占領華爾街運動給商界的啟示

????如果你對參加占領華爾街運動（Occupy Wall Street）的人群，以及那些在“西雅圖之戰”中對抗世界貿易組織（WTO）的反全球化主義者抱有哪怕一丁點同情，你就會發現詹姆斯·C·斯科特的著作《為無政府主義喝兩聲彩》（Two Cheers for Anarchism?）對這些抗議者觀點的陳述遠比他們自己更加連貫。即使你認為他們不過是一群令人惡心、非常偽善的暴徒，你也依然會認真思考這本書的觀點。倘若你真的欽佩這些抗議者，那么你肯定會愛上這本書——它或許是常青藤聯盟（Ivy League）給予抗議活動最為深刻有力的支持。

????時而閃爍著洞察力，時而富有煽動性，間或又流露出一絲侮辱意味，斯科特以其特有的學術氣質陳述了一個觀點：技術官僚精英們不值得信任，不服從是一種應該倍加珍惜的美德。無需贅言的是，斯科特是耶魯大學（Yale University）斯特林講座政治學教授。

????“社區組織者”兼政治煽動家索爾·阿林斯基為激進分子制定了《反叛守則》（Rules for Radicals），斯科特則非常有效地為無政府主義者提供了一些警句。這本書講的是顛覆制度性權力。簡言之，斯科特是擁有終身教職席位的阿林斯基（美國激進主義政治家——譯注）。

????拜Facebook、Twitter等社交媒體所賜，個人不服從行為在全球范圍的蔓延為似乎根深蒂固的精英和潛在反叛者創造了一個“新常態”。這就是理解現代抵抗運動的學術（和反學術）基礎為何如此重要的原因所在，無論你掌管的是?？松梨诠荆‥xxon Mobil）、谷歌公司（Google），還是一個獨裁或極權國家。

????“我們對不服從行為非常感興趣，尤其是那些堪稱楷模、能夠引發連鎖反應、促使其他人競相模仿的不服從行為，”斯科特指出?！拔覀兯鎸Φ?，與其說是一種出于懦弱或良心（也許兩者兼而有之）的個人行為，倒不說是一種能夠產生巨大影響的社會現象。如果乘以數千倍，這種看似微小的拒絕行為最終或許會使將軍和國家首腦們構想的計劃淪為徹頭徹尾的笑話。但正如數以百萬計的珊瑚蟲息肉雜亂無章地形成一個珊瑚礁一樣，成千上萬個不服從和逃避行為也將創造出一個經濟或政治珊瑚礁?！?/p>

????Should you hold even the slightest sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the anti-globalists who took on the World Trade Organization in the "Battle in Seattle," you'll find that James C. Scott's?Two Cheers for Anarchism?makes their arguments far more coherently than they do. Even if you consider them obnoxious mobs of hypocritical hooligans, you'll still find yourself taking the book's arguments seriously. If you actually admire them, then you'll love this book; it's the most sophisticated Ivy League support you're likely to see.

????Alternately insightful, inciteful, and insulting, Scott makes an idiosyncratically intellectual case that technocratic elites aren't to be trusted, and insubordination is a virtue to be cherished. Needless to say, Scott is the Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale.

????Where "community organizer" cum political provocateur Saul Alinksy had his?Rules for Radicals, Scott effectively offers aphorisms for anarchists. This book is about the subversion of institutional power. In short, it's Alinsky with tenure.

????Thanks to Facebook, Twitter, et al, the global scalability of individual acts of insubordination creates a "new normal" for seemingly entrenched elites and potential rebels alike. That's why it's important to understand the intellectual -- and anti-intellectual -- underpinnings of modern resistance movements, whether you're running Exxon Mobil (XOM), Google (GOOG), Greenpeace, or an authoritarian/totalitarian state.

????"Acts of disobedience are of interest to us when they are exemplary, and especially when, as examples, they set off a chain reaction, prompting others to emulate them," Scott observes. "Then we are in the presence less of an individual act of cowardice or conscience -- perhaps both -- than of a social phenomenon that can have massive social effects. Multiplied many thousandfold, such petty acts of refusal may, in the end, make an utter shamble of the plans dreamed up by generals and heads of state ... But just as millions of anthozoan polyps create, willy-nilly, a coral reef, so do thousands upon thousands of acts of insubordination and evasion create an economic or political barrier reef of their own."