Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected

Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 25, 2014

Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out. Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.

Full text below: 
 
The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out.

The Sunflower Student Movement highlighted the creativity and vitality of young people. They set up a live webcams at the protest sites. They used a variety of Internet tools to promote their beliefs. They used a variety of images, catchphrases, and sketches to incite passions and influence public perceptions. They initiated discussions debating the future of the movement and the nation. During the "da cang hua forum" that took place near the end of the student movement, young people engaged in untrammeled challenges to authority.

From one perspective, the Sunflower Student Movement's freedom and lack of restraint was a positive influence on Taiwan society. Chinese society has long been conservative, with a intense patriarchal flavor. Even after the transition to democracy on Taiwan, adult authority remains strong. During public debates and decision-making, people of different social status should be able to engage in dialogues among equals. But this remains more ideal than reality. The student movement challenged the authority of the "adult world." It transformed the STA, a boring trade issue. All of a sudden, government propaganda became the common concern of Everyman. Many more were able to join the debate and be heard. Despite numerous fallacies and prejudices, the student movemetn played a role in emancipating the public and challenging the government's long-held monopoly on political discourse. In this sense, the Sunflower Student Movement was both valuable and significant.

In fact, opposition to authority has long been the defining characteristic of student movements. During the previous century, China's May Fourth Movement opposed both foreign aggressors and domestic traitors. It was anti-imperialist, patriotic, and dedicated to saving the nation. The New Culture Movement was imbued with a strong anti-feudal, anti-traditional, anti-authoritarian flavor as well. Its animating spirit was "reevaluate all values."

During the 1960s, student movements in Europe and Japan were also imbued with a strong anti-authoritarian flavor. As pundits have noted, Western capitalist society underwent severe changes following World War II. Changes took place in the traditional family system, in ethics, and in value systems. Lifestyles and the educational system fell under the sway of bureaucrats and plutocrats. They even served the military-industrial complex. Young people felt alienated from the system. A new youth culture and identity arose. Rebeling against authority and against the establishment became part of the younger generation's collective identity. This expressed itself not just in the student movement, but in music, movies, and other aspects of life.

Such revolts against authority however, always have limits. No social system can avoid all authority. Otherwise it will have difficulty functioning. And if young people "revaluate all values" and do "whatever they damn well please," there will be serious consequences for youth, for the nation, and for society as a whole. That is not necessarily a positive development.

In fact, 140 years ago, Marxists and other anti-capitalists revolted against capitalist authority. They engaged in a major debate with anarchists, who advocated absolute freedom. Socialist theoretician Friedrich Engels discussed the issue at great length. Engels stated his position clearly. He said authority refers to the will of others, imposed on us. On the other hand, authority is a prerequisite to submission. Therefore we have a problem. Is there any social system that can do without such relationships? Can authority become something meaningless, that disappears?

The answer of course is no. Engels cited the example of railways and shipwrecks. He pointed out that for a railway to run smoothly, cooperation among countless people is essential. To avoid mishaps, cooperation must follow an exact timetable. This requires a will able to handle every problem, in charge of everything. In other words, a clear authority. When a shipwreck occurrs, during an emergency situation, to save lives, people must immediately obey the will of a sing person. This requires absolute authority.

The reason is simple. It has to do with life. Authority may sometimes be annoying, and freedom is of course appealing. But the answer lies in between. This is not a question of choosing A or B. Young people will soon be leaving the campus. They will soon be entering society. Young people may become part of a business. They may become part of the public sector. They may become SOHO types, or small business owners. As long as people need to engage in production, or engage in labor, they will not be able to do whatever they damn well please. They will have to abide by certain norms. These include the legal system and commercial contracts. They will have to subordinate themselves to this or that authority. Too much freedom and the first person hurt will not others, but those young people who reject all authority.

From the individual level to the national level, the autonomy and freedom of the ROC is everyones' goal. But deeper understanding, mastering the norms of international order and reality, are basic skills necessary to preserve a nation's freedom and undependence, In international relations, one can never do whatever one damn well pleases. Only a clear understanding of the international order and its limits, will enable one to maximize one's living space.

Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.

