I believe that there are new, hidden tensions that are actually happening between people and institutions -- institutions that are the institutions that people inhabit in their daily life: schools, hospitals, workplaces, factories, offices, etc.
我相信在人們和各種機構之間, 目前正存在著一些新的、不為人知的緊張關係-- 這些機構就是人們 平常會待的場所,像是: 學校、醫院、工作場所、 工廠、辦公室等等。
And something that I see happening is something that I would like to call a sort of "democratization of intimacy." And what do I mean by that? I mean that what people are doing is, in fact, they are sort of, with their communication channels, they are breaking an imposed isolation that these institutions are imposing on them.
我看到一些正在發生的事情, 我會把那些事情稱之為 「親密關係的民主化」。 這是什麼意思呢? 我是說,人們在做的, 實際上是利用他們自己的溝通管道, 來打破這些機構 強加於他們身上的隔離與孤立。
How are they doing this? They're doing it in a very simple way, by calling their mom from work, by IMing from their office to their friends, by texting under the desk. The pictures that you're seeing behind me are people that I visited in the last few months. And I asked them to come along with the person they communicate with most. And somebody brought a boyfriend, somebody a father. One young woman brought her grandfather. For 20 years, I've been looking at how people use channels such as email, the mobile phone, texting, etc. What we're actually going to see is that, fundamentally, people are communicating on a regular basis with five, six, seven of their most intimate sphere.
他們是如何做到的呢?非常簡單, 工作的時候打個電話給媽媽、 從辦公室裡發即時訊息給朋友們、 在桌子底下發簡訊。 你在我身後看到的照片, 是我過去幾個月所採訪的人。 我請他們說出一個他們最常溝通的人, 有些人說是男朋友,有些人說是父親, 有位年輕的女士說是她的祖父。 20年來,我一直在探討人們 如何使用像是電子郵件、手機及簡訊等溝通管道。 實際上我們將要看到的是,基本上, 人們會定期 與自己最親密的五、六或七個人溝通。
Now, lets take some data. Facebook. Recently some sociologists from Facebook -- Facebook is the channel that you would expect is the most enlargening of all channels. And an average user, said Cameron Marlow, from Facebook, has about 120 friends. But he actually talks to, has two-way exchanges with, about four to six people on a regular base, depending on his gender. Academic research on instant messaging also shows 100 people on buddy lists, but fundamentally people chat with two, three, four -- anyway, less than five. My own research on cellphones and voice calls shows that 80 percent of the calls are actually made to four people. 80 percent. And when you go to Skype, it's down to two people. A lot of sociologists actually are quite disappointed. I mean, I've been a bit disappointed sometimes when I saw this data and all this deployment, just for five people. And some sociologists actually feel that it's a closure, it's a cocooning, that we're disengaging from the public. And I would actually, I would like to show you that if we actually look at who is doing it, and from where they're doing it, actually there is an incredible social transformation.
現在舉一些數據做例子--臉書網站-- 最近,一些來自臉書網站的社會學家- 臉書網站是所有溝通管道中 擴展最迅速的一個。 一位普通用戶 卡梅隆.馬洛說, 在臉書網站上,他大約有120名朋友。 但是他實際上有交談、 並定期互動的只有4個到6個朋友, 要看對方的性別來決定。 對即時訊息的學術研究, 也顯示有100個好友的人, 實際上只會和其中兩個、三個、或四個人聊天, 反正人數不超過五個。 我自己針對手機和網路電話的研究, 則顯示百分之八十的電話, 實際上只集中打給四個人。百分之八十。 如果只針對Skype網路電話的話,人數則下降到只剩二個人。 實際上很多社會學家很失望, 我的意思是,我有時也有點失望, 尤其是當我看到這些數據和我為研究投入的心血時,只有五個人耶... 實際上有些社會學家則認為, 這就是封閉,就像是在一個繭裡, 這是在逃避人群。 事實上,我想告訴你們, 如果我們認真觀察是誰在做這件事, 又是從什麼地方做這件事, 你就會發現一個難以置信的社會變化。
There are three stories that I think are quite good examples. The first gentleman, he's a baker. And so he starts working every morning at four o'clock in the morning. And around eight o'clock he sort of sneaks away from his oven, cleans his hands from the flour and calls his wife. He just wants to wish her a good day, because that's the start of her day. And I've heard this story a number of times. A young factory worker who works night shifts, who manages to sneak away from the factory floor, where there is CCTV by the way, and find a corner, where at 11 o'clock at night he can call his girlfriend and just say goodnight. Or a mother who, at four o'clock, suddenly manages to find a corner in the toilet to check that her children are safely home.
