【高分悬赏】寻求资料:古今中外关于描写咖啡馆或者茶馆的文学作品,最好是英文。

紧急求助:求古今中外关于描写咖啡馆或者茶馆的文学作品或者绘画作品等,如果是用英文最好。越多越好,答得好的再给100分。可以提供相关网址,也可以直接将文字贴上来。

作者:沉默的那棵树

  
中国人的嗓门大是出了名的,可是,一旦涉及某些敏感话题,即便是蛮横惯了的地痞流氓也噤若寒蝉,压低了声音交谈或以只可意会的眼神交流。记得小时候看电影,里面常有这样的情景让我印象深刻:某茶馆里众人正在谈论某话题,茶馆的老板就会紧张兮兮地指着墙上“只谈风月、莫谈国事”几个字,大家会意闭嘴不言或立马做鸟兽散。当时年龄小,不明白其中奥妙。最近从媒体上看见几个草头百姓因为发表了自己的某些看法就被有司所逮,官司缠身。方知中国人虽然平时旁若无人,大嗓门。但是,他们的话语空间也仅限于柴米油盐、酒色财气,大多集中于肚脐以下部分。

而翻阅历史,看见欧洲的咖啡馆文化源远流长,影响了西方人的行事风格和生活方式,更是西方民主政治的温床和公民训练的教室。传至今天,不经意间咖啡馆文化已经席卷全球,即便茶馆文化浸润最深的中国,摩登的白领也学着洋人坐进星巴克这样的地方,安静地体验一把小资情调。

可是,上溯西方的咖啡馆历史,当时却是个鱼龙混杂,比赛嗓门大小的所在。

18世纪的欧洲贵族和平民之间有着深不可测的阶层鸿沟,比如作为公共交流和文化沟通的场所,沙龙是由贵妇们主持的,她们追求的是优雅的贵族情调。非经邀请,外人难入其门。毕竟,那是一个打情骂俏、偶尔也偷情私通的私人聚会而已。

而当时的咖啡馆要随和得多。所有来自贵族女性繁文缛节的礼仪束缚消失了,它向所有人开放,不管其信仰、宗派或地位。

进去的人可以随便找个空位子,加入周围人的自由辩论。话题当然是男人们一直以来最感兴趣的话题:政治和女人。

而咖啡馆的老板深知自己经营的场所所担负的民主化功能。他对此的反应不是中国茶馆老板谨小慎微,而是大胆地在墙上贴上纸,声明大家可以在这里自由发表言论,勿须担心。

作家沙德韦尔(shadwell)在他的戏剧《女首领》中描写到:“每家咖啡馆里都有许多聪明人,他们谈话机智,在吞云吐雾中议论着政治。”

那些长于言辞的知识分子也通常来到这里,倾听民众的声音,同时也顺带着宣传一下自己的著作。在这里,文化人和公众有着良好的互动氛围,以至于改变了当时学究味甚浓的文学风格。

在咖啡馆这样的公共场合,人们学会了评价自己的观点,检验、放弃、改变、传播自己的观点。而在这个过程中,过滤后通常会产生某种有凝聚力的群体观点。

各种阶层、出身、地位的人在这里交往,也敦促他们必须跨越出身、地位和等级,尊重彼此的看法,培养倾听的艺术。正是在不起眼的小小咖啡馆里,公众培育出尊重和宽容他人思想的新态度,合群和容忍的精神,使得分歧失去了棱角。

而在以往,那些与传统相悖的人和观点,会受到他人的轻视和攻讦。如今人们则尊重并专注地倾听着异见,互相讨论,磨砺和检验自己的观点。不经意间,一个新的时代到来了,人们从独立思考的孤立状态走进公共世界,以共同的观点为基础的公共舆论从这里诞生了。

随着咖啡馆人群的分化和舆论场所的专业化,咖啡馆里的声音变小了:不需要以卤莽的声音去表达己见,任何思想都可以在辩论后得到公众的评判和检验,被接受或者被摒弃。

而中国,茶文化衍生出茶馆文化。但是,作为公共空间的茶馆却并没有成为中国人走向公共言论自由的跳板,也没有培育出宽容异见和平等辩论的绅士风度。

专制的王权厌恶任何不同的声音。

而不经过公开辩论,由民间各色人等自行验证和评判的观点在人们内心潜藏下来,日益孤立和各持偏见,人民没有自由博弈最终达成基础共识的空间。人们也没有宽容异见与平和辩论的习惯和规则。相反,强力压制和恶毒攻讦在40年前的一场政治闹剧中走向了顶峰!

