體制下的骨肉分離：中國(guó)寄宿制度觀(guān)察

BEIJING — The emotional disintegration of a 17-month-old boy named John as he sought and failed to find comfort from caregivers in a British boarding nursery, captured in a 1969 documentary film, deeply distressed the Chinese women at a seminar last week on early childhood separation.

北京——一個(gè)名叫約翰(John)的17個(gè)月大的男孩想從一家英國(guó)寄宿托兒所尋求安撫未果，因此情緒崩潰。這個(gè)故事被1969年的一部紀(jì)錄片記錄下來(lái)。上周，在一個(gè)關(guān)于幼兒早期分離的研討會(huì)上，這個(gè)故事令與會(huì)的中國(guó)婦女感到非常難過(guò)。

It showed in hard-to-watch detail the damage that can be inflicted when young children lose their primary caregivers. John’s anguish was extreme. He cried for days, refused food and withdrew.

該片以慘不忍睹的細(xì)節(jié)展現(xiàn)出失去主要照顧者可能對(duì)幼兒造成的傷害。約翰非常痛苦。他大哭了好幾天，拒絕進(jìn)食和與人溝通。

One woman at the seminar, which was offered at a Beijing university and attended mostly by mothers and professional caregivers, took off her glasses and hid her face in her hands for a long time.

研討會(huì)上的一個(gè)女人摘下眼鏡，用手捂住臉很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間。這次研討會(huì)在北京的一所大學(xué)召開(kāi)，與會(huì)者大多是母親或職業(yè)看護(hù)人。

Another stared straight ahead, tearing up.

另一個(gè)人眼睛直直地盯著前方，滿(mǎn)含淚水。

A third asked, somewhat frantically, whether John had healed later. The answer — that he had not, entirely — from the teacher, Alf Gerlach, a psychoanalyst at the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt, was met with quiet consternation.

還有一位略帶急躁地詢(xún)問(wèn)約翰后來(lái)是否康復(fù)。講師阿爾夫·格拉克(Alf Gerlach)的回答是，他沒(méi)有完全康復(fù)。格拉克是法蘭克福弗洛伊德研究所(Sigmund Freud Institute)的精神分析學(xué)家。他的回答帶來(lái)一片愕然。

Millions of Chinese who attended boarding nurseries and preschools after the Communist revolution in 1949, when large-scale systems of institutional care were established to free parents to pursue revolution or to labor, experienced John’s plight to some degree.

1949年共產(chǎn)主義革命后，中國(guó)建立了大規(guī)模機(jī)構(gòu)式護(hù)理系統(tǒng)，來(lái)解放父母，讓他們有時(shí)間參與革命或勞動(dòng)。成百上千萬(wàn)中國(guó)幼兒被送往寄宿托兒所或幼兒園，他們也都在某種程度上經(jīng)歷了約翰的痛苦。

The generation most deeply affected may be those born in the early decades after 1949, as the boarding system spread unquestioned — those in their 50s and 60s who run the country today.

受影響最深的應(yīng)該是在1949年之后的前幾十年出生的人——那時(shí)寄宿系統(tǒng)在沒(méi)有受到任何質(zhì)疑的情況下推廣開(kāi)來(lái)——而今他們五六十歲，正掌管著這個(gè)國(guó)家。

But the women at the seminar, who ranged from young adults to middle age, all had stories of losing primary caregivers, or of being forced to separate from their own children because of rules barring parents from staying with their hospitalized children.

但是，研討會(huì)上的女性，不管是剛剛成年，還是人到中年，都有失去主要照顧者，或者因?yàn)椴辉试S父母與住院的孩子呆在一起的醫(yī)院規(guī)定而被迫同孩子分開(kāi)的經(jīng)歷。

Boarding school is less common now for those under 6 but is still considered a respectable option. Even Chinese millennials may have been sent as toddlers. It is widespread among children 6 and older.

六歲以下兒童的寄宿托兒所如今已經(jīng)不是那么普遍，但仍被視為不錯(cuò)的選擇。在中國(guó)，就連千禧一代小時(shí)候也有可能被送進(jìn)這種托兒所。這種情況在六歲及以上的兒童中非常普遍。

Hoping to understand more about the development of the system in China, I visited the Beijing municipal archives on Archive Road.

我希望更多了解這種系統(tǒng)在中國(guó)的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r，于是拜訪(fǎng)了北京市檔案館。

There, documents showed that, at top institutions in the city after the revolution, the caregiver-to-child ratios — John’s problem had been a lack of attention — were initially high. Mostly, the children of the elite were sent away. The children of ordinary citizens were cared for at home.

