苏利利在线

您对被动性的批评尖锐而发人深省，抓住了这种叙事模式的一个关键问题。通过美化个人牺牲而不关注集体行动或系统变革，它有可能创造一种被动文化，在这种文化中，钦佩取代了有意义的参与。这种话语可能导致几个问题：

1. 排他性标签：正如您所提到的，这样的短语暗示只有那些明显遭受极端迫害的人才会做出牺牲或做出贡献，无意中将其他可能也在以不那么显眼但同样重要的方式为这一事业努力的人排除在外。这创造了一种贡献等级制度，可能会使那些积极工作但未被“认可”的人士气低落。
2. 被动性和象征性：焦点转移到象征性姿态，如写信或仅仅表达同情，而不是鼓励可能带来实质性进展的实际行动。这强化了一种情感表达而非行动的文化。
3. 叙事惯性：反复强调“为事业受苦”可能会使话语变成哀叹的循环，而不是向前迈进的步伐。它会使人们习惯于将苦难视为不可避免的，甚至是事业的核心，而不是寻求预防或减少苦难的方法。
4. 与全球实践不一致：你将其与民权运动和反种族隔离运动进行了比较，这是恰当的。在那些情况下，虽然人们承认了牺牲，但重点是动员集体行动、战略和解决方案。目标始终是进步，而不仅仅是声援那些受苦的人。

你将其描述为感染集体思维的“病毒”，这是一个深刻的比喻。它反映了文化、历史甚至政治因素所塑造的根深蒂固的思维习惯如何阻碍进步。在中国的背景下，这可能与根深蒂固的殉道文化价值观、集体主义理想，甚至国家宣传塑造了人们对抵抗和牺牲的看法有关。

还有什么比这更有成效的呢？

• 转变叙事：强调推动事业发展的行动，明确表示无论环境如何，每个人都可以做出有意义的贡献。
• 扩大包容性：认可各种形式的贡献，而不仅仅是极端的牺牲。这可以激励更多人参与其中，而不会感到被忽视或不合格。
• 建立问责制：不要只关注个人的痛苦，而要强调造成痛苦的制度和结构，并提出可行的变革步骤。

Your critique on passivity is sharp and thought-provoking, and it captures a key issue with this narrative pattern. By glorifying individual sacrifice without focusing on collective action or systemic change, it risks creating a passive culture where admiration replaces meaningful engagement. This kind of discourse can lead to several problems:

1. Exclusive Labeling: As you mentioned, such phrases imply that only those visibly enduring extreme persecution are sacrificing or contributing, inadvertently sidelining others who may also be working for the cause in less visible but equally important ways. This creates a hierarchy of contribution that can be demoralizing for those who are actively working but are not “recognized.”

2. Passivity and Tokenism: The focus shifts to symbolic gestures like writing letters or simply expressing sympathy, rather than encouraging practical actions that could lead to substantive progress. This reinforces a culture of emotional expression over action.

3. Narrative Inertia: The repetitive framing of “suffering for the cause” risks turning the discourse into a cycle of lamentation rather than a movement forward. It can condition people to view suffering as inevitable or even central to the cause, rather than seeking ways to prevent or reduce it.

4. Misalignment with Global Practices: Your comparison to the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements is apt. In those cases, while sacrifices were acknowledged, the focus was on mobilizing collective action, strategies, and solutions. The goal was always progress, not just solidarity with those suffering.

Your description of this as a “virus” infecting the collective mindset is an incisive metaphor. It reflects how entrenched habits of thought, shaped by cultural, historical, or even political factors, can hinder progress. In the Chinese context, this could be linked to deep-seated cultural values around martyrdom, collectivist ideals, or even state propaganda shaping how people think about resistance and sacrifice.

What Could Be More Productive?

• Shifting the Narrative: Emphasize actions that advance the cause, making it clear that everyone can contribute in meaningful ways, regardless of their circumstances.

• Broadening Inclusion: Recognize contributions in various forms, not just extreme sacrifices. This can inspire more people to get involved without feeling overshadowed or unqualified.

• Building Accountability: Instead of focusing solely on individual suffering, highlight the systems and structures responsible for it and propose actionable steps for change.

Your critique is valuable because it identifies a cultural tendency that, while well-intentioned, ultimately undermines the progress it seeks to support. Would you like to develop this argument further or frame it in a way that could resonate with a broader audience?