思想可以解放 權威不能全然否定
2014年04月25日中國時報

太陽花學運當然會是台灣歷史上一件大事，歷史會怎麼評價這場學運，其實還難論定，這場學運究竟帶給台灣社會哪些正面與負面的衝擊與刺激，也需要相當時間的觀察。

太陽花學運確實展現了年輕人的創意與活力，他們架起了網路現場實況轉播，他們善用各種網路工作宣揚理念，他們活用各種影像、詞語、繪畫來渲染情緒，影響社會大眾的視聽，他們發展各種討論，辯論運動和國家的未來，學運結束前後的「大腸花論壇」，也可以看到青年們百無禁忌、挑戰各種權威的自由與奔放。

從某個角度來說，太陽花學運展現的自由與奔放，對台灣社會有一定的正面作用，華人社會向來保守，有著濃厚的家父長制色彩，即使在台灣這個歷經民主化轉型的社會，「大人」的權威仍然相當強固，在公共事務的討論與決策上，不同社會位置的人相互「平等對話」始終還只是理想。學運學生以自己的強力行動，挑戰了「大人世界」的權威，讓服貿這種生冷的議題，一下子從政府高官上對下的「宣導」，轉變為庶民共同關心的話題，也讓更多民間的聲音能夠進入討論領域，即使中間存在許多謬誤與偏見，但是在一定程度上確實起到了「思想解放」的作用，甚至大大挑戰了政府、政黨長期壟斷的話語權，太陽花學運在這些方面，確實有其價值與意義。

其實，「反權威」可以說是歷來學生運動的基本性格。上個世紀中國的五四運動，就直接的起源而言，固然是「外抗強權、內除國賊」的反帝、愛國、救亡等訴求，但是其前後的新文化運動，卻有著濃烈的反封建、反傳統、反權威色彩，「重估一切價值」被認為是運動的核心精神。

1960年代從歐美到日本等地的學生運動，也有著強烈的「反權威」色彩，論者指出，由於第二次世界大戰後西方資本主義社會的劇烈變遷，傳統的家庭制度、倫理與價值觀、生活方式以及教育制度的官僚化、財閥化，甚至赤裸地為軍事工業綜合體服務，使得青年對體制感到疏離，逐漸形成新的青年文化與認同，反叛權威、反抗體制成了青年世代的集體認同，除了展現在學生運動上，更展現在音樂、電影、生活方式等各方面。

然而，這種對於「權威」的反抗，始終有其限度，而任何社會制度大概都無法避免存在某種程度的「權威」，否則就難以運行。而青年們如果從「重估一切價值」，走向了「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」，往往會產生極其嚴重的負面效應，對於青年、對於整個國家社會，都未必是正面而積極的。

其實，早在140多年前，當反抗「資本主義權威」的馬克思主義者和同樣反對資本主義，卻崇尚絕對自由的無政府主義者在進行大論辯時，社會主義的理論家恩格斯早就認真討論過這個問題了。恩格斯說得很清楚，如果「權威是指把別人的意志強加於我們；另一方面，權威又是以服從為前提的」，那麼，我們就面臨一個問題：有沒有任何社會制度中「可以不要這種關係」，「使這個權威成為沒有意義的東西而歸於消失呢」？

答案自然是否定的。恩格斯以鐵路和海難為例，他指出鐵路要運行順暢，「無數人的合作也是絕對必要的；為了避免不幸事故，這種合作必須依照準確規定的時間來進行」，這就需要「一個能處理一切所屬問題的起支配作用的意志」，也就是「表現得很明顯的權威」。至於船難發生時，「在危險關頭，要拯救大家的生命，所有的人就得立即絕對服從一個人的意志」，需要「最專斷的權威」。

道理很簡單，也很生活化。「權威」固然有時令人生厭，「自由」固然相當美好，但是在兩者之間，卻不是零和的二擇一的關係。青年們是要離開校園的，進入社會之後，不管青年們是進入企業、進入公部門，還是成為SOHO族、成為小老闆，只要人們需要從事生產、需要從事勞動，大概都很難真正做到「隨心所欲」，都要遵守一定的規範，不管是法律制度或者是商業契約，也就有服從某一些權威的需要。如果自由過了頭，最先受到傷害的，不是別人，正是那「反抗一切權威」的青年朋友。

再從個人層次衍生到國家層次，台灣的自主、自由當然是人人追求的目標，但是深切了解、掌握國際秩序的規範與現實，卻是國家得以維持某種程度自由、自主的基本功，在國際關係當中，從來沒有「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」這件事，只有認清國際秩序的限制所在，也才有爭取最大生存空間的可能。

追求個人自主和國家自主的青年人，不能不調整好「自由」與「權威」的關係，如此才真正是台灣之福。