在中国历史中,由蔡桓公讳疾忌医开始就预示着“闻过则喜、择善而从”的不过是人们想象中的圣人风范。及至后来焚书坑儒、党锢之祸,大兴文字狱等等,迫使聪明人或放逸浮夸,或沉湎酒色,或避世求生。到后来茶馆里“莫谈国事”俨然已成共识,中国人的言论空间一般局限在裤裆里了。而人们行为表现在:虽然嗓门大,但是却透露着害怕和惊愫在内。

回顾两种饮料文化对东西方言论空间走向的影响,我们不能不感叹:一个利益多元的社会必然是观点多元,不给他们自由碰撞的空间,最后达成基础共识,就会彼此走向孤立和偏见,割裂和对立。而不能和谐地沟通交流去解决分歧,而没有共识的社会很难走得更远!
参考资料:http://jiaoshangou.blog.hexun.com/6763998_d.html
【内容提要】茶馆在中国城市社会生活中扮演着十分重要的角色,是非常理想的观察社会、经济、文化及地方政治变化的场所。20世纪初,成都的茶馆是市民日常生活的重要舞台,它们既是娱乐消闲的场所,亦为从事商业以及社会政治活动的空间。长期以来,茶馆被误认为鼓励人们无所事事、孳生惰性,不利于社会健康发展,因此从专制政权到社会改良精英,都把控制和改造茶馆视为维持社会秩序安定的重要一环,然其努力都以失败告终。这既反映了社会对茶馆的需要,亦充分显示了其极为旺盛的生命力。

【关 键 词】茶馆/城市社会生活/20世纪初/成都

【 正 文】

西方历史学家对早期近代欧美的公共场所,像咖啡馆、酒店、沙龙等进行过相当深入的研究。他们特别注意人们的“公共生活”——即家庭圈子之外的活动,认为这些地方给相识和不相识的人提供了社交场合。这种消闲商业以服务顾客为宗旨,并不一定只为社会上层服务,工人阶级也是他们争取的对象。这些公共场所实际上是整个社会的缩影,而且经常卷入政治和阶级斗争中。因此,它们也往往成为社会改良和社会控制的对象(注:有关研究参见Richard Sennett,The Fall of Public Man:On the Social Psychology of Capitalism(New York:Vintage Books,1977):Perry Duis,The Saloon:Public Drinking in Chicago and Boston,1880-1920(Urbana:University of Illinois Press,1983);Thomas Brennan,Public Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth-Century Paris(New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1988);Francis Couvares,"The Triumph of Commerce:Class Culture and Mass Culture in Pittsburgh,"in Michael Frisch and Daniel Walkowitz(eds.)Working-Class America:Essays on Labor,Community,and American Society(Chicago:University of Illinois Press,1983);Susan Davis,Parades and Power:Street Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia(Berkeley:University of California Press,1988);Christine Stansell,City of Women:Sex and Class in New York,1789-1860(New York:Alfred A.Knopf,Inc.,1986);and John Kasson,Amusing the Million:Coney lsland at the Turn of the Century(New York:Hill & Wang,1978)。

中国茶馆与西方的咖啡馆、酒店和沙龙有许多相似之处,而且其社会角色更为复杂,其功能已远远超出休闲范围,追求闲逸只是茶馆生活的表面现象。茶馆既是休闲娱乐之地,又是各种人物的活动舞台,而且经常成为社会生活和地方政治的中心。本文将以成都为对象,考察茶馆这个20世纪初中国最基本的经济文化单位,探索这一转折时期城市社会、公众日常生活以及政治生活的演化和变迁(注:中国饮茶的传统很早即为西方和日本的旅行者所注意。在他们的旅行记、调查以及回忆录中,经常描述他们关于茶馆的深刻印象。见Robert Fortune,Two Visits to the Tea Countries of China(2 vols.London:John Murray,1853);Robert Davidson and Iason Mason,Life in West China:Described By Two Residents in the Province of Sz-chwan(London:Headley Brothers,1905);George Hubbard,The Geographic Setting of Chengdu(Oberlin:Oberlin College,1923);William Sewell,The People of Wheelbarrow Lane(South Brunswick and New York:A.S.Barnes and Company,1971);Brockman Brace(ed.),Canadian School in West China(Published for the Canadian School Alumni Association,1974);John Service,Golden Inches:The China Memoir of Grace Service(Berkeley:University of California Press,1989);中村作治郎:《支那漫游谈》(切思会,1899年);井上红梅:《支那风俗》(东京日本堂,1920年);东亚同文会:《支那省别全志》卷5,《四川省》(东京东亚同文会,1917年)。西方学者已有一些研究中国茶文化和茶馆的成果,如Walter Meserve and Ruth Meserve,"From Teahouse to Loudspeaker:The Popular Entertainer in the People's Republic of China,"Journal of Popular Culture Vol.8(1979),No.1;John Evans,Tea in China:The History of China's National Drink(New York:Greenwood Press,1992);竹内实:《茶馆——中国の风土と世界像》(东京大修馆书店,1974年);内藤利信:《住んでみた成都——蜀の国に见る中国の日常生活》(东京サイマル出版会,1991年);西泽治彦:《饮茶の话》GS-Tanoshii chisiki Vol.3(1985年)和《现代中国の茶馆——四川成都の事例かる》《风俗》26卷(1988年),4期;铃木智夫:《清末江浙の茶馆について》《历史にぉける民众と文化——酒井忠夫先生占稀祝贺纪念论集》(东京,1982年)。不少美国的中国城市史学者指出了茶馆的社会功能,但并没有进行深入研究,参见William Skinner,"Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China,"The Journal of Asian Studies Vol.24(1964),No.1;Gail Hershatter,The Workers of Tianjin(Stanford:Stanford University Press,1986);William Rowe,Hankow:Conflict and Community in a Chinese City,1796-1895(Stanford:Stanford University Press,1989);David Strand,Rickshaw Beijing:City People and Politics in the 1920s(Berkeley:University of California Press,1989);Elizabeth Perry,Shanghai on Strike:The Politics of Chinese Labor(Stanford:Stanford University Press,1993);Frederic Wakeman,Policing Shanghai,1927-1937(Berkeley:University of California Press,1995);Bryna Goodman,Native Place,City,and Nation:Regional Netwcrks and Identities in Shanghai,1853-1937(Berkeley:University of California Press,1995)。中国学者也有不少关于茶文化的作品,但多限于文化介绍而非历史分析,如陈锦《四川茶铺》,四川人民出版社,1982年;冈夫《茶文化》,中国经济出版社,1995年。

