“萌”力為何征服世界

By Simon May

In such uncertain and uneasy times， and with so much injustice， hate and intolerance threatening the world， dont we have more serious things to focus on than the escapades of that feline girl-figure Hello Kitty？1 Or Pokémon， the video-game franchise thats hot again in 2019 with a major US and UK film release for its rodenty detective Pikachu， its YouTube trailer notching up more than 65 million hits and counting.2 Why the proliferation of emojis？ Or the cute logos that adorn countless products， from computers and phones， to clothes and food； from childrens toys and calendars， to package bags and contact lenses？

“萌”物為我們煩悶壓抑的生活帶來了一絲甜蜜。但是，我們?yōu)楹纹珢邸懊取蔽?？難道只是為了逃避殘酷的現(xiàn)實(shí)世界？對(duì)此，有何進(jìn)化論方面的解釋？而在更廣泛的文化領(lǐng)域，“萌”又扮演著什么樣的角色？

The craze for all things cute is motivated， most obviously， by the urge to escape from precisely such a threatening world into a garden of innocence in which childlike qualities arouse deliciously protective feelings， and bestow contentment and solace. Cute cues include behaviours that appear helpless， harmless， charming and yielding， and anatomical features such as outsize heads， protruding foreheads，3 saucer-like eyes， retreating chins and clumsy gaits.

Perhaps， as the Austrian scholar of animal behaviour Konrad Lorenz suggested in 1943， our response to these sorts of cues evolved to motivate us to give our offspring the extensive care and nurture that they need to prosper. According to Lorenz， the same visual cues can arouse us to equally intense—or possibly more intense—caregiving when we encounter them in exaggerated and distilled form in animals， such as birds and puppies， and even in dummy models， such as dolls and teddy bears.

The social psychologists Gary Sherman and Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia go so far as to consider the cuteness response as a “moral emotion” par excellence： a “direct releaser of human sociality” that stimulates us to expand our circle of altruistic concern to an ever-wider social sphere.4

But if cuteness were merely about the charming， innocent and unthreatening， or if our attraction to it were motivated just by protective instincts， or the search for infantile and reassuring distractions from the anxieties of todays world， it wouldnt be so ubiquitous. Those qualities speak only of what we might call the“sweet” end of a whole spectrum of cuteness. As we move toward the “uncanny” end， sweet qualities get distorted into something darker， more indeterminate and more wounded. Something like Jeff Koonss Balloon Dog series （1994—2000）， which seems at once powerful （made of stainless steel） and powerless（hollow and lacking a face， mouth or eyes）. It is hulking5 yet vulnerable-seeming， familiar and also unfamiliar， reassuringly innocent and also unsafe， defective， knowing. It both comforts us in a world of unnerving uncertainty—and gives voice to that same world， but crucially in a lighthearted register.6

This faintly menacing subversion of boundaries—between the fragile and the resilient， the reassuring and the unsettling， the innocent and the knowing—when presented in cutes frivolous， teasing idiom，7 is central to its immense popularity.

Cute is above all a teasing expression of the unclarity， uncertainty， uncanniness and the continuous flux8 or “becoming” that our era detects at the heart of all existence， living and nonliving. In the ever-changing styles and objects that exemplify it， it is nothing if not transient， and it lacks any claim to lasting significance. Plus it exploits the way that indeterminacy， when pressed beyond a certain point， becomes menacing—which is a reality that cute is able to render beguiling precisely because it does so trivially，9 charmingly， unmenacingly. Cute expresses an intuition that life has no firm foundations， no enduring， stable “being”， and that， as the philosopher Martin Heidegger intimated，10 the only ground for life lies in the acceptance of its ungroundedness. And it often does so with something like the “artifice and exaggeration”， expressed in a manner that “dethrones the serious” or fails in its seriousness， that the cultural critic Susan Sontag attributed to camp.11

This “unpindownability”12， as we might call it， that pervades cute—the erosion of borders between what used to be seen as distinct or discontinuous realms， such as childhood and adulthood—is also reflected in the blurred gender of many cute objects such as Balloon Dog or a lot of Pokémon. It is reflected， too， in their frequent blending of human and nonhuman forms， as in the catgirl Hello Kitty. And in their often undefinable age. For though cute objects might appear childlike， it can be strikingly hard to say， as with ET， whether they are young or old—sometimes seeming to be， in human terms， both.

