期待另一个郭宝崑

When French Philosopher and writer Sartre Jean-Paul died in 1980, tens of thousands of people, many of whom were just ordinary Parisians, showed up to bid a final farewell to him.

　　They knew who Sartre Jean-Paul was and understood what France had lost.

　　When dramatist Kuo Pao Kun died on Sept 10, friends who were close to him turned their grief into touching words to remember him and tributes poured in from many places.

　　But who can truly give an accurate account of the spiritual journey of Kuo Pao Kun, and the value of the thoughts and cultural legacy that he left behind for Singapore and the world？ Or, in short, tell Singaporeans who Kuo Pao Kun really was？

　　In a sense, Chinese intellectuals in Singapore with whom Kuo Pao Kun shared the same fate in the early years are best-placed to do so. However, after they were beaten and their intellectual and ideological struggles were shattered, many of Kuo Pao Kun's contemporaries either retreated into oblivion or channelled their energy into making money and achieving fame.

　　What process of reflection did Kuo Pao Kun go through to make him cut the umbilical cord and rise from the ashes？ Where did he get his new source of mental strength to set off again all alone？ How did he raise the old struggle into the pursuit of a new ideal that transcends ideology？

　　Kuo Pao Kun was an artist blessed with the qualities of a thinker. Every piece of his work, never mind if it was successful or otherwise, was an intellectual challenge and an expression of his experience with life. His foresight was manifested in many initiatives to boost the growth of culture, such as bringing in new forms of theatre, directing a foreign production, seeking and promoting the formation of a global Chinese theatre circle and establishing unique theatre training and research courses.

　　If we do not have a good grasp of his life as an artist, the reasons for his choices, or the language of art which is the premise of his works, how can we feel close to, and benefit from, a cultural soul that has so much to offer？

　　Kuo Pao Kun was the first master dramatist in Singapore's history. What Singapore has lost, however, is not only an accomplished artist, but also a rare intellectual who believed in humanity.

　　Said Chinese scholar Chen Sihe： “The spirit of humanity can only grow in dialogue or even in disagreement with the times. Any so-called academic pursuit that is detached from the times will be reduced to mere technical research activities.”

　　Added scholar Zhu Xueqin： “Scholars who seek only answers for the past are, well, just scholars, only scholars who insist on seeking answers for the here and now are truly scholars with a sense of humanity.”

　　Kuo Pao Kun could have opted to rest comfortably on a bed, but he chose to stand. To stand tall in a society where many are obsessed with a comfortable life and pleasure-seeking is tougher than in a land where people are suffering. While there are many “soulless” people here, Kuo Pao Kun stuck stubbornly to his humanistic ideals and was always questioning and seeking “answers for the here and now”。 His last play, Aesop Queried speaks volumes about this persistence to “query” which has made his life shine.

　　What was Kuo Pao Kun's query and what was his answer？ If even the intellectuals today are unable or unwilling to recognise his many contributions, how can we blame the man in the street for being ignorant？ How can we pin our hopes on the next generation to know Kuo Pao Kun as a gem and to carry on his spirit？

　　What great humanists need most are not honours and accolades but being understood by the people. Outstanding people like the Russians have nurtured spiritual giants such as Chernyshevsky NG and Herzen Aleksandr who drew their strength from the humanistic ideals and conscience of the entire people. The two were fortunate.

　　Was Kuo Pao Kun ever as fortunate？

　　When Hongkongers ask： “Why isn't there a Kuo Pao Kun in Hongkong？” Singaporeans are wondering： “Will Singapore have another Kuo Pao Kun？”

　　But if we are not even ready to probe deeper for an understanding of Kuo Pao Kun's spiritual resources, cognitive ability and moral courage, do we deserve another Kuo Pao Kun？

　　（The writer is an Executive Sub-editor of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh）

　　1980年哲学家／文学家萨特辞世,几万人上街为他送葬。其中大部分是普通的巴黎市民。

　　巴黎人知道萨特是谁,故而懂得法国失去了什么。

　　2002年9月10日郭宝崑走了。他周围的人们写下许多感性的文字,一顶顶桂冠也从四方接踵而来。然而,有谁能真正描述郭宝崑的精神历程和他的思想、艺术遗产对这片土地这个世界的价值,告诉新加坡人：他——到底是谁？

　　从某种意义上来说,最有资格描述郭宝崑的,是新加坡的华文知识分子。因为郭宝崑曾和他同代的华文知识分子共命运。然而,当这一代华文知识分子的精神追求随着意识形态的破灭而破灭,当他的同道们在遭受摧残后成批地消沉退隐,或转身投向名利场,郭宝崑经历了一个怎样的内省过程,他如何咬断脐带浴火重生？

　　只身上路重新出发的郭宝崑,又从哪里获得新的精神资源,将当年的精神追求升华为超意识形态的追求,走出另一种理想主义的价值取向？

　　郭宝崑是一个有思想家气质的艺术家。无论成功与否,他创作每一部作品,都是一次思想阵痛,都是他作为思想者的生命体验；从引进新的戏剧流派,导演一部部外国剧作,到寻找和推动世界华语戏剧圈的形成,建立独特的剧场训练与研究课程,他的每一次具前瞻性的实践,都是一个自觉的文化行为；不透彻地了解他的艺术人生,了解他那些选择的动机,甚至,不懂得构成他的作品的艺术语汇符码,又怎么去贴近一个丰富的文化灵魂？

　　郭宝崑是新加坡有史以来第一位戏剧大家。但新加坡失去的,不仅是一个杰出艺术家,也是在新加坡很稀有的人文知识分子。中国学者陈思和说,人文精神只能在与时代的对话甚至龃龉中产生,脱离了与时代气脉的融汇,所谓学术只能是一种技术性而不是人文性的研究活动。

　　另一位学者朱学勤则认为：“只愿意回答过去,是学者,但不是人文学者,只有始终回答今天的学者,才称得上是人文学者。”

　　郭宝崑本来有舒服的床可以躺着,他选择了站着。在安逸享乐的社会里站着,比在苦难的大地上站立更难。这个城市的现实里多的是灵魂放假的人,执著地坚持人文知识分子理想的郭宝崑,却始终在质疑和“回答今天”。他最后策划演出的那部戏叫作《伊索质疑》是意味深长的——贯穿他一生的亮色,就是“质疑”。

　　郭宝崑质疑了什么,又回答了什么？如果连今天的知识分子都不能或不愿正视郭宝崑的价值,怎能抱怨老百姓浑浑沌沌？怎能指望下一代人认识新加坡的这块瑰宝,延续他的精神？

　　精神伟人最需要的,并非世俗的功德圆满,而是被人民所理解。优秀民族如俄罗斯民族,曾哺育了车尔尼雪夫斯基、赫尔岑那样的精神巨人,他们的力量来自全体人民的人文理想和整个民族的历史良知。他们是幸福的。

　　郭宝崑曾得到这样的幸运吗？

　　当香港人叩问：“香港为什么没有一个郭宝崑？”时,这里也有人在憧憬：“新加坡会不会再有一个郭宝崑？”

　　但如果我们连深层地追索郭宝崑的精神资源、认识能力和道德勇气都缺乏的话,又岂有理由期待另一个郭宝崑的出现？

　　。作者是本报执行级编辑