民国时期黄炎培访问成都时,写有一首打油诗描绘成都人日常生活的闲逸,其中两句是:“一个人无事大街数石板,两个人进茶铺从早坐到晚”。教育家舒新城也写到,30年代成都给他印象最深刻的是人们生活的缓慢节奏:在茶馆里,“无论哪一家,自日出至日落,都是高朋满座,而且常无隙地”。薛绍铭也发现,“住在成都的人家,有许多是终日不举火,他们的饮食问题,是靠饭馆、茶馆来解决。在饭馆吃罢饭,必再到茶馆去喝茶,这是成都每一个人的生活程序。饭吃的还快一点,喝茶是一坐三四个钟点”。地理学家G.哈巴德更有同样感受,他发现成都人“无所事事,喜欢在街上闲聊”,人们似乎看不到近代大城市生活的那种快速节奏(注:陈锦:《四川茶铺》,12-13页;舒新城:《蜀游心影》,中华书局,1934年;薛绍铭:《黔滇川旅行记》,重庆出版社,1986年;Hubbard,The Geographic Setting of Chengdu,p.125。)。

外来的人们对成都有这种印象并不足为奇,因为成都人自己便有意无意地在推动这样一种文化(注:正如一个茶铺兼酒馆门上对联对人们的忠告:“为名忙,为利忙,忙里偷闲,且喝一杯茶会;劳力苦,劳心苦,再倒二两酒来”。在街头摆赌局的地摊主也以其顺口溜招揽顾客:“不要慌,不要忙,哪个忙人得下场”。见正云《一副对联的妙用》(《成都风物》1辑,1981年)以及笔者在悦来茶馆的采访记录(1997年6月21日)。),成都居民也自嘲这个城市有“三多”:闲人多、茶馆多、厕所多。当地民谚称“一市居民半茶客”。成都的茶馆及其文化在中外是声名远播并成为其传统的一部分。成都人也为自己的茶馆文化而自豪,甚至认为只有自己才配称“茶客”,只有四川才是真正的“茶国”。如果成都人写他们自己的城市,几乎都离不开茶馆(注:如李劼人的《大波》有许多场景都发生在茶馆,见《李劼人选集》2卷,四川人民出版社,1980年;陈锦:《四川茶铺》,32页;张放:《川土随笔》,《龙门阵》1985年3期。)。人们注意到,从茶馆数量上讲,恐怕无其他城市与之匹敌(注:在晚清有454个茶馆,1931年620个,1935年599个。一种估计称该年每天有12万人次上茶馆(其时成都人口60万)。舒新城称茶馆约占全部铺户的1/10。1938年的《成都导游》说当时成都有800多条街,平均每两条街有一茶馆,其中大者可容200人至300人,小者可容数十人。1941年的政府统计显示有614家茶馆,其从业人数占成都工商各业的第5位。据成都茶业公会在40年代末的统计,其时成都茶馆598个。另一些估计高达1000以上,这个数字可能包括城郊。见傅崇矩《成都通览》下册,巴蜀书社,1987年,253页;《国民公报》1931年1月15日;杨武能等编《成都大词典》,四川人民出版社,1995年,731页;乔曾希等:《成都市政沿革概述》,《成都文史资料选辑》5辑(1983年);胡天:《成都导游》,蜀文印刷社,1938年,69页;陈茂昭:《成都茶馆》,《成都文史资料选辑》4辑(1983年);高枢年等:《成都市场大观》,中国展望出版社,1985年,110页;姚蒸明:《成都风情》,《四川文献》(台北)1971年5期;舒新城:《蜀游心影》,142页;贾大泉等:《四川茶业史》,巴蜀书社,1988年,366页。)。茶馆对这个城市是如此重要,以至于在华的日本调查人员把茶馆与这个城市的繁荣紧密联系在一起(注:东亚同文会:《支那省别全志》卷5,《四川省》,631页。)。
谁是茶馆的常客?据称有两类人:一是“有闲阶级”,二是“有忙阶级”(注:胡天:《成都导游》,62页;易君左:《川康游踪》,中国旅行社,1943年,194页。)。按一般理解,“有闲阶级”是那些地方文人、退休官员、有钱寓公和其他社会上层。“有忙阶级”则分为若干种:一是将茶馆做舞台,如评书和戏曲艺人;二是借茶馆为工作场所,如商人、算命先生、郎中以及手工工人;三是以茶馆为市场,如小商小贩和待雇的苦力等。不过,应当意识到,“有闲阶级”和“有忙阶级”的概念十分松散,并非严格的阶级划分。虽然我们常用“有闲阶级”形容那些没有正经工作和享受生活的人,但他们并不是一个独立阶级而且可以有不同的经济背景。不过,“有忙”和“有闲”这两个词的确囊括了在茶馆的各种人。无论是上层精英还是下层民众、富人还是穷人、闲人还是忙人,都在茶馆这个公共空间里活动。

