)。

意大利是來(lái)自發(fā)展中國(guó)家的新移民的目的地；那里五百萬(wàn)的移民大概占了全國(guó)總?cè)丝诘?%。而在整個(gè)歐洲，這個(gè)數(shù)字接近12%；一些北部的國(guó)家，例如德國(guó)、法國(guó)和英國(guó)，接納大規(guī)模移民已經(jīng)有50年之久。雖然十幾年來(lái)，現(xiàn)代歐洲社會(huì)移民特征已經(jīng)被接受，2015年尋求居住權(quán)的人卻激增，這部分歸因于敘利亞的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。移民數(shù)量的驟增引起了一些歐洲國(guó)家政治上的困境。

The American Dream is the national ethos of the United States. Put simply, it is the idea that America is a land of opportunity, where hard work will allow a person to experience prosperity and success. Belief in social and economic mobility, that Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has been called a "civil religion". Famous instances of great economic and social mobility include Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford. Additional popular examples of upward social mobility between generations in America include Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, who were born into working-class families yet achieved high political office in adult life. Opinion polls show that this belief is stronger in the US than in years past, and stronger than in other developed countries. However, in recent years several large studies have found that vertical intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than in comparable countries. A 2013 Brookings Institution study found income inequality was becoming more permanent, sharply reducing social mobility. A large academic study released in 2014 found income mobility had not changed appreciably in the last 20 years.

美國(guó)夢(mèng)是美國(guó)民族精神的體現(xiàn)。簡(jiǎn)而言之，其觀念就是美國(guó)是一個(gè)充滿機(jī)會(huì)的地方；在那里，只要肯努力奮斗，就能獲得富裕、成功。這種對(duì)改善社會(huì)地位和經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況的信仰，即美國(guó)人可以從卑微的窮人變?yōu)楦蝗说男叛觯恢北环Q為"國(guó)民宗教"。在經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況和社會(huì)地位上獲得巨大提升的著名案例包括本杰明?富蘭克林和亨利?福特。其他從父輩到子輩就實(shí)現(xiàn)從美國(guó)下層社會(huì)躋身上流社會(huì)的最為人津津樂(lè)道的例子是亞伯拉罕?林肯和比爾?克林頓。他們雖然出身于工人階級(jí)家庭，卻在成年之后當(dāng)上了高官。民意測(cè)驗(yàn)表明，現(xiàn)在美國(guó)人的這個(gè)信念比以往任何時(shí)候都強(qiáng)，比其他任何發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的都強(qiáng)。但是，近年來(lái)，幾項(xiàng)大型的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，與同類國(guó)家相比，美國(guó)的垂直代際社會(huì)流動(dòng)性降低。2013 年，布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，收入的不平等正變得更加固定，從而大大降低了社會(huì)流動(dòng)性。2014年發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)大型學(xué)術(shù)研究的結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)在過(guò)去的20年里，收入的流動(dòng)性沒有發(fā)生顯著的變化。

女性是勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)的重要組成部分。但是當(dāng)前勞動(dòng)就業(yè)中的性別歧視仍然存在，這與我國(guó)構(gòu)建和諧社會(huì)的要求背道而馳。就勞動(dòng)者而言，不能人盡其才，不僅造成人力資本投資的浪費(fèi)，還會(huì)使她們對(duì)社會(huì)公正產(chǎn)生懷疑；就用人單位而言，性別歧視不僅破壞人才選拔的程序，造成人才浪費(fèi)，也會(huì)不利于人們正確理解何為正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的市場(chǎng)；就社會(huì)而言，性別歧視不僅干擾人力資源的正常流動(dòng)，還會(huì)破壞就業(yè)市場(chǎng)的公平環(huán)境。

Women are an important part of the labour force. But gender discrimination in the job market still exists, and serves as a counterforce to the building of a harmonious society. As far as employees are concerned, jobs that do not suit their talents will not only give rise to a waste of the investment in human capital, but also cause them to lose faith in social justice. As for employers, gender discrimination will not only disrupt the process of selecting talent, and thus waste talent, but will also harm the perception of a properly functioning market. On the level of society, gender discrimination will set an obstacle to the proper distribution of human resources, and damage a fair environment in the job market.