剧评：Pulau Ujong / Island at the End
建国迷思与喉舌—— 观“Pulau Ujong / Island at the End”
文 / 杨明慧
前一阵子和一位专研生态学的学生对话，她说的一句话在我脑海里留下了变革性（transformative）的烙印。她说：新加坡人习以为常的国家话语 —— 新加坡没有天然资源，人类是我们最宝贵的资源——其实是多么人类中心主义（Anthropocentric）的一句话。我当下真有种恍然大悟的感觉。确实以生态批评（ecocriticism）的角度来看，这一个长期主导着国家叙述的话语是多么的傲慢与偏颇。
W!ld Rice 的 Palau Ujong 正是一部以生态批评的视角，重新认知与建构新加坡历史的戏剧。该剧是由访谈与档案照片组成的纪录剧场（documentary theatre），其实也可视作是关于本地生态问题的一个速成班（crash course）。剧中，五位演员轮流饰演多名本地生态工作者，以及受生态问题影响的人物与“不只是人类”（more-than-humans; 后人类学及生态学的词汇）。这包括社运分子、科学家、艺术家、海民（Orang Laut）的后代、被关在圣淘沙海底世界的海豚、新加坡动物园的猩猩阿明和北极熊伊努卡、榕树、喇叭花树等等。全剧长达两个半小时，演员们接连为观众呈现“圈内人”的观点与经验，俨然一部厚实的新加坡生态史（environmental history）。在致敬本地生态工作者的同时，该剧有效地颠覆了一般将生态元素简化成背景，仅用来凸显或点缀人类活动的历史书写模式。
Pulau Ujong 不仅陈述了新加坡生态史，同时也开启了与主流（历史）叙事的对话。让我印象深刻的是，Pulau Ujong 以生态问题的角度，反思我们熟悉的建国迷思（founding myths）。其中之一便是上述关于新加坡没有天然资源的说法。通过引述历年来坚持不懈为本地生态工作耕耘的“圈内人”知识、看法，及他们受到的各种阻挠，Pulau Ujong 强而有力地揭示了，新加坡绝非没有天然资源，只是我们原有的森林与生物多样性（biodiversity），不断地被大规模清除。自我国独立以来，国家便以强大而单向的唯发展主义（developmentalism），以及建基于人类例外思想（human exceptionalism）的城市规划原则，去合理化砍伐与驱逐（eviction）的行为。演员们的阐述揭发了主流媒体较少报道和论及的事实，如我国向其他东南亚国家购取沙土以进行填海工程、砍伐森林以建筑石油厂与高速公路、将海民逐出他们的原生岛屿以将这些岛屿用作工业用途等，直接控诉国家和私人企业以“建国”和“发展”为名实施的各种榨取性资本主义（extractive capitalism）与扩张性资本主义（expansionist capitalism）行为，对本地环境生态所造成的巨大迫害。“我们没有天然资源”这句话，其实可以更准确地理解为：“我们所拥有的天然资源无用于国家发展，或者说无用于国家认可的发展模式，所以它们没有存在的价值和理由”。
Pulau Ujong 也启发我反思另一熟悉的建国迷思，即新加坡曾是落后渔村的说法。剧中，扮演鸟类学家的演员为观众解释本地建筑工程对环境生态造成的危害，以及鸟类在新加坡生存的困难。让我特别有感触的是，这名鸟类学家感慨地分享，每当他提倡要多点关心本地的生态环境时，总会有人如此回应：“你是想要新加坡回到渔村状态，是吗？”“新加坡曾是落后渔村”这句话历年来备受争议，主要是因为国家独立建国的时候，新加坡其实已是繁荣的港口。“曾是落后渔村” 的建国迷思将新加坡的繁荣完全归功于掌权者，用以催生感恩之心，促使国人珍惜与维持新加坡今天的繁荣与发展，乃至于现今的政治与社会结构（以确保国家不会“回到”“从前的”渔村状态）。对政治、社会与文化批评稍微熟悉的新加坡人，听到这非属实又问题重重的论述，往往会产生膝跳反应式的反感、无奈与感慨。但有趣的是，在该剧生态批评的氛围里，这个桥段竟促发我往不同的方向去思考。这名鸟类学家接下来耐心地向观众解释，他并不是要新加坡从现代都市变化成渔村，只是希望国家与发展商在建构组屋和私人公寓的时候，能更多地把环境生态纳入实质考量当中。在他苦口婆心又带点无奈的解说中，我竟产生了这样一个近乎叛逆的念头：这问题的答案为什么不能是“是”呢？