茶馆又是娱乐中心,许多艺人在那里卖艺为生,茶馆也借精彩的演出吸引顾客。实际上成都早期的剧场即产生于茶馆(注:在开始,茶馆提供场地给艺人,尔后茶馆演变成剧场。可园是成都第一个正式剧场,1906年由咏霓茶社改建。新式剧场悦来茶馆随后设立,之后,宜春、第一等茶馆剧场一体的场所开张(傅崇矩:《成都通览》上册,279页;《通俗日报》1910年2月11日)。)。每当夜晚,穷街陋巷一片漆黑,下层人民则聚集在明亮拥挤的茶馆听评书。评书先生的精湛技艺吸引听众日复一日、甚至年复一年到同一地方听书。说书先生不仅提供了娱乐,而且普及中国历史知识。他们不自觉地散布着正统的价值观,把诸如忠、孝、理、智、信等灌输到那些没有受过教育的人们的头脑中。因此,他们也可被视为大众的教育者。各种民间艺人使茶馆文化更为丰富,他们大多是当地人,但也有的来自外省,如唱大鼓书的多来自华北。这些艺人多有固定的演出场所,观众明了到何处欣赏他们喜欢的剧目或演员。其他像相声、金钱板等更散布于各茶馆。跳“柳连柳”被精英视为茶馆中的下流娱乐,演者手持一竹竿,两头系有数枚铜钱,边喝边跳用其有节奏地拍打身体。据称,其语言“不堪入耳”,最流行的曲目是“小寡妇上坟”(注:《成都民间文学集成》,403-404页;《四川风物志》,457页;周止颖:《新成都》,225页。)。

经济活动与民事纠纷

茶馆可以说是一个纷繁世界的缩影,那里聚集了三教九流和“五湖四海”。例如,茶馆可以是一个“自由市场”,手工匠以及其他雇工在茶馆出卖他们的技术或劳力,小贩则流动于桌椅之间吆喝其所售物品。在西方人的旅行记中可以看到,“商人急于去茶馆见他们的生意伙伴,小贩用哨、小锣、响板等招徕买主”。一些小贩利用“绝技”采取悦顾客,如他们可以一把抓出顾客要求的瓜子数量。由此可见,小贩不仅出售商品,也给茶客带来了娱乐。茶馆里的水烟贩(成都称“水烟袋”)用数尺长的“烟枪”提供服务,如果烟枪还不够长,他们还有备用烟管连接。这样,在一个拥挤嘈杂的茶馆,他们不用移动便可把烟送到顾客面前(注:Hubbard,The Geographic Setting of Chengdu,p.125;何满子:《五杂侃》,193页;李劼人:《暴风雨前》,154-155页。茶馆中小贩非常多,正如一首竹枝词描述的:“喊茶客尚未停声,食物围来一大群。最是讨厌声不断,纸烟瓜子落花生。”(林孔翼辑《成都竹枝词》,四川人民出版社,1986年,113页)顾客买纸烟不用买一包,而可论支买。据传教士观察,水烟袋的生意非常灵活。一般是顾客付2文钱吸5口烟,但水烟袋允许顾客分为多次消费,如今天吸两口,所剩3口来日再吸(West China Missionary News 1906,No.11)。)。

许多人在茶馆等候雇用,其中许多是来自农村的季节性自由劳动力。一般来讲,同类雇工总是聚集在同一茶馆,如扛夫(当地称“背子”)一般聚在罗锅巷和磨子桥的茶馆,这样雇主很容易找到所需要的帮手。据一个外国教师回忆,当她准备雇一个保姆时,她的中国朋友提议她去“南门外的茶铺,每天早晨许多女人都在那里待雇”。由此可见,甚至许多妇女也利用茶馆作为她们的劳力市场。此外黄包车夫、收荒匠以及厕所清洁工都有自己的“专业茶馆”(注:王庆源:《成都平原乡村茶馆》;周止颖:《新成都》,251页;Sewell,The People of Wheelbarrow Lane,p.73。)。

茶馆给许多人提供了生计,手工匠在那里修理扇子、鞋子等各种物品,算命先生在那里预测凶吉,修脚师和剃头匠在那里提供服务(注:从一本传教士的回忆录中,我发现一张成都茶馆的老照片。图中老少男女几个茶客围坐一个矮小茶桌,喝茶谈笑,一旁一个穿破旧衣服的手工工人正修补什么东西。见Brace,Canadian School in West China,p.245。)。一些乞丐甚至在那里卖“凉风”——给顾客打扇挣钱,这实际上是一种变相乞讨。当一个乞丐不请自来给一个茶客打扇,如果茶客觉得舒服而心情不错,便会赏给乞丐几个小钱,否则会不耐烦地将其赶走。茶馆中最有趣的职业是挖耳师傅,他用十余种不同的工具掏、挖、刮、搔等,无所不用其极来使顾客进入一种难以言喻的舒服境界(注:《成都市市政年鉴》(1927年),511-512页;崔显昌:《旧成都茶馆素描》;陈锦:《四川茶铺》,52页。)。