In such ways， cute is attuned to an era that is no longer so wedded to such hallowed dichotomies as masculine and feminine， sexual and nonsexual， adult and child， being and becoming， transient and eternal， body and soul， absolute and contingent， and even good and bad—dichotomies that once structured ideals but that are now taken to be more fluid or porous.13

Moreover， as a sensibility， cute is incompatible with the modern cult14 of sincerity and authenticity， which dates from the 18th century and assumes that each of us has an “inner” authentic self—or at least a set of beliefs， feelings， drives and tastes that uniquely identifies us， and that we can clearly grasp and know to be truthfully expressed. Cute has nothing to do with showing inwardness. In its more uncanny forms， at least， it steps entirely aside from our prevailing faith that we can know—and control—when we are being sincere and authentic.

Although attraction to such cute objects as the mouthless， fingerless Hello Kitty can express a desire for power， cuteness can also parody and subvert power by playing with the viewers sense of her own power， now painting her into a dominant pose， now sowing uncertainty about who is really in charge， now making her realise that the cute ones surrender is actually a way of entrapping her， now making demands for care or protection from her.

For this reason， cute is one—perhaps very trivial， very tentative—way of exploring whether and how the paradigm15 of power can be exited. Indeed， this might explain why cute has stormed popular culture in those parts of the world—notably the US， Europe and above all Japan—that since the Second World War have sought， intermittently16 and with many setbacks， to reduce the role of power in determining the structure of human relations and， most conspicuously， of international relations.

在這個(gè)充滿了不確定與不安的時(shí)代，有如此之多的不公、仇恨和偏狹威脅著世界，難道我們沒有什么更嚴(yán)肅的事情需要關(guān)注嗎？為什么大家要關(guān)注貓女孩Hello Kitty的大冒險(xiǎn)？又或者去關(guān)注神奇寶貝——這個(gè)電子游戲特許經(jīng)營(yíng)系列2019年因其在美英上映的電影《大偵探皮卡丘》又火了起來，電影在YouTube上的預(yù)告片點(diǎn)擊量超過6500萬次。為什么emoji表情符號(hào)會(huì)風(fēng)靡開來？又或者說，為什么裝飾了無數(shù)商品——從電腦、手機(jī)到衣服、食品，從兒童玩具、日歷到包裝袋、隱形眼鏡——的可愛商標(biāo)會(huì)廣受歡迎？

人們對(duì)所有“萌”物的狂熱，顯然是源于他們渴望從這樣一個(gè)充滿威脅的世界逃離到一個(gè)純真的花園，在那里孩子般的品質(zhì)喚起使人愉悅的保護(hù)感，并帶來滿足與慰藉。“萌”的信號(hào)包括看起來無助、無害、迷人和柔弱的行為，以及如超大的頭部、突出的額頭、碟子般的眼睛、向后削的下巴和笨拙的步態(tài)等身體結(jié)構(gòu)特征。

也許，正如奧地利動(dòng)物行為學(xué)家康拉德·洛倫茨在1943年提出的，我們對(duì)這些信號(hào)的反應(yīng)不斷演化，刺激我們?yōu)楹蟠峁┧麄兘】党砷L(zhǎng)所需要的廣泛的關(guān)愛與養(yǎng)育。按照洛倫茨的說法，當(dāng)我們?cè)趧?dòng)物（例如鳥類和小狗）甚至在假人模型（例如娃娃和泰迪熊）身上以夸張和純粹的形式遇到這些視覺信號(hào)時(shí)，它們可以喚起我們同樣強(qiáng)烈——或許更為強(qiáng)烈——的關(guān)愛之情。

弗吉尼亞大學(xué)的社會(huì)心理學(xué)家加里·舍曼和喬納森·海特甚至將人們對(duì)“萌”的反應(yīng)視為絕佳的“道德情感”：這是一種“人類社會(huì)性的直接釋放因素”，激勵(lì)我們將自己的利他主義關(guān)切擴(kuò)大至更廣泛的社會(huì)領(lǐng)域。

