千禧一代是怎樣改變了中東

It isn’t easy to track down a positive word about the Middle East these days. Then again, Juan Cole is not your typical observer. A professor of history at the University of Michigan, he is also a prolific and popular blogger on current affairs. An American, he spent part of his childhood in France and Ethiopia. A left-leaning idealist, he comes across as far more optimistic than the dour Occupy crowd. A cosmopolitan in constant touch with 20-somethings, he seems to be addressing boomers in his latest book, “The New Arabs,” which is replete with explanations that digital natives would never need. (Don’t know what the “meatspace” is? Read on.)

在如今，關於中東，你很難聽到什麼正面的說辭。此外，胡安·科爾(Juan Cole)可不是一般的觀察家。他是密歇根大學的歷史教授，也是既高產又受歡迎的時事博客寫手。他是美國人，但童年時期曾經在法國和埃塞俄比亞生活過。他是個左傾的理想主義者，比那些陰沉沉的“佔領者”們要樂觀得多。他是個世界主義者，還經常和20多歲的人打交道，他的新書《新阿拉伯人》(The New Arabs)中有很多註釋是數碼一代根本不需要的，所以更像是對嬰兒潮一代發表的講演——你不知道什麼叫“肉體空間”（meatspace，來自賽博朋克和科幻小說術語，指和“網絡世界”“虛擬世界”相對的“現實世界”——譯註）？接着往下讀。

“The New Arabs” chronicles the heart-stirring youth revolts in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Early on, Cole does some defying of his own. “The rise of the Internet,” he notes, “may not have been as central to these social movements as some Western press coverage assumed.”

《新阿拉伯人》按時間順序記載了發生在埃及、突尼斯和利比亞激動人心的青年反抗運動。一開始，科爾的觀點有些矛盾，“互聯網的崛起在這些社會運動中所起的作用，或許並不像某些西方媒體所報道的那樣重要，”他指出。

To be sure, Cole affirms that online networks dramatically amplified the reach and resonance of protesters’ demands for state accountability. Take the iconic story of Mohamed Bouazizi. Ripped off and slapped by a government employee, the young Tunisian self-immolated in front of his local city hall, igniting the first of the uprisings. Internet buzz propagated the myth that Bouazizi had graduated from college, making an educated underclass think of him as one of their own and thus take up his cause. In fact, because of poverty, Bouazizi had not even finished high school. Nor was his name Mohamed; it was Tarek. Ah, the baptismal power of social media.

科爾認爲，抗議者們要求政府更有責任感，而網絡也確實極大地擴展了他們的影響力，爲他們帶來更多共鳴。就拿已經成爲典型的穆罕默德·布瓦吉吉(Mohamed Bouazizi)的故事來說吧。這個突尼斯年輕人被政府官員敲詐和掌摑，於是在當地市政廳門前自焚，成爲起義的導火線。互聯網迅速放大了布瓦吉吉的神話，說他是大學畢業生，這會令一個受過教育的下層社會成員覺得他是自己人，想繼承他的事業。事實上，由於貧窮，布瓦吉吉連中學都沒念完。他的名字也不是穆罕默德，而是塔裏克(Tarek)。啊，這就是社交媒體的洗腦力量。

Still, the Internet is only one strand of a much broader web that Cole weaves. His is a huge challenge: to map the outbreaks of tumult that have crisscrossed Tunisia, Egypt and Libya over the past decade. Strikes, bread shortages, lack of water, inflation, unemployment — all on top of a generational thirst for personal autonomy and political liberty. It makes for chaotic reading. Policy wonks get their fill. The rest of us need patience.

