資本主義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.

“正念”和“冥想”，跟資本主義那種拼命爭個你死我活的特質可以並存嗎？這就是戴維•蓋利斯(David Gelles)新書中的核心難題。這本饒有趣味、緊跟時代、可讀性極高的新書，動人地描述了這些古老的東方修行之法是如何越來越多地爲西方企業所採納，用於提高公司效率、幫員工減壓、以及直接或間接地提升公司利潤。

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.

蓋利斯現在是《紐約時報》(New York Times)記者，以前曾任英國《金融時報》記者，他本人長期修行正念冥想——“一種能看清我們腦中所想、而不會走火入魔的能力”。他身上是一種有價值的組合：作爲修行者，他知道冥想是怎麼回事；而作爲記者，他能夠客觀地觀察，並且能講好一個故事。

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.

在簡要敘述正念在美國的歷史時，蓋利斯將亨利•戴維•梭羅(Henry David Thoreau)封爲美洲新大陸最早提倡正念的人，稱梭羅啓迪了垮掉的一代的兩位代表人物——達摩流浪者(Dharma bums)傑克•凱魯亞克(Jack Kerouac)和艾倫•金斯伯格(Allen Ginsberg)。當代以來，唱主角的則是分子生物學家喬恩•卡巴特-津恩(Jon Kabat-Zinn)，他在麻省大學醫學院(University of Massachusetts Medical School)率先推行基於正念的減壓療法。蓋利斯認爲，卡巴特-津恩主動淡化冥想的精神方面，有助於主流科學和醫學界接受正念。

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.”

這本書的核心關注點是美國企業界對正念的採納。蓋利斯用構思精巧的小故事和案例，闡明瞭冥想的種種好處，這些好處是從通用磨坊(General Mills)到安泰保險(Aetna)的許多企業都希望利用的。阿里安娜•赫芬頓(Arianna Huffington)將企業界對正念產生濃厚興趣的原因總結爲：“減輕壓力和正念不僅會讓我們變得更快樂、更健康，對任何缺乏這種優勢的企業而言，它們還是一種已得到驗證的競爭優勢。”

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”.

數據看上去也證明了這一點。安泰保險公司參加了《工作中的正念》課程的員工，一年的醫療費用相對於一個對照組減少了2000美元。一個奧威爾式的結論是，課程還提高了這些員工的生產效率，“相當於讓每個員工每週的工作時間增加了一個多小時”。

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?

不過，一個人越是修行正念，難道不會越是對競爭、利潤、以及所有其他支撐起資本主義的商業要素不感興趣嗎？正念真的是一種中立工具、能夠服務於任何目的，還是一種與消除自私、培養同理心、以及拒絕物質主義無可救藥地捆綁在一起的東西？假如是後一種情況，那麼企業家在員工中推廣正念豈不是有些危險（因爲假如他成功了的話，他的員工們可能就不再在意利潤這麼微不足道的東西了）？

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.”

蓋利斯並沒有迴避這個核心問題，事實上，他拿出了整整一章來寫它，但他還是沒能解決這個問題。Prana是他走訪的其中一家推行正念的企業，該公司首席執行官斯科特•克斯萊克(Scott Kerslake)的回答是最能說明問題的。克斯萊克宣稱要將同理心與資本主義結合在一起，面對蓋利斯對此的疑問，克斯萊克回答說：“我們仍然做得很糟。不過我們比其他許多人還是要強一些。”