我想到3個故事,可以當成很好的例子。 首先是一位男士,他是個麵包師父。 他每天早上4點鐘開始工作, 到大約 8點鐘的時候,他就偷偷地離開烤箱, 洗去手上的麵粉, 打電話給他的妻子。 他只是想問候一下他的妻子,因為妻子剛剛起床。 下面這個故事,我已經聽了好幾遍了。 一位年輕的夜班工人, 他偷偷地離開工廠, 因為有監視器, 所以他找了個角落,然後在11點的時候 打個電話給他的女朋友,只為了說聲晚安。 還有就是某個母親,在4點鐘的時候, 突然要在廁所裡找個角落, 以便察看她的孩子們是否安全在家。
Then there is another couple, there is a Brazilian couple. They've lived in Italy for a number of years. They Skype with their families a few times a week. But once a fortnight, they actually put the computer on their dining table, pull out the webcam and actually have dinner with their family in Sao Paulo. And they have a big event of it. And I heard this story the first time a couple of years ago from a very modest family of immigrants from Kosovo in Switzerland. They had set up a big screen in their living room, and every morning they had breakfast with their grandmother. But Danny Miller, who is a very good anthropologist who is working on Filipina migrant women who leave their children back in the Philippines, was telling me about how much parenting is going on through Skype, and how much these mothers are engaged with their children through Skype.
還有一對夫婦,巴西夫婦, 他們住在義大利好幾年了, 他們每週都會用Skype網路電話和他們的家人通話個幾次。 但是每兩個星期,他們要把電腦放在飯桌上, 打開網路攝影機,直接和他們 在聖保羅的家人共進晚餐,非常地隆重。 而我第一次聽說以下這個故事是在幾年前, 從一個非常有禮、從科索夫 移民到瑞士的家庭聽來的, 他們在客廳放了一個很大的螢幕, 每天早晨他們都跟祖母一起吃早餐。 但是丹尼.米勒,這一位很優秀的人類學家, 他研究的對象是從菲律賓移民過來的女性, 這些女性將自己的小孩留在菲律賓, 丹尼告訴我這些女性是如何透過Skype網路電話 來扮演母親的角色, 而這些母親又是如何以Skype網路電話與他們的孩子緊緊相連。
And then there is the third couple. They are two friends. They chat to each other every day, a few times a day actually. And finally, finally, they've managed to put instant messaging on their computers at work. And now, obviously, they have it open. Whenever they have a moment they chat to each other. And this is exactly what we've been seeing with teenagers and kids doing it in school, under the table, and texting under the table to their friends. So, none of these cases are unique. I mean, I could tell you hundreds of them.
下面第三位組是一對好朋友, 他們每天都要跟對方聊天,實際上是一天好幾次。 最後,他們決定 將即時通訊軟體裝在他們工作的電腦上, 而現在,很顯然的,他們一直保持在登入狀態, 只要他們一有空,就跟對方聊天。 這就跟我們看到學校裡的 青少年和孩子一樣,在桌子底下 發簡訊給自己的朋友。 這些例子沒有一個是特例。 我是說,我可以告訴你上百個這樣的案例,
But what is really exceptional is the setting. So, think of the three settings I've talked to you about: factory, migration, office. But it could be in a school, it could be an administration, it could be a hospital. Three settings that, if we just step back 15 years, if you just think back 15 years, when you clocked in, when you clocked in to an office, when you clocked in to a factory, there was no contact for the whole duration of the time, there was no contact with your private sphere. If you were lucky there was a public phone hanging in the corridor or somewhere. If you were in management, oh, that was a different story. Maybe you had a direct line. If you were not, you maybe had to go through an operator. But basically, when you walked into those buildings, the private sphere was left behind you.
唯一例外的只是場景不同而已。 想想我剛才講過的那三個場景: 工廠、移民、辦公室。 但是它也有可能發生在學校,也可能是公家單位, 也有可能在一個醫院。 這三種場景,如果我們到回15年前, 想想15年前, 當你打卡上班, 打卡進入辦公室, 打卡進入工廠, 在整個上班過程中,與外界根本沒有任何聯繫, 不能與自己私人的領域進行聯繫。 如果你幸運,在走廊或者什麼地方會有一部公共電話; 如果你在管理階層,哦,那又不同了。 你可能會有專線, 如果你沒有,或許就要透過總機撥接電話。 但是基本上,當你走進那些建築的時候, 你的私人生活就留在你身後了。
And this has become such a norm of our professional lives, such a norm and such an expectation. And it had nothing to do with technical capability. The phones were there. But the expectation was once you moved in there your commitment was fully to the task at hand, fully to the people around you. That was where the focus had to be. And this has become such a cultural norm that we actually school our children for them to be capable to do this cleavage. If you think nursery, kindergarten, first years of school are just dedicated to take away the children, to make them used to staying long hours away from their family.
這已經變成了專業人士的標準, 既是標準,也是期望, 但這卻跟專業能力沒有任何關係。 電話就在那裡,但是大家希望你一旦開始工作, 就要全力完成你手邊的工作, 並全力配合你周圍的人, 大家希望你能把注意力放在工作上。 而這也成了文化標準, 我們就是這樣教育我們的孩子,要有能力做出這樣的切割。 你想想托兒所、幼稚園、小學一年級, 都極力想把孩子帶走, 讓他們適應長時間地離開家庭。
And then the school enacts perfectly well. It mimics perfectly all the rituals that we will find in offices: rituals of entry, rituals of exit, the schedules, the uniforms in this country, things that identify you, team-building activities, team building that will allow you to basically be with a random group of kids, or a random group of people that you will have to be with for a number of time. And of course, the major thing: learn to pay attention, to concentrate and focus your attention. This only started about 150 years ago. It only started with the birth of modern bureaucracy, and of industrial revolution. When people basically had to go somewhere else to work and carry out the work. And when with modern bureaucracy there was a very rational approach, where there was a clear distinction between the private sphere and the public sphere.