但是，如果“萌”只是關(guān)于迷人、無辜和沒有威脅，或者如果它對(duì)于我們的吸引力只是出于保護(hù)的本能，或是為了尋找嬰兒般的、令人安心的事物來分散當(dāng)今世界的焦慮，“萌”就不會(huì)如此普遍存在了。這些品質(zhì)僅僅體現(xiàn)了我們稱之為“萌”的“甜美”一端。當(dāng)我們走向“怪怖”的一端，甜美的品質(zhì)就會(huì)被扭曲成更黑暗、更不確定、更使人受傷的東西。像杰夫·孔斯的“氣球狗”系列（1994—2000），看起來很強(qiáng)大（由不銹鋼制成）卻又很弱?。招亩覜]有臉、嘴或眼睛）。它體型龐大而又看似脆弱，令人感到熟悉卻也不熟悉，有著令人放心的天真卻也不安全、有缺陷且精明世故。它既在一個(gè)令人不安、充滿不確定的世界中撫慰我們，同時(shí)也為這樣一個(gè)世界發(fā)聲，但重要的是，它在一個(gè)輕松愉快的語域中發(fā)聲。

這種對(duì)邊界略帶威脅性的顛覆——在脆弱與堅(jiān)韌之間，令人放心與令人不安之間，天真無辜與精明世故之間——以“萌”的那種輕浮、調(diào)侃的風(fēng)格呈現(xiàn)，是其大受歡迎的核心。

“萌”首先是對(duì)我們這個(gè)時(shí)代在一切存在（無論有生命的還是無生命的）的核心所探測(cè)到的不清楚、不確定、怪怖以及持續(xù)不斷的變動(dòng)或是“變化過程”的一種調(diào)侃似的表達(dá)。在呈現(xiàn)出“萌”的不斷變化的風(fēng)格與物品中，“萌”如果不是轉(zhuǎn)瞬即逝那就毫無意義，而且它也并不要求具有持久的意義。此外，“萌”還利用了這樣一點(diǎn)：不確定性一旦超過一定程度，就會(huì)變得具有威脅性——現(xiàn)實(shí)就是“萌”之所以迷人，正是因?yàn)樗且砸环N微不足道的、親切愉快的、沒有威脅的方式展現(xiàn)出魅力。“萌”表達(dá)了一種直覺，即生活沒有堅(jiān)實(shí)的根基，沒有持久、穩(wěn)定的“存在”，正如哲學(xué)家馬丁·海德格爾所表示的那樣，生命的唯一根基就在于接受生命無根基可依?！懊取苯?jīng)常用“技藝和夸張”之類的東西以“廢黜嚴(yán)肅”或是不嚴(yán)肅的方式表達(dá)出來。文化評(píng)論家蘇珊·桑塔格將這種方式歸于“坎普”。

這種滲透“萌”的所謂的“不可明確性”——即對(duì)曾經(jīng)被視為涇渭分明的、不連貫的領(lǐng)域（例如童年和成年）的邊界的侵蝕——也反映在許多如“氣球狗”或神奇寶貝等“萌”物的模糊性別中。這還反映在“萌”物常常將人類與非人類形式混合，就像貓女孩Hello Kitty那樣。而且這也反映在它們常常無法確定的年齡上。雖然“萌”物可能看起來如孩子般，但就像外星人一樣，很難說究竟它們是年輕還是年老，而且有時(shí)候從人類的角度來說似乎既年輕又年老。

“萌”以這樣的方式適逢一個(gè)不再死守神圣的二元對(duì)立的時(shí)代：男與女、有性別與無性別、成人與兒童、存在與生成、短暫與永恒、身體與靈魂、絕對(duì)與偶然，甚至善與惡——這些二元對(duì)立曾經(jīng)是理想的構(gòu)成，現(xiàn)在卻被認(rèn)為是更加流變的。