对这问题说“是”，等同于承认新加坡确曾仅是落后的渔村，而且有将现代化/独立建国前的生活简化与过度理想化的嫌疑。但倘若我们将这里的语境拉到一个更广大的层面上去了解呢？生态学提出的重要观点之一，是今天的生态灾难主要并不是由人类的存在本身所造成的。人类（尤其是居住在全球北方的人们）依赖消费资本主义的生活方式、以市场考量判定一切的思考模式、对物质与经济发展的无止尽追求、维持现代生活所需的大量能源与资源的消耗与累积等，构成了科学家所说的“大加速（The Great Acceleration）”，地球越加无法负荷人类的活动。正因如此，有些学者也曾提议不该以“人类世（Anthropocene）”指称现今的地质时代（geological epoch），而当使用诸如“资本世（Capitalocene）”的称谓，好让问题的焦点更加清晰可见（即问题并不在于人类的存在，而是资本主义的运作模式）。在这背景下，要超克当前的困境，一个重要的管道是将注意力转向不同的生活与价值系统，尊重并接受各种思想系统所能带来的启示，由此改变我们与世界及与地球的相处方式。学者 Donna Haraway 就曾言，在生态问题上，用什么样的思想系统去思考是事关重大的；用什么样的知识系统去获得知识是事关重大的；用什么样的关系去建立新的关系是事关重大的；用什么样的世界观去创造世界是事关重大的；用什么样的叙事系统去述说故事是事关重大的（It matters what thoughts think thoughts. It matters what knowledges know knowledges. It matters what relations relate relations. It matters what worlds world worlds. It matters what stories tell stories）”。 我们需要审视并刷新我们的知识观与世界观。
其实 Pulau Ujong 充分地体现了这一点。演员们通过引述马来饮食文化的研究者 Khir、海民的后代 Firdaus，以及艺术家 Zarina的话语，提醒观众另一种生活方式的可能性（甚至是必要性）。在他们所引荐的马来民族、海民以及泛灵论（animism）的文化和知识系统中，人类只拿取自己所需的资源，捕捉的鱼儿若太小就应当放回大海，牛羊这类的陆地动物是特别节庆才宰杀来吃的，根本无需发展大规模的工业化农业（mass industrial farming）。人类也不应当仅以理智的大脑去了解和思考乃至于对待事物，应当（甚至需要）以多元感官（multisensorial）和灵性（spiritual）的方式，去建构人类与万物一切之间的关系。这其实也呼应生态学家所提倡的，多种生物相互牵连（multispecies living/entanglement）的生存方式：我们必须明白人类并不是最优越的生物品种，需尊重每一个生物（与非生物）的生活方式与生存状态；与此同时，我们也必须放弃对一切无谓的对立关系与界限划分的执着，承认每一个生物之间存在着紧密相连的关系，由此开启你我相互依赖的生活模式。航海族群（seafaring communities）与村落民族的觅食传统与生活智慧，指向一种可持续性的生活模式。在这前提下，做为一种生活方式、一种理想追求、一种可借鉴的文化与知识系统，是什么阻止我们“想要回到渔村的状态”呢？我们为什么不能“就想回到渔村的状态”呢？ Pulau Ujong 让我从生态批评的角度，往意想不到的方向去重新审视自己习以为常的观念与论述。
关于舍弃僵硬的对立关系、追求万物相互牵连的理想状态，Pulau Ujong 在形式上做了最直接的表态。开场时，扮演该剧编剧 Alfian Sa’at 的演员们便开宗明义地表示，每一部剧其实都是编剧的喉舌（mouth-piece），该剧也不例外。毫无掩饰的，Pulau Ujong体现的是编剧 Alfian Sa’at自己现阶段的关怀与想法。沿着这样的思路，接下来五名演员轮流扮演多名角色，引述他们受访时所说的话，其实就不仅是“编剧的喉舌”，同时也是这些生态工作者与受生态问题影响的人物和“不只是人类”的喉舌。“喉舌”，在该剧生态批评的框架里，是十分关键的概念。在人类世（Anthropocene）的语境里，万物往往沦为仅为人类服务的“喉舌”。人类惯以（自私且高傲地）将自己的需求和想法强加在万物身上，就像剧中的阿明猩猩一样，曾是新加坡多项官方宣传运动的宣传大使。因此，该剧一开始便通过编剧的“现身”，让观众提高对“喉舌”概念的意识，不仅提醒观众在看戏时不要被动地接受剧中的讯息，要自己批判性地思考该剧的内容，同时也促使观众思考人类表述（articulate）及认知万物的方式。
