雅皮士又回來了嗎 Tell Tale Signs of the Modern Day Yuppie

Of all the family-newspaper-appropriate socioeconomic slurs, one that was ubiquitous in the 1980s and ’90s is slowly on its way out in this millennium: yuppie.

在所有適於刊登在家庭小報上的特殊社會經濟學稱謂當中，有一個曾風靡於二十世紀八九十年代的詞在進入了二十一世紀之後逐漸沒落了，那就是“雅皮士”(yuppie)。

This moderately derogatory term for young urban professionals, or young upwardly mobile professionals (given more kick with the addendum of “scum”), is believed to have first appeared in print in a 1980 Chicago magazine article by Dan Rottenberg, though he does not take credit for coining it. A Google Ngram search reveals that the word’s usage in books began ascending steeply in 1983 and reached its apex a decade later.

這個略帶貶義的詞曾被用於那些年輕的都市職業人，或那些年輕的還在往上爬的職業人（考慮到後面帶個“渣”字會更帶勁）。據人們通常的看法，這個詞首次出現在1980年芝加哥的一本雜誌中，用於丹·羅登伯格(Dan Rottenberg)的一篇文章裏，雖然他並不承認自己生造了這樣一個詞。而谷歌的Ngram搜索顯示，這個詞在書籍中的使用頻率從1983年起急劇上升，並在10年後達到了頂峯。

It’s no surprise that the yuppie flourished after the gloomy ’70s had yielded to easy money in the stock market (until 1987, at least) for postcollegiate brokers and boomers eager to invest after their youthful fling with the counterculture. Television and movies amply reflected the proliferating demographic. The yuppie apotheosis on the small screen was “Thirtysomething” and “Seinfeld”; in the multiplex, there were too many to mention, but “The Big Chill” and “When Harry Met Sally” would be a good start, and, on the darker side, Michael Douglas’s 1987 filmography (“Wall Street” and “Fatal Attraction”).

雅皮士的興起不足爲奇，在此之前，昏天黑地的70年代早已屈服於股市中唾手可得的金錢（直到1987年，至少），因爲那些曾在大學宣揚反主流文化的華爾街經紀人與嬰兒潮一代人畢業之後都熱衷於投資。那時候，有許多影視作品都充分反映了這個人數越來越多的羣體。在小屏幕上，關於雅皮士的經典之作包括《三十而立》(Thirtysomething)和《宋飛正傳》(Seinfeld)；而在大熒幕上則數不勝數，但是《七個畢業生》(The Big Chill)和《當哈利碰上莎莉》(When Harry Met Sally)是不錯的開始，主題比較黑暗的則有邁克爾·道格拉斯(Michael Douglas)的1987年影片集錦（例如《華爾街》[Wall Street]與《致命的誘惑》[Fatal Attraction]）。

We have plenty of equivalents today, such as “This Is 40” (and nearly every other romantic comedy) and TV’s “Togetherness” and the recently departed “Parenthood” and “How I Met Your Mother” (and most other dramedies and sitcoms). Their organic-buying, gym-going, homeowning characters, however, aren’t tagged as yuppies as readily as those from the previous era were. It’s not because they aren’t from the narcissistic upper middle class; they certainly are. But they look different now.

如今，我們可以看到更多這樣的作品，例如《四十而惑》(This Is 40)（和其他的幾乎每部愛情喜劇片），還有電視《患難與共》(Togetherness)，以及近幾年出品的《爲人父母》(Parenthood)與《老爸老媽的浪漫史》(How I Met Your Mother)（和其他大部分的電視小品與情景喜劇）。但如今電影電視中的這些買有機食品、上健身房、居有其屋的主人公們，並沒有像以前那樣被貼上雅皮士的標籤。這倒不是因爲他們已經不屬於自我陶醉的中上階層了；他們肯定還是中上階層。但現在他們看起來已經大不相同了。

The yuppie has shifted from standing on the prow of his yacht in an attitude of rapaciously aspirational entitlement to a defensive crouch of financial and existential insecurity. This instability has fragmented the yuppie’s previously coherent identity into a number of personae, each of which can trace its lineage to its ’80s paterfamilias.

