资本主义vs正念修行
Is the practice of mindfulness and meditation compatible with the cut-throat ethos of capitalism? This is the dilemma at the heart of David Gelles’s intriguing, timely, and enjoyable new book, a fascinating account of the increasing adoption of these ancient oriental disciplines by western businesses as means of improving corporate efficiency, reducing employee stress, and, directly or indirectly, boosting the bottom line.
Gelles is a reporter for the New York Times and former Financial Times journalist who is also a long-time practitioner of mindfulness meditation — “the ability to see what is going on in our heads, without getting carried away with it”. It is a useful combination: he has both an initiate’s appreciation of how meditation works, and a journalist’s objectivity and ability to tell a story.
盖利斯现在是《纽约时报》(New York Times)记者，以前曾任英国《金融时报》记者，他本人长期修行正念冥想——“一种能看清我们脑中所想、而不会走火入魔的能力”。他身上是一种有价值的组合：作为修行者，他知道冥想是怎么回事；而作为记者，他能够客观地观察，并且能讲好一个故事。In a potted history of mindfulness in the US, Henry David Thoreau gets Gelles’s vote as the earliest New World proponent and an inspiration for the Beat generation Dharma bums Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg. More recently, Jon Kabat-Zinn, a molecular biologist who pioneered mindfulness based stress reduction at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, takes centre stage. His willingness to downplay the spiritual side of meditation, Gelles argues, helped make mindfulness acceptable to mainstream science and medicine.
在简要叙述正念在美国的历史时，盖利斯将亨利•戴维•梭罗(Henry David Thoreau)封为美洲新大陆最早提倡正念的人，称梭罗启迪了垮掉的一代的两位代表人物——达摩流浪者(Dharma bums)杰克•凯鲁亚克(Jack Kerouac)和艾伦•金斯伯格(Allen Ginsberg)。当代以来，唱主角的则是分子生物学家乔恩•卡巴特-津恩(Jon Kabat-Zinn)，他在麻省大学医学院(University of Massachusetts Medical School)率先推行基于正念的减压疗法。盖利斯认为，卡巴特-津恩主动淡化冥想的精神方面，有助于主流科学和医学界接受正念。
The core of the book concerns the adoption of mindfulness by corporate America. Using expertly crafted anecdotes and case studies, Gelles illustrates the benefits of meditation that companies from General Mills to Aetna are seeking to harness. Arianna Huffington sums up the rationale for all this corporate interest: “Stress reduction and mindfulness don’t just make us happier and healthier, they’re a proven competitive advantage for any business that wants one.”
这本书的核心关注点是美国企业界对正念的采纳。盖利斯用构思精巧的小故事和案例，阐明了冥想的种种好处，这些好处是从通用磨坊(General Mills)到安泰保险(Aetna)的许多企业都希望利用的。阿里安娜•赫芬顿(Arianna Huffington)将企业界对正念产生浓厚兴趣的原因总结为：“减轻压力和正念不仅会让我们变得更快乐、更健康，对任何缺乏这种优势的企业而言，它们还是一种已得到验证的竞争优势。”The data seem to bear this out. Aetna employees who took a Mindfulness at Work course saw their healthcare costs fall by $2,000 a year relative to a control group. On an Orwellian note, it also improved their productivity, “resulting in more than an hour’s gain in work time per employee per week”.
数据看上去也证明了这一点。安泰保险公司参加了《工作中的正念》课程的员工，一年的医疗费用相对于一个对照组减少了2000美元。一个奥威尔式的结论是，课程还提高了这些员工的生产效率，“相当于让每个员工每周的工作时间增加了一个多小时”。But is it not the case that the more one practices mindfulness, the less interest one has in competition, profit, and all the other commercial imperatives that underpin capitalism? Is mindfulness really a neutral instrument that can be used for any end — or is it inextricably bound up with the elimination of selfishness, the cultivation of compassion and the rejection of materialism? And might not promoting mindfulness among one’s employees be a bit risky as a result — because if one succeeds, they might stop bothering with anything so trivial as profits?
不过，一个人越是修行正念，难道不会越是对竞争、利润、以及所有其他支撑起资本主义的商业要素不感兴趣吗？正念真的是一种中立工具、能够服务于任何目的，还是一种与消除自私、培养同理心、以及拒绝物质主义无可救药地捆绑在一起的东西？假如是后一种情况，那么企业家在员工中推广正念岂不是有些危险（因为假如他成功了的话，他的员工们可能就不再在意利润这么微不足道的东西了）？Gelles does not dodge this central question — indeed he devotes a whole chapter to it — but he does not resolve it either. The most revealing answer comes from the chief executive of Prana, one of the “mindful” businesses he visits. Challenged by Gelles on his claim to combine compassion with capitalism, Scott Kerslake responds: “We’re still crappy at this. But we’re less crappy than a lot of people.”
盖利斯并没有回避这个核心问题，事实上，他拿出了整整一章来写它，但他还是没能解决这个问题。Prana是他走访的其中一家推行正念的企业，该公司首席执行官斯科特•克斯莱克(Scott Kerslake)的回答是最能说明问题的。克斯莱克宣称要将同理心与资本主义结合在一起，面对盖利斯对此的疑问，克斯莱克回答说：“我们仍然做得很糟。不过我们比其他许多人还是要强一些。”
