八卦不僅無害,還對改善這個世界做出了貢獻?
Acouple of weeks ago I bumped into a man I used to work with. We chatted for a bit about people we knew in journalism, and I volunteered that so-and-so had just left his wife and was now shacked up with one of his underlings. My ex-colleague pursed his lips. I don’t do gossip, he said.
幾周前，我碰巧遇到一位過去的同事。聊了一陣我們在新聞業中的舊相識之後，我主動提到，某某某剛和老婆分手，現在正和一名下屬同居。這位前同事撅撅嘴，說他不愛八卦。For about two seconds I felt ashamed of myself, but then I felt cross with him instead. What a prig. How can you be a former journalist and not do gossip?
有那麼大約兩秒鐘的功夫，我爲自己感到羞恥。不過，我隨即就對他感到生氣。這個假正經！你怎麼可能當過記者卻不八卦？Gossip has a bad name. The Oxford dictionary defines it disdainfully as “unconstrained conversation . . . about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true”. Yet it has always struck me as one of those rare guilty pleasures where pleasure outweighs guilt. The damage done to the subject of the gossip is generally negligible, while the fun and fellow feeling created between the chatterers is considerable.
“八卦”一詞的名聲不太好。牛津英語詞典輕蔑地將這個詞定義爲“涉及他人、細節真實性未經驗證的……不節制的談話”。不過，在我看來，八卦雖說是一種“罪惡的樂趣”，但其樂趣成分罕見地超過了其罪過。對於八卦的對象來說，八卦造成的損害通常可以忽略不計，而聊天者從中獲得的樂趣和融洽感卻是顯而易見的。
However, according to recent research from Stanford University, published in Psychological Science, not only have I done no harm by gossiping, I have been making the world a finer place. Talking about people behind their backs increases co-operation, upholds the moral code, punishes the selfish and rewards the unselfish. And if people know they get voted off the island for bad behaviour, they behave less badly.
不過，根據斯坦福大學(Stanford University)最近的一項研究（該研究成果發表於美國《心理科學》(Psychological Science)雜誌），八卦不僅無害，還對改善這個世界做出了貢獻。在背後談論他人能增進合作，弘揚道德準則，懲罰自私者並獎勵無私者。如果“惡人”知道自己會因惡行被大家“投票踢走”，他們就會收斂一點。If this is right, it suggests gossip is particularly important in offices. It helps us know who to avoid, it undermines bullying bosses, it binds people together and shores up a company’s culture.
如果屬實，這個結論意味着八卦在職場上有特殊的重要性。它能幫助我們瞭解應躲開誰，能削弱那些霸道的老闆，能增進團結，還能鞏固企業文化。Soon after reading the study, I found myself at it again over coffee with a colleague. I mentioned a well- known broadcaster with whom I had worked in the past and said although he was clearly talented, there was something about him that was a bit, well, weird. My colleague agreed. He too had worked with the man and said he was a prima donna and a bully, and that the only views he rated were his own.
就在讀到這篇論文後不久，我在和一位同事喝咖啡時又八卦了一次。當時我提到一位我曾與之共事過的知名播音員，我說他儘管顯然很有才華，不過爲人有點……怎麼說呢……有點怪。我的同事表示同意。他也曾與這個人共事過，他說這個人自大又霸道，只在乎自己的看法。I listened agog; instead of feeling sullied, I congratulated myself on having contributed to the public good by expressing disapproval of bullies and egotists.
我興奮地聽他說着，不但沒有“非禮勿聽”的感覺，反而覺得自豪，因爲我做了件有益於大家的好事——表達了自己對霸道和自大的否定。But then I saw a weakness in the system. For gossip to promote good behaviour it is not enough for tut-tutting to take place behind someone’s back. The subject has to get wind of it – which can be easier said than done. Next time I see the broadcaster, I’m not going to edge away in disgust; I’ll probably be all nicey-nicey.