這里的檔案表明，革命之后，在北京最好的若干托兒所里，照顧者與幼兒的人數(shù)比(約翰的問(wèn)題在于缺乏關(guān)照)最初是非常高的。大多數(shù)情況下，精英階層的孩子們會(huì)被送進(jìn)托兒所。普通市民的孩子們則在家里接受照顧。

A 1958 State Council document recorded a 1-to-2 ratio in 1956 at a nursery run by the Ministry of Agriculture. But colder times began with the 1958 “double-anti” campaign against “waste and conservatism.”

根據(jù)一份1958年的國(guó)務(wù)院檔案的記載，1956年，在一個(gè)農(nóng)業(yè)部管理的托兒所里，一個(gè)看護(hù)者只需照顧兩個(gè)幼兒。但是隨著1958年“反浪費(fèi)反保守”的“雙反”運(yùn)動(dòng)來(lái)臨，冷酷的時(shí)代開(kāi)始了。

Spending on food and board was cut everywhere, the document showed. The caregiver ratio at the ministry nursery went to 1-to-5.5 that year. The authorities promised to get it to 1-to-5.9, in line with “rectification.”

文件表明，在所有地方，用于食物和住宿的經(jīng)費(fèi)都被縮減。那一年，在這個(gè)農(nóng)業(yè)部的托兒所里，相關(guān)比例變成了一個(gè)看護(hù)者照顧5.5個(gè)幼兒。為了“整風(fēng)”，官方承諾將這個(gè)比例變成1:5.9。

Conditions in less privileged preschools grew grim as the authorities pushed to institutionalize large numbers of children to free parents to meet higher production quotas during the Great Leap Forward of 1958 to 1961.

在1958年到1961年的“大躍進(jìn)”期間，官方開(kāi)始推動(dòng)將大量?jī)和瓦M(jìn)幼兒園的做法，以便把父母解放出來(lái)，完成更高的生產(chǎn)定額，因此，在條件相對(duì)沒(méi)那么好的幼兒園里，形勢(shì)變得更加嚴(yán)峻。

Another document, dated 1960, noted: “The problem now is that the development of boarding nurseries isn’t keeping up with the development of the needs of production.” Facilities were built quickly but were “small and cramped.” Only 26 percent were “good.” In Beijing, 400,000 children needed preschool places immediately, the document said. With the able-bodied working in fields or factories, the caregivers were often old or sick. At one preschool, the document said, six children drowned in one summer and three got food poisoning, with one dying.

另一份1960年的文件中寫(xiě)著“主要問(wèn)題是托兒組織的發(fā)展還跟不上生產(chǎn)發(fā)展的需要”。設(shè)施建設(shè)很快，但“非常窄小”。“良好”率僅為26%。文件說(shuō)，在北京，有40萬(wàn)兒童迫切需要幼兒園。身強(qiáng)力壯的人都在農(nóng)田或工廠(chǎng)工作，看護(hù)人通常都是老弱者。文件顯示，在一個(gè)幼兒園里，一個(gè)夏天內(nèi)有六個(gè)孩子溺水，三人食物中毒，其中一人死亡。

Conditions have improved drastically since then, but loyalty to the system remains. An article published one week before school began on Sept. 1, by Shilehui, a website for preschool educators, addressed the issue.

比起那時(shí)，幼兒園的條件得到很大改善，但是人們?nèi)匀粓?zhí)著于這一體系。在9月1日學(xué)校開(kāi)學(xué)一周前，一個(gè)名為“師樂(lè)匯”的幼兒園教育者網(wǎng)站上發(fā)表的一篇文章就此做出解答。

Hardly any parent likes to send a young child to be boarded, it said. But in the interests of “objectivity,” it listed three advantages: Boarding helps children become more independent and less finicky and make more friends.

文章稱(chēng)，很少有父母愿意送孩子去寄宿。但是出于“客觀(guān)”考慮，文章列出了寄宿制度的三個(gè)優(yōu)點(diǎn)：能幫助孩子更加獨(dú)立、不嬌氣、交到更多朋友。

Little John’s experience shows it also can have negative emotional outcomes. And the reactions of the women attending the course suggest that many Chinese parents know it.

小約翰的經(jīng)歷表明，這種制度可能在感情方面帶來(lái)負(fù)面后果。而參加這個(gè)課程的女性的反應(yīng)表明，很多中國(guó)父母明白這一點(diǎn)。