成都人习惯于把茶馆当做他们的“会客室”。由于一般人居住条件差,在家会客颇为不便,人们便相约在茶馆见。即使不是专门去会客,只要一有空闲,他们便径直去常去的茶馆,不用相约便可见到朋友。据何满子回忆,在三四十年代,成都文人有其特定相聚的茶馆,当时他是一杂志的编辑,约稿和取稿都在茶馆里,既省时间又省邮资。居民也在那里商量事宜,外籍教师徐维理(W.Sewell)写道,当他一个朋友遇到麻烦时,他们便在茶馆商量对策。一些组织和学生也常在茶馆开会,枕流茶社便是学生的聚会处,文化茶社是文人据点,而教师则在鹤鸣茶社碰头,每到节日和周末,这些茶馆总是拥挤不堪(注:胡天:《成都导游》,69页;易君左:《川康游踪》,194页;《茶馆之弊害及其取缔办法》,四川省档案馆藏:四川省政府社会处档案,全宗186,案卷1431;《国民公报》1929年10月7日;Sewell,The People of Wheelbarrow Lane,pp.131-132;杨槐:《神童子与满天飞》。关于成都的文学作品中有许多对这些场合的描写,见李劼人《大波》和巴金《春》(《家春秋》合订本,黑龙江人民出版社,1995年)。此类诗作也不少,如“亲朋蓦地遇街前,邀入茶房礼貌虔”(《成都竹枝词》, 70页)。令人惊奇的是,当今成都人特别是老人仍有这个习惯,1997年我在成都做实地考察时,采访的对象多邀我到茶馆碰面。)。

商人有其固定的茶馆洽谈生意,“许多交易都在茶馆做成”。粮油会馆以安乐寺茶社为交易处,布帮在闲居茶社,南门边的一个茶馆因靠近米市,便成为米店老板和卖米农民的生意场。那些走私鸦片、武器的黑社会则在品香茶社活动。究竟每日有多少交易在茶馆做成还不得而知,但可以确信数量非常可观(注:Davidson and Mason,Life in West China,p.86.一则地方新闻称:当警察平息一场茶馆争端后,一位顾客以这场斗殴搅了他的一桩生意而要求赔偿(《通俗日报》1910年5月15日)。)。韩素音在回忆录中写道:“‘来碗茶’是茶馆中最常听到的吆喝……这也是洽谈生意的开端……地产和商品的买卖都在茶馆或餐馆进行。”(注:Han Suyin,The Crippled Tree:China,Biography,History,Autobiography(New York:G.P.Putnam's Sons,1965),pp.228-229.)

阶级鸿沟和社会歧视

在19世纪末和20世纪初的美国城市,一般只有工人阶级才会在公共场所痛饮,中产或上层阶级都在其住宅、私人俱乐部或上流宾馆品酒。在中国沿海地区,茶馆多为中下层人的去处。但是成都茶馆看起来却具融各阶级为一体的特点,因此有人指出,成都茶馆的“优点”是人与人之间的“相对平等”(注:Rosenzweig,Eight Hours for What We Will,p.51;铃木智夫:《清末江浙の茶馆について》;周止颖:《新成都》,247页;何满子:《五条侃》,192页。)。

不过,应当看到,随着晚清和民国时期的社会过渡,茶馆也不可避免地发生着变化。一个常见的现象是茶馆更多地卷入公共事务,参加地方和全国的慈善活动,并借此提高其社会声誉。辛亥革命前后,可园、悦来等茶馆便多次组织慈善演出以支持甘肃、河南等省的赈灾以及地方的公益事业。茶馆也力图改变面貌以迎合时尚,如一些茶馆引进新的娱乐方式。1912年陶然亭茶馆开张,特设有一球房,据称是要提倡西方“文明”、“健康”的娱乐,还提供电话、报纸和食品等服务。悦来茶馆是成都新式娱乐的先驱,当然也不甘人后,它首次把话剧引入成都舞台。这些成都茶馆的新变化,虽然追求经济利益是直接动因,但亦是社会进化的必然结果(注:《通俗日报》1912年8月6日;《国民公报》1912年6月14日、9月7日;周止颖等:《成都的早期话剧活动》,《四川文史资料选辑》36辑(1987年)。)。