有趣的是，演员们在传达受访者话语的时候，其实多少也有模仿的成分。从认识受访者的观众反应可看出，演员们显然下足了功夫去学习每一位受访者的体态与妆容。在这意义上，Pulau Ujong 的演员们其实不只是编剧和受访者的喉舌，我看到的更多是认同、是设身处地，是一种类似上身的状态。演员们不是简单的替他/她说话，而是尝试站在他们的立场说话。从这角度来看，Pulau Ujong在形式上呼应了对你我不分之境界的追求。进一步而言，说到形式，也必须提出无法忽视的问题。尽管这“喉舌”或“设身处地”的表演形式十分符合 Pulau Ujong的创作内容，但该剧却同时也蛮不加批判地使用了人格化（anthropomorphizing）的手法。演员们换装成老虎、猩猩、海豚、北极熊、犀鸟、榕树、喇叭花树，以人类的视角、思考和表达形式阐述它们的故事。它们在剧中的出现，作用之一明显也是为了增加喜剧效果，以其可爱和夸张的装扮和表演，为冗长的演出注入一些娱乐性。在一部生态批评的作品中看到这样蛮不加批判的人格化（anthropomorphizing）表现，着实造成一些困惑。人格化在生态批评里备受争议，其中以人格化的手法唤起同理和同情心是否弊多于利是评论家争辩的课题之一。该剧若能更敏感地运用人格化的手法，或许会比较合适一些。
剧末，演员通过新加坡自然协会会长的话语，为新加坡的生态问题下了一个“非正式”的结论：“到头来这是关乎价值观（values）的问题”。这也让我产生些许困惑。全剧主要批判的是结构性的不公（structural injustice），因此矛头主要指向新加坡的掌权者（企业家与政治家）。我的疑问是，Pulau Ujong 要他们改变的价值观或观念是什么？且如何让他们看到甚至承认有改变的需要？该剧指出，在新加坡的语境里，官方的确普遍承认生态危机是眼前的现实，并已在一定的程度上认真商讨应付的方案。在这背景下，该剧明示与暗示着国家应该进而往诸如去增长（degrowth）或零增长（zero growth）的方向前进，一改唯发展主义、资本扩张的发展方针与价值取向。这引发我思考：在政治与生态议题无可厚非交织在一起的境况里，我们能如何进行有建设性的、变革性的对话？若 Pulau Ujong 在新加坡的生态议题上，提倡的是个人与国家层面上的去/零增长，那么在我看来，单单揭示现有政策和行动的不足与虚伪是不足够的，其批判与劝说的力度稍嫌薄弱。对于一个向来以技术官僚主义（technocracy）著称的政治系统而言，面对生态问题它自然是较偏向以科技乐观主义（techno-optimism）的方案。国家、企业，以及不少我所认识的中产阶级新加坡人，往往用科技乐观主义的话语去迎接生态灾难的挑战，仿佛我们只要积极发明并普及化新的科技，如各种“绿色能源”技术、人造肉，甚至是地景改造/地球化其他星球（terraforming）等，便能有效应付生态危机。在这样的观念里，科技的发展，以及对科技的崇信，能使资本主义机器在新的地质时代里继续运作，使人类能够继续安然存活。因此，在我看来，若 Pulau Ujong 能让这两种对立的价值观系统产生建设性的对话， “改变价值观”的呼召或许才会显得更有意义一些。
Pulau Ujong的舞台设计仿造岛屿的地理形式——一块土地漂浮在水中。在生态危机中，岛屿是最脆弱的区域之一。创作团队选择以Pulau Ujong（新加坡的古名之一） 而非更广为流传的、出自人造神话的“Singapura”为剧名，凸显了新加坡的岛屿性质，也呼应该剧以生态批评的角度重构新加坡历史的初衷。已迫在眉间的生态危机迫使我们急需反思与改变惯有的思考与生活方式，剧场创作也亦然。Pulau Ujong 做出了很好的尝试，期望每一位观众也都能有所启发。
关于演出：2022年9月30日，2:30PM，义安公司剧院@野米，野米剧场呈现
阅读编剧专访：https://www.wildrice.com.sg/force-of-nature/
***
The Myth of Nation-Building and the Mouthpiece: Review of “Pulau Ujong / Island At The End”
Theatre review by Yeo Min Hui
Translated from Chinese to English by Neo Hai Bin
Not long ago, I was having a conversation with an ecology student, who mentioned something that left a transformative mark on me, “The national discourse that Singaporeans take for granted – that Singapore has no natural resources, that human beings are our most precious resources – is in itself an Anthropocentric view.” I had a vivid realisation at that moment. From an ecocriticism point of view, such discourse that long dominated the state narrative is indeed deeply arrogant and biased.