此外，作為一種情感，“萌”與現(xiàn)代的人們對(duì)真誠(chéng)和真實(shí)近乎宗教般的狂熱追求是格格不入的。這種追求可以追溯至18世紀(jì)，它假設(shè)我們每個(gè)人都有一個(gè)“內(nèi)在的”真實(shí)的自我——或者至少有一套信仰、感受、動(dòng)因與品味來決定我們是怎樣獨(dú)一無二的存在，而且我們可以清楚地掌握并知道如何真實(shí)地表達(dá)它們?！懊取迸c展示內(nèi)在無關(guān)。至少在其更為怪怖的形式中，“萌”完全超出了我們所普遍堅(jiān)信的一點(diǎn)：在我們真誠(chéng)與真實(shí)的時(shí)候，我們能夠了解和控制。

雖然我們被像無嘴、無指的Hello Kitty這樣的“萌”物吸引可以表達(dá)一種對(duì)權(quán)力的渴望，但是“萌”也可以通過操控觀賞者對(duì)自己權(quán)力的感覺來戲仿、顛覆權(quán)力，時(shí)而將她繪成一個(gè)居高臨下的姿勢(shì)，時(shí)而讓人不確定誰才是真正的老大，時(shí)而讓她意識(shí)到“萌”物的投降實(shí)際上是一種誘捕她的方式，時(shí)而要求從她那里尋求照顧或保護(hù)。

因此，“萌”是一種或許非常微不足道、非常具有試探性的方式，來探索是否以及如何讓權(quán)力范式退場(chǎng)。確實(shí)，這或許可以解釋為什么“萌”已經(jīng)橫掃世界上一些地區(qū)的流行文化——特別是美國(guó)、歐洲，尤其是日本：自第二次世界大戰(zhàn)以來，盡管時(shí)有中斷、屢經(jīng)挫折，但這些地區(qū)一直力求減少權(quán)力在決定人際關(guān)系以及國(guó)際關(guān)系——后者尤為顯著——的結(jié)構(gòu)中所起的作用。

1. escapade： 胡作非為，冒險(xiǎn)；feline： 貓科的，貓一樣的。

2. rodenty： 嚙齒類的；trailer： 預(yù)告片；notch up：贏得，獲得。

3. anatomical： 解剖學(xué)的，身體構(gòu)造的；protrude：突出。

4. par excellence： 最卓越的；altruistic：利他主義的。

5. hulking： 大而笨重的。

6. unnerving： 令人不安的；register： 適合特定場(chǎng)合使用的語體風(fēng)格。

7. frivolous： 不嚴(yán)肅的，輕浮的；idiom： 藝術(shù)風(fēng)格，特色。

8. flux： 不斷變化，不斷波動(dòng)。

9. indeterminacy： 未知，不明確；beguiling： 迷人的，魅惑的。

10. Martin Heidegger： 馬丁·海德格爾（1889—1976），德國(guó)哲學(xué)家，20世紀(jì)存在主義哲學(xué)的創(chuàng)始人和主要代表之一；intimate： 暗示。

11. Susan Sontag： 蘇珊·桑塔格（1933—2004），美國(guó)作家、藝術(shù)評(píng)論家，主要著作有《反對(duì)闡釋》《激進(jìn)意志的風(fēng)格》等。她的評(píng)論性作品涉及對(duì)時(shí)代以及文化的批評(píng)，包括攝影、藝術(shù)、文學(xué)等，被譽(yù)為“美國(guó)公眾的良心”；camp： 坎普風(fēng)，源自法語俚語“se camper”，意為“以夸張的方式展現(xiàn)”。1964年，桑塔格發(fā)表隨筆《坎普札記》（Notes on Camp），將其解釋為“對(duì)某些非自然之物的熱愛，是一種以犧牲內(nèi)容為代價(jià)的風(fēng)格”?？财盏谋憩F(xiàn)形式通常是技巧的、夸張的、邊緣的、媚俗的、做作的、形式的等等。

12. unpindownability： 該詞由pin down（明確說明）演化而來。

13. be wedded to sth.： 支持（某種看法），執(zhí)著于（某事）；hallowed：神圣的；dichotomy： 二分法；porous：多孔的，可滲透的。

14. cult： 狂熱崇拜。

15. paradigm： 范式。

16. intermittently： 斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地，間歇地。