结论

茶馆是一个社会的缩影。长期以来,茶馆被当时精英和后世学者误认为鼓励人们无所事事、孳生惰性,不利于社会健康发展。其中,受指责最多的便是致使人们浪费时光。但是,人们忽视了茶馆多层次的、复杂的社会经济和文化的功能。社会的演进总是伴随着时间概念变化,但这种时间的新概念也仅限于受西方影响的新式精英。大多数一般市民仍保持着传统的时间观念,怎样利用他们的时间取决于他们的个人习惯、教育程度、职业和家庭背景、经济状况等等因素。在茶馆里,一个学者可得到写作的灵感,一个商人可做成一笔生意,一个学生可学到书本上没有的东西,一个秘密社会成员可与其同党建立联系,一个苦力可找到雇主,更不用说小贩、艺人、手工匠依靠茶馆来维持生计了。因此,“有闲”和“有忙”在不同的时间可以是交替的角色,茶馆为两者都提供了可使用的空间。即使是在许多“现代”娱乐场所出现以后,茶馆仍然是大多数市民最能接受的公共生活空间。

怎样评价和治理茶馆这个与市民日常生活密切相关的公共场所,总是地方政府所面临的棘手问题,但是,从晚清到民国,都未找到一个成功的办法。它们把控制和改造茶馆视为维持社会秩序安定的重要一环,但是其努力都以失败告终。城市改良精英对大众文化的认识较政府更全面和深刻,因此他们在茶馆问题上与政府持不同的态度。如果说政府以控制和打击为主要手段,那么精英虽然也批评茶馆的弊病,但亦深知其社会功能,所以他们不赞成政府的激进改革,这可能也是为何政府的行动总难以奏效的原因之一。从表面看,茶馆以及茶馆文化是很脆弱的,总是被限制和被打击,然而,茶馆最终得以幸存并仍然是城市日常生活中最活跃的部分,充分显示了极其旺盛的生命力。