W!ld Rice's Palau Ujong is a verbatim that re-recognizes and re-constructs Singapore's history from an ecocritical perspective. The play, a documentary theatre made up of interviews and archival photographs, can also be seen as a crash course on local ecological issues. In the play, five actors took turns playing a number of local ecologists, as well as humans and “more-than-humans" (a term used by post-anthropological and ecological studies) affected by ecological problems, such as activists, scientists, artists, descendants of Orang Lauts, a dolphin imprisoned in the underwater world of Sentosa, Ah Meng the Orangutan, Inuka the polar bear in the Singapore Zoo, a banyan tree, a trumpet flower trees, and more. The whole play lasted two and a half hours, and the actors successively present the views and experiences of "insiders" to the audience, a substantial piece of ecological history of Singapore. While paying tribute to local ecological workers, the play effectively subverts the historical-writing model that generally over-simplifies ecological elements, and only used as embellishment or for highlighting human activities.
Palau Ujong is not just a recount of Singapore's ecological history, but also opened a dialogue with the mainstream (historical) narrative. What struck me was how the play reflected on the familiar founding myths with the standpoint of ecological issues, one of which is the aforementioned claim that Singapore has no natural resources. By quoting the knowledge and perceptions of the "insiders" who have worked tirelessly for our local ecology, and the various obstacles they encountered over the years, Palau Ujong has powerfully revealed that Singapore is not without natural resources, and our primary forests and their biodiversity are constantly being cleared on a large scale. Since our independence, the nation has rationalized deforestation and eviction with a strong, uni-directional “developmentalism”, and based its urban planning principles on human exceptionalism. The actors exposed facts that are rarely reported and discussed in the mainstream media, such as Singapore's purchase of sand from other Southeast Asian countries for our reclamation projects, the deforestation projects to build petroleum factories and highways, the expulsion of seafarers from their native islands for industrial use. It directly denounces the various “extractive capitalism" implemented by the state and private enterprises in the name of "nation-building" and “expansionist capitalism”, and exposes the great persecution of our environment. The phrase "we have no natural resources" can actually be more accurately understood as: "The natural resources we have are useless for national development, or for the development model recognized by the state, and hence they have no value and reason for existence.”
Palau Ujong also inspired me to reflect on another familiar founding myth, namely that Singapore was once a backward fishing village. In the play, the actor who played the ornithologist explained to the audience the harm caused by local construction projects to the environment and ecology, as well as how difficult it is for birds to survive in Singapore. It was a rueful moment when the ornithologist lamented how, whenever he advocated for more concern towards our ecological environment, someone would always respond: "You want Singapore to regress to a fishing village, don't you?" The phrase "Singapore was once a backward fishing village" has been a controversial statement for many years, mainly because Singapore was actually a prosperous port before the nation gained independence. The founding myth of how “we were once a backward fishing village” attributes Singapore's prosperity entirely to those in power, who have been using it to foster gratitude, to urge the people to cherish and sustain Singapore's prosperity and development, to maintain the current political and social structures, so as to ensure that the country does not "regress" to the "old" fishing village state. Any Singaporeans who are vaguely familiar with the political, social and cultural criticism, often have a knee-jerk reaction of disgust, helplessness and ruefulness when they hear such an untrue and problematic statement. But interestingly, in the context of ecological criticism, this part of the play actually prompted me to reflect in a different manner. The ornithologist then patiently explained that he did not have the intention for Singapore to transform into a fishing village from a modern urban city, and that he only hoped that the nation and its urban developers would try taking environmental ecology into consideration as part of their plans to build HDB flats and private apartments. As I listened to his earnest and well-meaning advice, I actually had such an almost rebellious thought: Why can't the answer to this question be “yes"?