不過，接着我就發現，這種機制有一個缺陷。要想起到促進善行的作用，只在別人背後嘮叨是不夠的。必須讓當事人聽到這些話——而這說起來容易，做起來難。下次我見到這位播音員時，我不會反感地躲開，反而可能會對他非常友好。Indeed, what is truly remarkable is that given how much gossip there is (according to the anthropologist Robin Dunbar, two-thirds of all human conversation is gossip) and given how each of us must get gossiped about the whole time, how little we know about what people are saying about us behind our backs. I don’t have a clue what people say when I’m not around – which might be bad for my chances of improving, but it makes for an easier life.
事實上，考慮到人們八卦之頻繁（根據人類學家羅賓•鄧巴(Robin Dunbar)的說法，人類所有言談有三分之二是八卦），以及我們每個人一直以來必然都經常會被別人八卦，真正令人驚歎的是，我們居然對別人在背後如何談論我們知之甚少。我不知道我不在的時候別人會說些什麼，這或許不利於我進步，不過這倒能讓我的生活更輕鬆一點。There are various reasons why gossip does not usually get back to the person being gossiped about. First, as the whole point is that it is a) secret and b) usually considered of dodgy veracity, we are programmed not to act on it. An even bigger obstacle is that hierarchy trumps tittle-tattle every time. Voting people off the island on gossip grounds is particularly impossible if that person happens to be above you in the pecking order.
八卦通常不會傳回當事人的耳邊，原因多種多樣。首先，八卦之所以是八卦，就是因爲八卦首先是是祕密的，其次是真實性默認存疑，因此，我們本來就不會對八卦的內容採取行動。更大的障礙在於，等級制度總是能壓過閒言碎語。如果一個人的“江湖地位”在你之上，通過八卦將這個人“踢走”尤其不可能。More fundamentally, there are two problems with the idea of gossip as a regulating, moral force. The first is that the gossip needs to be mostly true – which is doubtful given its negative bias. “Psst, did you hear that x is a terrific, hardworking boss?” isn’t much of a story. Second, gossip isn’t always motivated by our moral values. In spreading the gossip about the journalist’s concubine I wasn’t necessarily upholding the sanctity of marriage. I was merely indicating I found the news a bit diverting.
更根本的原因在於，讓八卦發揮道德監督作用的想法有兩個問題。首先，這要求八卦必須大多屬實，而考慮到八卦的內容一般偏負面，其真實性值得懷疑。“噓，你聽說了嗎，某某某是個特好的老闆，工作特勤奮。”這樣的“八卦”算不上什麼八卦。其次，八卦並不總是受到人們道德感的驅使。在傳播那位記者跟人同居的八卦時，我未必是在維護婚姻的神聖性，只不過是覺得這消息可作談資。Instead, the true value of gossip has nothing to do with the person being gossiped about, and everything to do with the people doing it. Last week I was introduced to a senior banker who turned out to have been at university at the same time as me. He mentioned the name of a famous contemporary and then said darkly: “He had quite a past. Nothing illegal, but wild.”
八卦的真正價值其實和八卦的當事人無關，而和八卦的傳播者密切相關。不久前我被引見給一位資深銀行家，結果發現他和我是同一時期上大學的。當時，他提到一位著名的同齡人，然後幽幽地說：“他的故事可多了。雖然談不上犯法，但也夠瘋狂的。”“Really?” I said. “Do tell.”
“真的麼？”我問道，“快說說是怎麼回事。”And so he told me how this legendary businessperson used to be a rabid womaniser, which we agreed was surprising as he wasn’t much of a looker.
於是他告訴我，這位傳奇商人大學時可謂獵豔高手。考慮到他的長相不算出衆，我倆都覺得這挺讓人驚訝的。This gossip served no social or moral purpose. It was in the deep past. It was tenuous. It was quite irrelevant to anything. And yet it was still valuable. It told me about this banker: I’m quite fun, but I’m not entirely to be trusted.
這條八卦沒什麼社會價值，也沒什麼道德價值。它發生在久遠的過去，事情本身無足輕重，跟任何東西都毫不相干。不過這條八卦還是有價值的。它向我透露出：這位銀行家是個很有趣的人，但不太值得信賴。