雅皮士的形象已經發生了變化，從曾經野心勃勃地站在遊艇前端的姿態，變成了如今爲財務與存在的不安感覺而採取了防禦式蹲伏的姿態。這種不穩定性已經把雅皮士曾經一致的身份拆成了多個不同的面貌，而每種面貌都能回溯到那個80年代的源頭。

Collectively, these microyuppies are just as strong in their ranks as their progenitors, if not more so. Three decades ago, the yuppie was viewed as a self-interested alien invader in an America that had experienced a solid 20 years of radical activism and meaningful progress in civil rights and women’s liberation. A generation and a half later, we have so deeply internalized the values of the yuppie that we have ceased to notice when one is in our midst — or when we have become one ourselves.

這些微雅皮們即便在等級上不能超過前人，但集中起來也幾乎一樣強大。三十前，雅皮士被視爲一羣入侵了美國的外來利己主義者，當時的美國已經歷了整整20年的激進主義、在公民權利與女性自由方面都取得了實質性的進展。在經過了不到兩代人的時間之後，我們已將雅皮士的價值深深地融入了我們的內在精神，以至於我們已察覺不到身邊的雅皮士了——或察覺不到我們自己變成了雅皮士。

(This generalization about those with ample economic and social capital doesn’t factor in, of course, the massive swath of Americans who lack the opportunity to become yuppies in the first place.)

（這項對掌握着充足經濟與社會資本的人的概括並不包括許許多多一開始就沒有機會變成雅皮士的美國人。）

The film critic Dominic Corry of The New Zealand Herald has described a genre of ’80s and ’90s films as “yuppies in peril” movies, and, since their affluent protagonists lack any real-world problems, their improbable crises revolve around murder and a preponderance of stalking. While Hollywood still likes a good crazed villain making life miserable for an upstanding protagonist, a fictional yuppie hero nowadays is more likely to be plagued by a layoff or the crash of his mutual fund.

《新西蘭先驅報》的電影評論家多米尼克·科裏(Dominic Corry)將八、九年代的一類電影描述爲“岌岌可危的雅皮士”電影，而且，由於這類電影中養尊處優的主人公人們都不會有什麼現實生活中的問題，他們那些不太真實的危機都圍繞着謀殺和絕大多數的跟蹤情節展開。雖然好萊塢現在仍然喜歡讓肆意張狂的惡棍爲了某個正直的主人公而落得悲慘下場，但一位虛構的雅皮士英雄如今更有可能因爲下崗或共同基金的一筆現金而痛苦不堪。

And that may be the starkest difference. Unbridled acquisitiveness was the central trait of the ’80s yuppie; the dread of losing one’s property and dropping down a tax bracket may define the contemporary one. Fiercely protecting one’s existing money seems less gauche than plotting ways to grab more, even if it’s just a circumstantial response. But we have fooled ourselves into thinking we aren’t as money-oriented as the ’80s yuppie by scapegoating a perennially convenient villain: bankers. Placing all the blame for the 2008 financial crisis on this easily scorned group allows us to overlook our own overreaching transactions.

可能那就是最大的不同之處吧。八十年代雅皮士的一個重要特質就是他們肆意的佔有慾；而定義當代雅皮士的一個重要特質，可能是他們對失去財產以及降低納稅等級的恐懼。相比不擇手段地攫取財富，保護自己現有的財產則顯得不那麼突兀，即便這只是一種捨近求遠的應對方式。不過，我們一直在自欺欺人，認爲自己並不是八十年代那些崇尚拜金主義的雅皮士，而把這個黑鍋推給了一個永遠可以隨意指責的惡人：銀行家。把2008年金融危機的責任推給這樣一個很容易指責的羣體讓我們可以忽略自己的僭越之過。

If slicked-back, bespoke, Reaganite Wall Street was regarded as the economy’s savior after the ’70s, the correlation now, after George W. Bush, the financial crisis and years of the global war on terrorism, would be Barack Obama’s Silicon Valley, whose digital gold rush beckons creative young minds with bedhead under hoodies.