學校建立了一個完美的制度, 完美的模擬了我們將來在辦公室的模式, 上班的模式、下班的模式、 作息時間、國家所制訂的各種制度、 辨識你身份的證件、團隊合作的活動等, 基本上團隊合作活動會讓你 和任何一組孩子,或任何一群人在一起, 並和他們相處一段時間。 當然的,主要的事情是: 學會專心、 專注、集中你的注意力。 這也不過是150年前才開始的, 它始於現代官僚主義和 工業革命的誕生, 從那時起,人人都要去別的地方工作 和執行任務。 伴隨著現代官僚主義興起的,則是一種理性的區分, 將個人的私人領域和公共領域 清楚地劃分開來。
So, until then, basically people were living on top of their trades. They were living on top of the land they were laboring. They were living on top of the workshops where they were working. And if you think, it's permeated our whole culture, even our cities. If you think of medieval cities, medieval cities the boroughs all have the names of the guilds and professions that lived there. Now we have sprawling residential suburbias that are well distinct from production areas and commercial areas.
所以,從那時起,人們的頭銜便以其所做的生意命名、 以其參與勞動的土地命名、 以其工作的工廠命名。 想一想,這完全滲入了我們的文化, 甚至我們的城市。 想一想,中世紀的城邦、各個行政區, 都有以設籍於該地的公會和職業來命名的例子。 現在我們有廣闊的郊區住宅, 和工業區及商業區 清楚地劃分開來。
And actually, over these 150 years, there has been a very clear class system that also has emerged. So the lower the status of the job and of the person carrying out, the more removed he would be from his personal sphere. People have taken this amazing possibility of actually being in contact all through the day or in all types of situations. And they are doing it massively. The Pew Institute, which produces good data on a regular basis on, for instance, in the States, says that -- and I think that this number is conservative -- 50 percent of anybody with email access at work is actually doing private email from his office. I really think that the number is conservative. In my own research, we saw that the peak for private email is actually 11 o'clock in the morning, whatever the country. 75 percent of people admit doing private conversations from work on their mobile phones. 100 percent are using text.
事實上,在過去的150多年中, 已經出現了一個明確的階級制度。 工作的層級愈低, 從事該項工作的人, 就愈得遠離他自己的私人領域。 人們驚訝地發現, 現在他們可以整天、不分場合地 和別人進行聯繫。 他們大量地進行聯繫。 皮尤研究所會定期發佈可信數據, 例如,他們的數據顯示,在美國-- 我認為這個數據是保守的-- 在工作中可以使用電子郵件的人,有百分之五十 都會從辦公室發送私人郵件。 我真的認為這個數據較保守。 根據我自己的研究,我們發現不論在哪個國家, 私人郵件在上午11點左右出現最多。 百分之七十五的人承認, 他們在工作的時候會用手機打私人電話, 百分之百的人會發簡訊。
The point is that this re-appropriation of the personal sphere is not terribly successful with all institutions. I'm always surprised the U.S. Army sociologists are discussing of the impact for instance, of soldiers in Iraq having daily contact with their families. But there are many institutions that are actually blocking this access. And every day, every single day, I read news that makes me cringe, like a $15 fine to kids in Texas, for using, every time they take out their mobile phone in school. Immediate dismissal to bus drivers in New York, if seen with a mobile phone in a hand. Companies blocking access to IM or to Facebook.
重點是,這種佔用工作時間處理私事的情形, 並不是任何機構裡的任何人都能做到。 我很驚訝美國軍方的 社會學家正在討論某些議題, 像是駐在伊拉克的士兵, 每天和家人聯繫會產生什麼影響。 但是有很多機構卻阻止這種聯繫。 每天,每一天, 我只要讀到這樣的新聞,都會讓我害怕, 例如在德州, 只要孩子在學校 拿出手機,就會被罰款15美金; 紐約的公車司機只要被發現拿著手機, 就會被立即解僱; 有的公司則截斷同仁使用即時通訊或臉書網站的權限。
Behind issues of security and safety, which have always been the arguments for social control, in fact what is going on is that these institutions are trying to decide who, in fact, has a right to self determine their attention, to decide, whether they should, or not, be isolated. And they are actually trying to block, in a certain sense, this movement of a greater possibility of intimacy.
在資訊安全和人身安全的背後, 大家總會針對社交掌控權進行爭論, 事實上, 這些機構正試著決定, 實際上到底是誰有權利決定自己該做什麼, 或決定是否應該將員工隔離起來。 在某種程度上,這些機構其實是要阻礙人們, 不讓人們彼此變得更為親密。