【作者简介】王笛 1956年生,助教授。美国得克萨斯A&M大学历史系

出处:历史研究200105

以上作品因为百度字数限制,所以有很大的有删节,详细情况见下面网址和原著

参考资料:http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/2505

温馨提示:答案为网友推荐,仅供参考
第1个回答  2008-11-05
  “Coffee House Cotillion: The Construction of Private Space in a Public Place”
  1993
  Coffee houses have a standing pattern of behavior characterized by the existence of private space. Patrons negotiate the construction of private space through involvement in one or both of two processes. The “process of not bothering” and the “process of engagement” prevent routine, everyday encounters at the coffee house from becoming too intimate; interactions remain at a “stranger” level.
  The process of not bothering is characterized by individual actors, Singles, who are by themselves at the coffee house. The process of engagement involves multiple actors, Withs , who are together at the coffee house. Patrons involved in one or both of these processes are signaling to others a desire to be alone.
  No interactional order, however, is immune to interference by way of “inappropriate” behaviors. I examine four incidents where the processes of not bothering and engagement, and the private space they maintain, are disrupted in the coffee house: intentional and momentary, intentional and prolonged, coincidental, and accidental. In the event of disruption patrons are faced with the perception that “something unusual is happening (Emerson 1970) and must act to bring the situation back to normal.
  Community and Public Life
  Sociologists have long discusses the impact of industrialization and urbanization upon peoples’ ability to construct a sense of belonging and shared identity with others in their lives; individual anomie 社会失范and alienation have taken the place of organic community (Hewitt 1991) and mechanical solidarity. There seems to be agreement that a defining characteristic of modern urban life is the lack of, and corresponding search for, community.
  Coffee houses fill a niche in modern urban society as a public place where people are “uniquely accessible, available, and subject to one another” (Goffman 1963, p. 22). Regular attendance and the construction of private space in a coffee house establishes a community of strangers where only the more general characteristics of other regulars’ identities are known (Simmel 1971).
  Modern day coffee houses are similar to what Ray Oldenburg, in The Great Good Place (1989), describes as “third places” where regulars gather for the purpose of informal interaction. Yet the fact that interactions remain at a “stranger” level makes coffee houses importantly and informatively distinct from third places in the formation of community.
  Third Places
  Oldenburg argues that the core of people’s activity occurs in two “places.” The “first place” is the home; people’s private family life occurs here. The “second place” is work; this place “reduces the individual to a single, productive role” (p. 16).
  Modern U.S. society, writes Oldenburg, lacks places where people can simply “hang-out.” In fact, to hang-out with nothing in particular to do is looked upon negatively; those who are not at home or work are seen as up to no good. What U.S. society lacks, argues Oldenburg, is an acceptable intersection between first and second place where informal public interaction can occur – U.S. society lacks “third places.”
  Historically, third places are the pubs and coffee houses of European cities where individuals go and “on any given visit some of the gang will be there” (p. 32). Talk is plentiful and good here, and takes place on neutral ground where people “do not get uncomfortably tangled in one another’s lives.” (p. 22). Furthermore, third places are “levelers” open to all and emphasize “qualities not confined to status distinctions current in the society” (p. 24).
  Third places provide a place to interact outside the boundaries of first and second places that foster a sense of community among members. Informal participation in third places gives regulars an opportunity to be public; an opportunity that connects the lives of members with each other. In confining activities to home, a completely private place, and work, a completely and explicitly productive place, people lose their sense of belonging to a community – this is the case, argues Oldenburg, in modern urban society.
  Coffee Houses as Public Places
  The type of coffee houses I’m describing are like third places in that membership simply requires routine attendance. Coffee houses differ from third places, however, because patrons do not go expecting to meet with other regulars for purposes of informal conversation. Instead, patrons go to the coffee house and construct private spaces in the midst of strangers who have constructed private spaces of their own. Coffee houses are public places for private activities.
  The interior of a typical coffee house is made up of numerous small tables occupied by individuals, couples, or groups of nor more than three or four people. There is very little conversation between tables, and the general rule is for conversations among groups to be kept at a level which does not bother other costumers.
  Many activies occurring at the coffee house have the quality of “time killing.” Killed time is inconsequential time that does not impinge upon the more “serious” aspects of one’s life (Goffman, 1963; Cavan 1966). Reading, game playing, and idle conversation within one’s own private space are common time killing activities in the coffee house. Though inconsequential, these activities do not resemble the informal interactions of third places. Time killing activities pursued by coffee house patrons are kept within the boundaries of constructed private space and do not unnecessarily involve other patrons.
  The coffee house is furnished with a multitude of “tools” that offer something to do for individuals with time to kill. The most common tools are reading materials such as magazines, newspapers, and used books. These items are strewn throughout the coffee house and are readily accessible to all patrons. It is also common for patrons to bring along their own books and magazines as time killing tools.
  Coffee houses also provide games such as chess and backgammon as time killing tools. Third place games, according to Oldenburg, are games which “move along in lively fashion” (p. 30) and allow for vociferous involvement among players and spectators – Oldenburg gives Gin Rummy and the French game Boules as examples of third place games. The overwhelming favorite game of coffee house patrons is Chess; it isn’t uncommon to see two or three chess matches going on at one time in the coffee house. Chess is not a game like Gin Rummy where lively conversation is the rule. Instead, chess involves intense concentration among players and spectators alike; interactional privacy is afforded chess players so they can make the best possible moves.
  Though most coffee house activity involves killing time, there are patrons involved in more “serious” activities. I observed people at the coffee house involve in such consequential activities as writing books, writing wills, paying bills, tutoring college students, and collecting data for research projects. As with time killing activities, however, the consequences of these more serious activities is interactional isolation, not third place conversation.
  Like third places, patronage at the coffee hose is regular and one often recognizes other regulars. But regulars here rarely do more than make eye contact and nod to one another. Regularity of patronage at the coffee house does not lead to lasting third place interactions. One the contrary, as my paper makes clear, the overwhelming interactional activity taking place at the coffee house revolves around how not to become friendly with other regulars.本回答被提问者采纳
第2个回答  2008-11-05
“Coffee House Cotillion: The Construction of Private Space in a Public Place”
1993
Coffee houses have a standing pattern of behavior characterized by the existence of private space. Patrons negotiate the construction of private space through involvement in one or both of two processes. The “process of not bothering” and the “process of engagement” prevent routine, everyday encounters at the coffee house from becoming too intimate; interactions remain at a “stranger” level.
The process of not bothering is characterized by individual actors, Singles, who are by themselves at the coffee house. The process of engagement involves multiple actors, Withs , who are together at the coffee house. Patrons involved in one or both of these processes are signaling to others a desire to be alone.
No interactional order, however, is immune to interference by way of “inappropriate” behaviors. I examine four incidents where the processes of not bothering and engagement, and the private space they maintain, are disrupted in the coffee house: intentional and momentary, intentional and prolonged, coincidental, and accidental. In the event of disruption patrons are faced with the perception that “something unusual is happening (Emerson 1970) and must act to bring the situation back to normal.