To say "yes" to this question is tantamount to acknowledging that Singapore was indeed a backward fishing village, along with the idea of an over-simplification and over-idealization of life before modernization/independence. But what if we take the context here to a broader level? One of the important points put forward by ecology is that the world’s current ecological catastrophes are not caused only by human existence. Human beings (especially those living in the global north) live under consumerism and capitalism. They rely on a model of thinking that only adheres to market considerations. Their endless pursuit of material and economic development, and the consumption and accumulation of large amount of energy and resources in order to sustain modern living, constitutes what scientists call "The Great Acceleration", such that the Earth is increasingly unable to support human activities. For this reason, some scholars have also suggested that the term "Anthropocene" should not be used to refer to the geological epoch, but should use the term "Capitalocene" in order to reflect the primary problem (that is, the problem is not the existence of human beings, but the mode of operation of Capitalism). In this context, an important way to overcome our current predicament is to turn our attention to a different lifestyle and value system, to respect and accept the revelations that different thought systems can bring, and thus change the way we can relate to the world and the Earth. A prominent scholar Donna Haraway once mentioned that, when it comes to ecological issues, “It matters what thoughts think thoughts. It matters what knowledges know knowledges. It matters what relations relate relations. It matters what worlds world worlds. It matters what stories tell stories”. There is a critical need for us to examine and refresh our knowledge system, and our worldview.
In fact, Palau Ujong fully embodied this. By quoting the words of Khir, a researcher of Malay food culture, and Firdaus, a descendant of the Orang Laut, and Zarina, the artist, the actors reminded the audience of the possibility (and even necessity) of another way of life. In the culture and knowledge systems of the ancient Malays and the Orang Lauts, following animistic beliefs, humans only take sufficient resources for their needs— fish that are too small are released into the sea, cattle and sheeps are only slaughtered and eaten during festive occasions, so there is in fact no need for the development of mass industrial farming. Nor should humans only understand and think and even treat things with their rational mind alone, but should (and even need to) build relationships between humans and the many species on Earth in multi-sensorial and spiritual ways. This actually echoes the “multispecies living/entanglement” that ecologists have been advocating: we must understand that human beings are not the most superior species, and we must respect the lifestyle and living conditions of every living (and non-living) things. At the same time, we must also abandon our attachment to all unnecessary antagonistic relationships and boundaries, and acknowledge that every species on Earth are strongly interlinked, and thus start living a lifestyle that emphasises on inter-dependence between species. The foraging traditions and life wisdom of seafaring communities and tribesmen point to a sustainable way of life. Under this premise, as a way of life, as an ideal pursuit, when such culture and knowledge system can be readily used, just what is preventing us from returning to "the state of the fishing village"? Why don't we want to "go back to the state of the fishing village"? Through the perspective of ecocriticism, Palau Ujong invited me to re-examine my habitual ideas and discourses in an unexpected direction.
Regarding the abandonment of rigid antagonistic relationships and the pursuit of the ideal state of interconnectedness, Palau Ujong made the most direct statement through its theatrical form. At the start of the play, the actors, playing the playwright Alfian Sa'at, mentioned that every performance is a mouth-piece of the playwright, and this performance is no exception. Unabashedly, Palau Ujong embodied the playwright’s concern and thoughts at this current phase of life. The five actors then took turns playing multiple roles, and as they verbalised texts from various interviewees, they were at the same time the "mouthpieces" of the playwright, the ecologists, the humans and “more-than-humans” that are affected by ecological problems. "Mouthpiece", in the framework of the play's ecological criticism, is a key concept. Under an “Anthropocene” context, all species on Earth are often reduced to a "mouthpiece" for the service of human beings. Humans habitually impose (selfishly and proudly) their own needs and ideas on everything. The audience witnessed it through Ah Meng the Orangutang, who had been the ambassador of official propaganda campaigns in Singapore over the years. Therefore, at the beginning of the play, the device of manifesting the playwright’s presence on stage helped audiences to be aware of the concept of “mouthpiece” in the play, reminding the audience not to simply accept the informations in the play passively, but to also think critically as they watched the play. At the same time, audiences are prompted to think about the ways to articulate and understand our biodiversity of Planet Earth.
