上回說到Said寫來讀來敵愾同仇的知識份子論，今回來個反高潮。
上周帶學生導修課，讀了一篇猛力批判小資產階級的文章(Mike Featherstone, “Lifestyle and Consumer Culture”, in Consumer Culture and Postmodern, Sage, pp. 83- 94)，概念主要來自Pierre Bourdieu論文化資產。這下子正中下懷，像我這樣的一個小資，以知識沽名釣譽、出賣色相─美其名雅俗共賞、獨立精神。
“petit bourgeois as ‘a proletarian who makes himself small to become a bourgeois’ Typically they invest in cultural and educational capital. The new petite bourgeoisie stands apart from the old petit bourgeoisie and the working classes in its attraction for the most naïve aristocratic qualities…” p.90)
小資的銀行戶口「無產」(更甚者是負資產)，在社會階梯比上不足比下有餘，所以是命中註定是「周身唔自在」的流動人口，「健動」只是貪好聽。
尤其像我這些在院校教散課的「文化人」，(為資本主義社會的「自我增值論」推波動瀾)、在報刊撰寫放在lifestyle版面的文化/藝術評論、又搞創作─說穿了即是黃婆賣瓜：
[…] the concern for style and individuality itself reflect more the predispositions of a particular class fraction concerned with legitimating its own particular constellation of tastes as the tastes of the social, rather than the actual social itself. […] class fractions struggle and compete to impose their own particular tastes as the legitimate tastes… (p.87)
雖然在學生面前，偶而也會以本傷人 (文化資本cultural capital)─會告戒學生，《牡丹亭》不是酒樓、曹雪芹不是港姐─來確立自己的發言權(‘convertible into social power, independent of income or money’ p.89)。但一邊在堂上演說，一邊望着學生身上的三角雞牌書包與波鞋，學生身上穿載的總值，與自己的衣服鞋襪總值(Milk最常做的專題)成為鮮明對比，便知道文化資本如何掩藏社會真實性。所以在課堂上，也寧願妄自菲薄，而少有自高健動身價。
[...cultural goods functions as a marker of class…] the intermediary positions have a definitive role in producing the relational set of taste choices of particular groups. It also provides a static account which masks the relational dynamics of the field in which the introduction of new tastes, or inflation, results when lower groups emulate or usurp the tastes of higher groups, causing the latter to respond by adopting new tastes of higher groups, and maintain the original distance. (p. 88)
小資是「中間人」(the cultural intermediaries p.90)，拉上補下，然後又保持距離，從中取利(聲譽、稿費、作品銷售與票房)。這在藝評行業裡，另一位作者James Elkins (What Happened to Art Criticism, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003)，有更細緻的分析及深刻的反省。更有趣的是「中間人」既要扮高深，但係又怕人地唔識貨。我係屋邨長大既藝術家。沒有離家出走的悲壯故事，相反全屋都好支持我讀藝術。至有一次家母看我的劇場表演─她的觀後感係「都幾得意」。之後便越來越少請她看我的作品。當然我也有被她「大」到的時侯，例如二王與邦子應該點樣唱。話不投機定親疏，是健動的效果。
The intellectuals are forced to enter the new game, to adopt strategies which popularize and interpret text, styles, practices in the popular media in order to seek to maintain or re-establish some semblance of their former monopoly of cultural authority […] we should note the emergence of the celebrity-intellectuals who carry out this very process but in doing so undermine their closed, sacred authority by venturing into popularization. (p.93)
例今日成為書店講座的台上客，之前不無矛盾。自從離開學院以後，一直都是做散工/義工。兩個碩士學位，只夠在各大專教散課，自知與教席無緣─一年多前，某學部主事人看着我的履歷說「這個申請者好像太過前衛！」
An approach to life which is characterized by a ‘why can’t I have my cake and eat it’ attitude quests for both security and adventure. (p. 93)
哈哈！健動份子要埋街食井水，睇怕要留翻長d頭髮。所以「健動身份」說來真失禮，其實是自嘲多於自吹自擂。健動是現實迫成不是職業理想。去年帶課，講Richard Florida的 The Rise of the Creative Class ，遊戲時工作、工作時遊戲的所謂「創意新貴」一邊講一邊覺得自己在講大話，情況跟政府呢兩年講創意工業相差無幾─都是疑心妄想！
所以今日決定黎書店自報家門，唔上教壇上講壇，是再一正的健動條正。
講到咁灰，其實我都仲好有理想，不過且待下回分解！
下回：動極思靜─
友人周保松與他的學生盧浩、年青教師與學生對話的沉實(400多頁11 font橫排的大部頭，等如多少個不眠不休的晚上？)，實在使我感動，也使我自慚形穢。