2024.12.28 何伟《江城》Peter Hessler’s “River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze”: 读这一本书，如同面对镜子观察自己，一开始是有点伤自尊的，因为何伟对小县城的人性微妙评价得一针见血。比方说，小县城里的人对外国人的好奇和抗拒，以及面对外国人对历史或者政治上的批评的沉默，都与我学生时代的记忆遥相呼应。何伟笔下那低垂的头和沉默不语的学生，也是曾经的我。我看到豆瓣上有些读者认为何伟的语调高高在上，甚至写得有些冒犯。但我不这么认为。我认为他写得十分克制，而且十分写实，把中国的百姓的复杂的心理写得面面俱到。如果说在第一部里还能看到他与涪陵的隔阂，那么在第二部里就能读出他对这个小小江城的理解和喜爱。除了写出了小城居民的性情外，他还描写了他去新疆的见闻和他对中国男女两性关系的理解，都令我印象深刻。我认为每一个中国人都应该读一读这本书，看看从一个外国人的角度，是如何看待我们的。我们接受的意识形态的教育，不应该僵化我们的思想，而更应该鼓足勇气来接受别人的评价和改进自己。
Reading this book feels like looking at myself in a mirror. At first, it’s a bit humbling because Hessler’s accurate observations about human nature in small Chinese towns hit close to home. For example, the mixture of curiosity and resistance toward foreigners, as well as the silence in response to the critiques of history or politics from foreigners, resonate deeply with my own memories from my old student days in China. The bowed heads and silent students Hessler describes were once a reflection of me.

I’ve noticed some readers on Douban (a Chinese version of Goodreads) feel that Hessler’s tone is condescending or even offensive at times, but I disagree. I find his writing to be restrained, realistic, and remarkably thorough in capturing the complexities of the psychology of ordinary Chinese people. If there is a sense of distance in the first part of the book, the second part reveals his growing understanding and affection for the small riverside city he writes about. Beyond portraying the character of small-town residents, Hessler also shares his experiences in Xinjiang and his insights on gender dynamics in China, which impressed me a lot.

I believe every Chinese person should read this book to see how we are perceived from a foreigner’s perspective. The ideological education we receive since we were born should not rigidify our thinking but instead encourage us to face critiques with courage and strive for self-improvement.

2025.07.16 福山《历史的终结及最后之人》Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man”: 这本书语言并不晦涩，但是读完花了我大半年的时间。老实说，我更喜欢此书的前、中部分，解释为什么独裁、专制体制最后可能被摧毁的原因，自由民主的优越性，资本主义与自由民主的相辅相成、历史的有方向性和自然科学的制约机制，以及人是由获得认可的欲望驱动的。我认为这些论述都非常有说服力，面面俱到，且由大量例子以便理解。但是我不同意本书的最后部分的我们现在处在历史的尽头的论述。如果说人是为了获得认可，并追求的是优越，那么尽管自由民主的资本主义国家提供了许多渠道去让人们在各个方面追求优越，使得欲望转变为更理性的形式，但这些优越，就像前半部分论证民族主义时所说的，不是完全的认可。既然有优越，就有一部分人是“主人”，另一部分是“奴隶”，永远有不平等，那么便没有真正的“普遍的认可”，也不会有定义里的“最后之人”，那种安全有保障、物质很丰裕，失去了劳动和斗阵必要的人。因此，就像福山强调的那样，自由民主并不是稳定的。

当然，福山的定义里，历史的终结意味着没有战争和血腥的革命。这个定义里不包括经济上的战争，比如贸易战之类的。按照这个定义，他说历史已经终结也可以理解。不同于福山的观点，我认为经济层面的战争也可以非常血腥，应该被包括在“历史的终点”的评判标准里。因此我认为说我们中的部分已经达到历史的终点的说法有些为时过早。就算我接受福山关于终点的定义，我认为很重要的强调虽然历史有方向性，但这并不代表历史是单方向的，它可前进、可倒退、可停滞。我想，这也是福山在这部书最后部分所想强调的。

This book is not obscure, but it still took me more than half a year to finish reading it. To be honest, I preferred the first and middle parts of the book, which explain why authoritarian and dictatorial regimes may eventually collapse, the superiority of liberal democracy, the complementary relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy, the directional nature of history and the constraining role of natural science, as well as the idea that humans are driven by the desire for recognition. I found these arguments highly persuasive, comprehensive, and supported by numerous examples that made them easy to understand.

However, I disagree with the book’s conclusion that we are now at the end of history. If humans are driven by the desire for recognition and seek superiority, then although capitalist liberal democracies offer many channels for individuals to pursue excellence in various aspects, e.g., transforming desire into more rational forms, this sense of superiority, as argued earlier in the discussion on nationalism, does not equate to full recognition. Where there is superiority, there will always be some who are “masters” and others who are “slaves,” which means inequality will persist. As a result, there can be no true “universal recognition” in every aspect of the society, nor will there ever be the so-called “last man” as defined (someone who is secure, materially abundant, and no longer needs to struggle or strive). Therefore, as Fukuyama himself emphasized, liberal democracy is not inherently stable.

In Fukuyama’s definition, the end of history means the absence of war and bloody revolution. This definition does not include economic conflicts, such as trade wars. From this perspective, it is understandable that he claims history has ended. However, unlike Fukuyama, I believe that economic wars can also be extremely brutal and should be included in the criteria for evaluating the “end of history.” Therefore, I think it is still too early to claim that some parts of the world have already reached the end of history. Even if I were to accept Fukuyama’s definition of the end, I think it is important to emphasize that while history may have a direction, this does not mean it is unidirectional, because it can move forward, backward, or stagnate. I believe this is also what Fukuyama sought to emphasize in the final part of the book.