Interestingly, as actors conveyed the words of the interviewees, they were also imitating them. From the reaction of the audiences who are friends with the interviewees, it is certain that the actors put in substantial amount of efforts to learn their posture and mannerism. And so the actors were not just the “mouthpieces” of the writers and interviewees. I saw an acceptance and an act of putting themselves in others’ shoes, almost akin to going in trance. The actors are not just speaking for him/her, they are in fact speaking from their point of view. Through this theatrical form, Palau Ujong echoed the quest for the state of interconnectness. And yet, it is also necessary to raise some issues in choosing this theatrical form. Even though this the device of the "mouthpiece" and the act of "putting oneself in others' shoes" was very much in line with the content of Palau Ujong, the play also uses anthropomorphizing rather uncritically. The actors acted as tiger, orangutan, dolphin, polar bear, hornbill, banyan tree, trumpet tree, and told their stories from a human perspective, in a human mode of thinking and expression. They are obviously use for the purpose of injecting comedic effect, with cute costumes and larger-than-life performances, providing some entertainment into the otherwise lengthy performance. But in a play that functions under the context of ecocritism, to watch an uncritical personification can be a bit confusing. “Personification” is an controversial idea in ecocriticism, and critics often debate about whether the use of personification can evoke empathy or sympathy. It might be more appropriate if the play could use a more sensitive approach to personalization.
At the end of the play, the actors, through the words of the president of the Singapore Nature Association, drew an "informal" conclusion about Singapore's ecological problems: In the end it is a matter of values. This also confused me a little. The main criticism of the whole play is structural injustice, so the spearhead is mainly directed at those in power (entrepreneurs and politicians). My question is, what are the values or perceptions that Palau Ujong wants them to change? How do we get them to see and even acknowledge the need for change? The play pointed out that, in Singapore, the ecological crisis is generally recognized as a reality, and to a certain extent, there are serious actions taken to tackle the crisis. The play explicitly and implicitly pointed out that the nation should move towards the direction of “degrowth” or “zero growth”, and should change its old policy of “developmentalism" and “capital expansion". It led me to wonder: How can we have a constructive and transformative dialogue in a situation where politics and ecological issues are so inextricably intertwined? If Palau Ujong advocates de/zero growth on the individual level and the scale of a nation, then in my opinion, it is not enough to reveal the shortcomings and hypocrisies of existing policies and actions, and hence the play’s criticism and persuasion are slightly mild. For a political system known for technocracy, in the face of ecological problems, it will naturally gear towards “techno-optimism”. The state, businesses, and many middle-class Singaporeans whom I know often use technologically optimistic rhetoric to meet the challenges of ecological catastrophe, as if we could respond effectively to the ecological crisis by actively inventing and popularizing new technologies, such as various "green energy" technologies, artificial meat, and even terraforming. In their perspective, the development and the belief in science and technology will enable the capitalist machine to continue to operate in the new geological epoch, and thus enable humanity to continue to survive. So, it seems to me that the call to "change values" might seem more meaningful if Palau Ujong can have a constructive dialogue between these two opposing value systems.
Palau Ujong's stage design mimics the shape of our island – a piece of land floating in the water. Islands are one of the most vulnerable entities in the face of the ecological crisis. The creative team's choice of "Pulau Ujong” (one of Singapore's ancient names) rather than the more widely circulated "Singapura" highlights the nature of Singapore as an island, echoing the intention of the play in reconstructing Singapore's history from an ecocritical perspective. The looming ecological crisis has forced us to urgently reflect and change our usual thinking and lifestyle, and so have theatre creation. Palau Ujong has made a step towards this end, and I hope that the audience are inspired as well.
Performance watched: 30th September 2022, 2:30pm at The Ngee Ann Kongsi Theatre @ Wild Rice Funan
Presented by W!ld Rice
Comments
Post a Comment