Community and Public Life
Sociologists have long discusses the impact of industrialization and urbanization upon peoples’ ability to construct a sense of belonging and shared identity with others in their lives; individual anomie and alienation have taken the place of organic community (Hewitt 1991) and mechanical solidarity. There seems to be agreement that a defining characteristic of modern urban life is the lack of, and corresponding search for, community.
Coffee houses fill a niche in modern urban society as a public place where people are “uniquely accessible, available, and subject to one another” (Goffman 1963, p. 22). Regular attendance and the construction of private space in a coffee house establishes a community of strangers where only the more general characteristics of other regulars’ identities are known (Simmel 1971).
Modern day coffee houses are similar to what Ray Oldenburg, in The Great Good Place (1989), describes as “third places” where regulars gather for the purpose of informal interaction. Yet the fact that interactions remain at a “stranger” level makes coffee houses importantly and informatively distinct from third places in the formation of community.
Third Places
Oldenburg argues that the core of people’s activity occurs in two “places.” The “first place” is the home; people’s private family life occurs here. The “second place” is work; this place “reduces the individual to a single, productive role” (p. 16).
Modern U.S. society, writes Oldenburg, lacks places where people can simply “hang-out.” In fact, to hang-out with nothing in particular to do is looked upon negatively; those who are not at home or work are seen as up to no good. What U.S. society lacks, argues Oldenburg, is an acceptable intersection between first and second place where informal public interaction can occur – U.S. society lacks “third places.”
Historically, third places are the pubs and coffee houses of European cities where individuals go and “on any given visit some of the gang will be there” (p. 32). Talk is plentiful and good here, and takes place on neutral ground where people “do not get uncomfortably tangled in one another’s lives.” (p. 22). Furthermore, third places are “levelers” open to all and emphasize “qualities not confined to status distinctions current in the society” (p. 24).
Third places provide a place to interact outside the boundaries of first and second places that foster a sense of community among members. Informal participation in third places gives regulars an opportunity to be public; an opportunity that connects the lives of members with each other. In confining activities to home, a completely private place, and work, a completely and explicitly productive place, people lose their sense of belonging to a community – this is the case, argues Oldenburg, in modern urban society.
Coffee Houses as Public Places
The type of coffee houses I’m describing are like third places in that membership simply requires routine attendance. Coffee houses differ from third places, however, because patrons do not go expecting to meet with other regulars for purposes of informal conversation. Instead, patrons go to the coffee house and construct private spaces in the midst of strangers who have constructed private spaces of their own. Coffee houses are public places for private activities.
The interior of a typical coffee house is made up of numerous small tables occupied by individuals, couples, or groups of nor more than three or four people. There is very little conversation between tables, and the general rule is for conversations among groups to be kept at a level which does not bother other costumers.
Many activies occurring at the coffee house have the quality of “time killing.” Killed time is inconsequential time that does not impinge upon the more “serious” aspects of one’s life (Goffman, 1963; Cavan 1966). Reading, game playing, and idle conversation within one’s own private space are common time killing activities in the coffee house. Though inconsequential, these activities do not resemble the informal interactions of third places. Time killing activities pursued by coffee house patrons are kept within the boundaries of constructed private space and do not unnecessarily involve other patrons.
The coffee house is furnished with a multitude of “tools” that offer something to do for individuals with time to kill. The most common tools are reading materials such as magazines, newspapers, and used books. These items are strewn throughout the coffee house and are readily accessible to all patrons. It is also common for patrons to bring along their own books and magazines as time killing tools.
Coffee houses also provide games such as chess and backgammon as time killing tools. Third place games, according to Oldenburg, are games which “move along in lively fashion” (p. 30) and allow for vociferous involvement among players and spectators – Oldenburg gives Gin Rummy and the French game Boules as examples of third place games. The overwhelming favorite game of coffee house patrons is Chess; it isn’t uncommon to see two or three chess matches going on at one time in the coffee house. Chess is not a game like Gin Rummy where lively conversation is the rule. Instead, chess involves intense concentration among players and spectators alike; interactional privacy is afforded chess players so they can make the best possible moves.
Though most coffee house activity involves killing time, there are patrons involved in more “serious” activities. I observed people at the coffee house involve in such consequential activities as writing books, writing wills, paying bills, tutoring college students, and collecting data for research projects. As with time killing activities, however, the consequences of these more serious activities is interactional isolation, not third place conversation.
Like third places, patronage at the coffee hose is regular and one often recognizes other regulars. But regulars here rarely do more than make eye contact and nod to one another. Regularity of patronage at the coffee house does not lead to lasting third place interactions. One the contrary, as my paper makes clear, the overwhelming interactional activity taking place at the coffee house revolves around how not to become friendly with other regulars.
Thus, like third places, coffee houses are places where people can interact away from the intimacy of home and productivity of work. Unlike third places, coffee houses are places which foster privacy. People do not go to the coffee house, as they do a third place, to engage in lively conversation with regular others. The regulars at the coffee house remain strangers; one is comfortable in seeing the same regulars on a daily basis, but does not want them as friends.
This said, this paper is a study of the processes by which people construct the private spaces which proliferate in a specific type of modern public place -- the coffee house.
Methods
To gather data for this paper I spent approximately sixty hours as a “formal” participant-observer at two coffee houses in suburban Chicago. I spent a significantly larger amount of hours as an “informal” participant-observer at a number of other coffee houses throughout the area. As a formal participant-observer I sat in the coffee house, paper and pencil in hand, taking notes on the happenings around me. These notes ranged from the most micro-details of individual behavior (i.e. the scratching of one’s head or the position of one’s cigarette) to a general demographic survey of the patrons. As an informal participant-observer I attended the coffee house alone or with friends, leaving my note pad at home. Although I did not take notes during informal visits, I did keep an eye open for behaviors and symbols both old (as confirmation of already discovered processes) and new (those not yet discovered).
The two coffee houses I observed had the same owners and the same name. The first was located on the corner of a mildly busy street intersection. Because of its location near a mid-size university, a student age population made a strong showing here at all times of the day. In the morning, because of its location across the street from a public transportation station, al line ran to the door of patrons buying coffee “to go;” the coffee house was just a stop on their way to work. On weekend and Summer evenings the coffee house became overrun by high school students who quite literally took the place over. They pushed tables together moved freely from table to table and clique to clique; talked and yelled so that all could hear; and ran through the rooms with seeming disregard for patrons who were not members of the high school crowd.
The overall age composition of the second coffee house was older than that of the firt the clientele fit generally into what many would call “yuppies” or “thirtysomethings.” This was due to the second’s location in a more residential area of the city, further away from the university and high school. On weekday mornings and afternoons mothers with infants gathered and were the main costumers. This coffee house was also very near public
相似回答