The Myth of Independent American Families獨(dú)立美國(guó)家庭的迷思

In Nordic countries， people rely on the state. In the U.S.， they rely on their communities.

在北歐，人們依靠國(guó)家。在美國(guó)，人們依靠自己的社區(qū)。

In 1970， a 17-year-old named Lars Tragardh left Sweden for America， trading in the collectivism of his home country for rugged individualism. Or so he thought.

1970年，一位名叫拉爾斯·特雷高的17歲少年離開(kāi)瑞典前往美國(guó)，舍棄祖國(guó)的集體主義而選擇了堅(jiān)定的個(gè)人主義。至少他是這樣想的。

His disillusionment began while he was applying for college financial aid. He hoped to attend Pomona College in Southern California， and even back then， tuition seemed steep compared with the cost of education in Sweden， where university was free. When he learned that the school had two sets of aid forms—one regarding his own income， and one for his parents’—he was surprised. “Well， what does that have to do with me？” Tragardh recalls asking. “I’m an adult … I have no economic relations to my family anymore.” An administrator explained that in America， parents are expected to contribute to their children’s college costs.

申請(qǐng)大學(xué)助學(xué)金時(shí)他的幻想開(kāi)始破滅。他希望入讀南加州的波莫納學(xué)院，而即便在那個(gè)年代，美國(guó)大學(xué)的學(xué)費(fèi)相較于瑞典也似乎高不可攀——瑞典的大學(xué)教育是免費(fèi)的。當(dāng)他得知學(xué)校有兩套助學(xué)金申請(qǐng)表（這兩套表分別涉及他自己的和他父母的收入）時(shí)，他很驚訝。特雷高記得自己當(dāng)時(shí)問(wèn)道：“呃，那和我有什么關(guān)系？我是個(gè)成年人……我和家人已經(jīng)沒(méi)有經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系了?！币晃还芾砣藛T解釋說(shuō)，在美國(guó)，父母應(yīng)該出錢(qián)供孩子上大學(xué)。

Tragardh thought that sounded generous， but also concerning. Wouldn’t that sort of financial dependence give parents unreasonable influence over their adult children？ What if the child wanted to study， say， history， but the parents refused to pay unless their child pursued medicine？ “They looked at me like I was from Mars，” Tragardh， now a historian living in Stockholm， told me.

特雷高覺(jué)得這聽(tīng)起來(lái)很慷慨，但也很令人擔(dān)憂。這種經(jīng)濟(jì)依賴(lài)難道不會(huì)導(dǎo)致父母對(duì)成年子女施加不合理的影響嗎？比如說(shuō)，如果孩子想學(xué)歷史，但父母要孩子學(xué)醫(yī)他們才肯出錢(qián)，該怎么辦？“他們看我的眼神，就像我來(lái)自火星一樣?！碧乩赘邔?duì)我說(shuō)道。他現(xiàn)在是一位歷史學(xué)家，居住在斯德哥爾摩。

America has a reputation， both at home and abroad， as a country that values independence above practically all else. But from Tragardh’s perspective， that commitment to independence rings hollow. To him， Americans seem to have confused individualism with anti-statism; U.S. policy makers happily throw people into positions of reliance on their families and communities in order to keep the state out. He’s got a point. We have our own culture of dependence， and it comes with its own shortcomings.

美國(guó)在國(guó)內(nèi)外都以將獨(dú)立看得高于一切而著稱(chēng)。但從特雷高的角度來(lái)看，這種對(duì)獨(dú)立的信奉聽(tīng)起來(lái)有些空洞。他認(rèn)為，美國(guó)人似乎混淆了個(gè)人主義和反國(guó)家主義；美國(guó)的政策制定者樂(lè)見(jiàn)人們依賴(lài)自己的家庭和社區(qū)，這樣國(guó)家就能置身事外。他的觀點(diǎn)有一定道理。我們有自己的依賴(lài)文化，而這種文化有其自身的缺點(diǎn)。

In Nordic countries， people generally have help paying for college—just not from their parents. Take Sweden， for example： Most European students don’t have to pay tuition， and Swedish citizens can apply for a stipend to cover their living expenses. All young people， in university or not， with incomes below a certain threshold can qualify for a housing allowance. And if they go on to begin families of their own， they’re automatically eligible for paid parental leave and， after kids turn 1， low-cost child care.

在北歐國(guó)家，上大學(xué)通常會(huì)獲得學(xué)費(fèi)資助，只是并非來(lái)自父母。以瑞典為例：大多數(shù)歐洲學(xué)生無(wú)須交學(xué)費(fèi)，瑞典公民還可以申請(qǐng)助學(xué)金以維持生活開(kāi)銷(xiāo)。所有收入低于一定水準(zhǔn)的年輕人，無(wú)論是否在讀大學(xué)，都有資格領(lǐng)取住房津貼。如果他們之后生兒育女，將自動(dòng)享受帶薪育兒假，孩子滿1歲后還可以享受低成本的兒童保育。

With little of this guaranteed in the U.S.， young people have to turn elsewhere. Americans are more and more likely to live with their parents in their 20s and 30s， and in most cases， the parents are paying the lion’s share of the housing costs. About a third of low-income adults cite the need for child care as a reason for such an arrangement. And many grown people who don’t live with their parents still rely on them financially for help with college tuition， loans， rent， mortgages， or child-care costs. This interdependency sometimes goes in the other direction， too： Adult children commonly take on the role of primary caregiver for their aging parents， especially those with lower incomes who can’t afford professional help.