不過，科爾編織了一張更大的網絡，互聯網只是其中一環。他的網絡是一個巨大的挑戰——要描繪出過去十年內突尼斯、埃及和利比亞爆發的各種騷亂。罷工、麪包短缺、缺水、通貨膨脹、失業——這一切都落在渴望個人自治與政治自由的一代人頭上。這些事件令這本書充滿混亂。熱衷政治的讀者會心滿意足，而其他讀者則需要耐心。

Yet Cole does eventually deliver. In a particularly vivid section, he describes the breath­taking pluralism of those who put themselves on the front lines to protect Egyptian demonstrators. Coptic Christian youths served as bodyguards for their Muslim peers. They knew that as Muslims prostrated during Friday prayer — the prelude to pouring into the streets — their bowed heads would invite attack. Soccer thugs found new purpose as bouncers around Tahrir Square. Muslim Brothers, too, shielded secular friends, especially on the day some jobless tour guides rode camels straight into crowds of activists.

但是科爾最終還是做到了。他描述了那些站在最前列去保護埃及抗議者的人們，這是激動人心的多元主義，這個部分也格外生動。埃及信奉基督教的年輕人爲他們的穆斯林夥伴充當保鏢，因爲他們知道穆斯林在週五要匍匐禮拜——這是他們走上街頭抗議的序曲——而穆斯林們都低着頭，軍警會攻擊他們。足球流氓們有了新的的活動：在塔里爾廣場附近保護抗議者。穆斯林兄弟會也去保護他們世俗的朋友，特別是在有些失去工作的導遊騎着駱駝徑直衝進行動分子人羣的那一天。

The book hits its stride in Libya. Catching revolution fever after Tunisia and Egypt, young Libyans took advantage of the world’s eyeballs. Their online savvy combined with old-fashioned lobbying to secure a no-fly zone above Libya. When one of Qaddafi’s sons shut down Internet access, he was outwitted: Using their cellphones, dissenters called a special number that automatically turned their voice mail messages into tweets.

這本書對利比亞的報道也很精彩。年輕的利比亞人目睹了突尼斯與埃及的革命狂熱，也想趁機利用世界的關注。他們把網絡智慧和老式的議會遊說結合起來，保證利比亞上空有了禁飛區。卡扎菲的一個兒子關閉了互聯網，但他被人們的智慧擊敗了。不同政見者們用手機撥打一個特殊的號碼，可以自動把他們的語音信息傳到Twitter上去。

Ultimately, though, it was rebels in the fields, factories and alleys who kept Qad­dafi and his gang on the run. Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting, stopped nothing. Sunset marked an opportunity to refuel with food and arms. Dusk prayers served “as a signal to begin the uprising,” even among those who were secretly fighting to separate mosque and state.

但最後，還是發生在農田、工廠與小巷中的抗議行動導致了卡扎菲和同黨的下臺。穆斯林的齋月也沒有導致事態停止。日落後，人們就有機會補充食物和武器。晚禱成了“起義的信號”，甚至那些密謀讓伊斯蘭教與政府分離的人們也遵守這個信號。

For all of the “liking” and “sharing,” Cole shows that the revolution’s most important triumphs took place in the sphere of physical effort — the “meatspace.”

至於社交網絡上那些“贊”和“分享”，科爾的書表明，革命最重要的勝利都是現實社會中的努力所帶來的——也就是我們前面所說的“肉體空間”。

But to what end? Is the Middle East truly transforming? Tunisia offers a clue. In the wake of the uprisings, “over a hundred new political parties had been founded.” By contrast, the previous regime “allowed only eight.” And those parties will be busy. A “celebrated” Tunisian rapper supports Shariah law. A “prominent intellectual” scorns Shariah as the product of Judaism and therefore a travesty. Above all, a teacher observes, “Now we have to learn democracy.”

但是勝利到什麼程度呢？中東真的改頭換面了嗎？突尼斯的情況可以提供線索。起義之後，“成立了100多個新政黨”。相反，之前的政權“只允許八個政黨存在”。這些政黨將會很忙。一個“有名的”突尼斯說唱歌手支持伊斯蘭教法。一個“著名知識分子”鄙視伊斯蘭教法，稱其是猶太教的產物，是拙劣的模仿品。一個教師指出：“現在我們必須學習民主。”

Unorthodox wisdom for an era in thrall to instant gratification.

對於一個受困於當下滿足感的時代來說，這堪稱異端的智慧。