在美國(guó)，上述種種福利幾乎都不存在，因此年輕人不得不另想辦法。越來(lái)越多二三十歲的美國(guó)年輕人選擇與父母同住，在大多數(shù)情況下，父母承擔(dān)了大部分的住房費(fèi)用。大約1/3的低收入成年人表示，父母幫忙照顧孩子，是他們做出這種安排的原因之一。而許多不與父母同住的成年人在經(jīng)濟(jì)上仍然依賴(lài)父母，需要父母幫忙支付大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)、貸款、租金、抵押貸款或兒童保育費(fèi)用。這種相互依存的關(guān)系有時(shí)也會(huì)反過(guò)來(lái)：成年子女通常會(huì)承擔(dān)起照顧年邁父母的主要角色，收入較低、無(wú)力承擔(dān)專(zhuān)業(yè)護(hù)理費(fèi)用的尤其如此。

When Anu Partanen， a Finnish journalist and the author of The Nordic Theory of Everything， moved to the U.S.， she was continually struck by the degree to which Americans’ well-being depends on their relations. Some small examples stood out， such as the fact that married couples file their taxes jointly， or that expecting parents get their child-care gear from baby showers. Others she found more troubling： an acquaintance who was battling cancer， for instance， and couldn’t leave a bad relationship without losing her partner’s health insurance. Or the many mothers who， unable to afford child care， have to leave their job and rely on their husband’s income.

當(dāng)芬蘭記者、《北歐萬(wàn)物論》的作者阿努·帕爾塔寧搬到美國(guó)后，她時(shí)常驚訝于美國(guó)人的幸福高度依賴(lài)親屬關(guān)系這一現(xiàn)象。有一些很鮮明的小例子，比如已婚夫婦共同納稅，或準(zhǔn)父母在迎嬰派對(duì)上接受育兒用品。也有其他更令人不安的情況：比如，一位正與癌癥對(duì)抗的熟人，如果脫離一段糟糕的婚姻關(guān)系，就會(huì)一并失去伴侶的健康保險(xiǎn)。還有許多請(qǐng)不起保姆的母親不得不辭去工作，依靠丈夫的收入維持生活。

The familial dependencies woven through American life are notable to Scandinavians like Tragardh and Partanen because the Nordic welfare state， especially in Sweden， is designed to eliminate precisely those dependencies. In fact， Tragardh came to conclude that Sweden’s guiding ideology is not so much collectivism as it is statist individualism; the goal， as he and his co-author Henrik Berggren once put it， is to make individuals “as independent of his or her fellow citizens as possible.” Partly for this reason， Swedish universities stopped taking parental income into account in financial-aid decisions， Tragardh told me. Policies such as universal health care serve a similar purpose： to support citizens so that their families don’t have to.

對(duì)特雷高和帕爾塔寧等斯堪的納維亞人來(lái)說(shuō)，美國(guó)人生活中錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的家庭依賴(lài)感值得關(guān)注，因?yàn)楸睔W的福利國(guó)家，尤其是瑞典，其宗旨正是要消除這些依賴(lài)。事實(shí)上，特雷高得出的結(jié)論是，瑞典的指導(dǎo)思想與其說(shuō)是集體主義，不如說(shuō)是國(guó)家主義下的個(gè)人主義。正如他和他的合著者亨里克·貝里格倫在書(shū)中所言，其目標(biāo)是讓個(gè)人“盡可能不依賴(lài)其同胞”。特雷高告訴我，瑞典大學(xué)在審批助學(xué)金時(shí)不再考慮父母的收入，這在一定程度上就是出于上述理念。全民醫(yī)療保健等政策也有類(lèi)似的目的：為公民提供支持，讓他們無(wú)須依賴(lài)家人的幫助。

Eliminating personal dependencies might sound dystopian， but the idea is not to banish our most intimate relationships—only to ensure that they are based on desire rather than need. It’s rooted in what Tragardh and Berggren describe in their book as the “Swedish theory of love，” which views mutual autonomy as a prerequisite for a healthy relationship. To depend heavily on one’s family members or friends not only puts your welfare at the mercy of their whims， the thinking goes， but hamstrings your ability to engage with them authentically. By removing power relations， Swedish social policies free people to associate while making decisions for themselves， without the pressure to stay in the good graces of a benefactor.

消除個(gè)人依賴(lài)可能聽(tīng)起來(lái)反烏托邦，但其本意并非要切斷人與人之間最親密的情感紐帶——只是為了確保這些關(guān)系基于意愿而非需求。這種理念植根于特雷高和貝里格倫在他們的書(shū)中所描述的“瑞典式愛(ài)的理論”。該理論將彼此獨(dú)立視作健康關(guān)系的先決條件。該理論主張，嚴(yán)重依賴(lài)家人或朋友不僅會(huì)讓你的生活狀態(tài)受制于他人，還會(huì)削弱與他們真誠(chéng)交往的能力。通過(guò)消除權(quán)力關(guān)系，瑞典的社會(huì)政策使人們?cè)谂c人交往時(shí)可以自主決策，不必曲意逢迎有恩于己之人。

Of course， the cost of interpersonal independence is dependence on the state， which comes with its own risks of abuse. But the point isn’t that the Nordic model is perfect. It’s that America’s culture of self-reliance is a bit of a myth—and that as a policy goal， fostering total self-reliance is unrealistic. The alternative to the nanny state is not a country full of rugged individualists bootstrapping their way to self-sufficiency; it’s one where adults are heavily dependent on the bank of Mom and Dad. “We are dependent animals，” W. Bradford Wilcox， a sociology professor at the University of Virginia， told me. “It’s a kind of chimerical1 claim to think that you can kind of live in this autonomous way. And so the question is： dependent upon whom？”

當(dāng)然，人際獨(dú)立的代價(jià)是對(duì)國(guó)家的依賴(lài)，這也伴有受制的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。但關(guān)鍵不在于北歐模式是否完美，而是美國(guó)的自力更生文化缺少現(xiàn)實(shí)依據(jù)——以培養(yǎng)完全的自力更生作為政策目標(biāo)是不切實(shí)際的。替代保姆型國(guó)家的這個(gè)國(guó)家并非人人都是堅(jiān)定的個(gè)人主義者，愿意通過(guò)個(gè)人努力實(shí)現(xiàn)自給自足；這里的成年人嚴(yán)重依賴(lài)父母幫襯。弗吉尼亞大學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)教授W.布拉德福德·威爾科克斯對(duì)我說(shuō)：“我們是依賴(lài)性動(dòng)物，想著自己能以這種自主的方式生活，近乎虛妄。問(wèn)題在于：依賴(lài)誰(shuí)呢？”

When citizens are left to rely on their families， their prospects are wildly unequal： The more money your relations have， the better off you’re likely to be. And in an economy in which social mobility can require physical mobility—moving away from home to pursue an education or career—reaching financial independence is especially difficult. Some people just aren’t able to sacrifice child care or the roof over their head in order to take such a leap.

當(dāng)公民只能依靠家人時(shí)，他們的前景就非常不平等：你的親戚越有錢(qián)，你的生活就可能越好。在一個(gè)社會(huì)流動(dòng)可能以人員實(shí)際流動(dòng)——離家求學(xué)或工作——為必要條件的經(jīng)濟(jì)體中，實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)獨(dú)立尤其困難。有些人根本無(wú)法犧牲兒童保育或居住條件去實(shí)現(xiàn)這樣的飛躍。

Others might not want to; caring for people can， admittedly， be enriching. In fact， perhaps because I am American， the Nordic fear of family dependence strikes me in much the same way I imagine American fears of government overreach might strike a Swede—as a little exaggerated. My mother cared for my grandparents in their declining years; I expect to do the same for her， and that prospect feels more like an expression of my love than a threat to it.

還有些人可能并不想；不可否認(rèn)，照顧他人會(huì)令人充實(shí)。事實(shí)上，也許因?yàn)槲沂敲绹?guó)人，在我看來(lái)，北歐人對(duì)家庭依賴(lài)的恐懼就像瑞典人眼中美國(guó)人對(duì)政府越界的恐懼一樣——都有點(diǎn)小題大做了。我母親在我外祖父母晚年時(shí)照顧他們；我希望為她做同樣的事情，這種前景更像是對(duì)愛(ài)的表達(dá)，而不是對(duì)愛(ài)的威脅。

Then again， I remember well the quarrels that arose among my mother and her siblings under such strains. In America， we take those difficulties for granted， but it may be worth considering what life would look like without them. Perhaps without the burden of my grandparents’ care， my mother might have been freer to enjoy the precious time she had left with them.

然而，我清楚地記得在這種壓力下，我母親和她的兄弟姐妹之間發(fā)生的爭(zhēng)吵。在美國(guó)，我們認(rèn)為這些困難是理所當(dāng)然的，但或許值得想一想，倘若沒(méi)有這些負(fù)擔(dān)，我們的生活會(huì)是怎樣的。也許，如果沒(méi)有照顧外祖父母的壓力，我母親可能會(huì)更自由地享受那些與他們共度的寶貴時(shí)光。

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撸?/p>

1 chimerical妄想的；荒誕不經(jīng)的。