如果人人梳着大背頭、衣着光鮮得體的里根式華爾街被看成了七十年代後的經濟救世主，那麼在經過了喬治·W·布什、金融危機與多年的全球反恐戰爭之後，如今能與之對應的則是貝拉克·奧巴馬(Barack Obama)治下的硅谷，那裏的數碼淘金熱正在召喚着那些充滿了創意想法、常常穿着衛衣、嚮往閒適生活的年輕人。

The tech sector and 21st-century entrepreneurship serve as another cover and proxy for yuppiedom. When the Venn diagram intersects, we revere their leaders almost like movie stars (indeed, they are often portrayed by them — in the case of Steve Jobs, two times in three years). In a 2014 survey of 15,000 millennials by the firm Collegefeed, 11 of the top 12 companies they most wanted to work for were tech outfits.

當今技術領域的發展與21世紀的企業家精神也爲雅皮士身份做了另外的包裝與詮釋。當這羣雅皮士在維恩圖(Venn diagram)上出現重疊區域時，我們崇敬着其中那些領袖人物，猶如崇敬着一些電影明星（事實如此，他們常常被電影明星演繹——以史蒂夫·喬布斯爲例，三年之中就有兩次）。Collegefeed公司2014年對1.5萬名千禧代年輕人所做的一項調查表明，在這一代人最希望爲之工作的12家公司當中，有11家是技術型的公司。

While there is certainly something more admirable, and typically less noxious, about those who innovate ideas and services than those who place bets and structure deals, let’s call it what it is. No matter how fervently techies and entrepreneurs claim they want to “change the world” (see any episode of “Shark Tank”), far fewer of them would be in the disruption game if the potential profits weren’t world-changing as well. The lovable millennial bumblers on “Silicon Valley” may be scruffy and genuinely passionate about coding, but their goal — making money and leveraging power — is quintessentially yuppie, even if their social skills aren’t.

雖然那些革新理念和服務的人比那些投入賭注並操縱交易的人肯定有更多值得崇敬而更少令人厭惡的地方，但是，我們還是還原一下真面目吧。無論這些技術人員和企業家們多麼熱衷於宣稱他們希望“改變這個世界”（《創智贏家》[Shark Tank]的每一集都是這樣），但如果潛在的利潤不能同樣改變世界的話，就很少有人會投身於這個打破規則的遊戲了。在“硅谷”橫衝直撞的那些千禧代萌娃們可能穿得土頭土腦而對編碼有天生的熱情，但是，他們的目標——賺錢與掌權——是深得雅皮士精髓的，即便他們的社交技能尚有不足。

As for millennials, they have inherited an economy too fragile, and student loans too insurmountable, to enable their full-fledged yuppification. But they still share their ancestors’ love for conspicuous consumption (Instagram pictures of meals, parties and vacations) and toys (in lieu of expensive cars, real estate and artwork, the sleekly technological and more affordable plunder of Apple products and apps).

至於千禧年出生的這一代人，他們繼承了極其脆弱的經濟形勢，又面對着難以還清的助學貸款，因而無法充分展現他們的雅皮士風采。但他們仍然和那些雅皮士前輩們一樣，熱衷於炫耀性的消費（所以有許多關於用餐、派對和度假的Instagram照片）和各種玩具（所以將有技術噱頭又更容易買得起的蘋果產品和應用軟件代替了那些昂貴的汽車、房地產和藝術品）。

Then there’s the yuppie’s extended family: all insatiable consumers, just of different products. We have the gentrifier (read: typically white person), who has moved into an “up and coming” (read: historically nonwhite) neighborhood now that it has a Whole Foods; the metrosexual (a term that’s already become obsolete because it applies to such a broad spectrum), who tends to his appearance as obsessively as does Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho”; the “bro,” who has transitioned from the frat house to the sports bar, and his pumpkin-latte-sipping girlfriend; the foodie; the SoulCyclist or CrossFitter; and so on, until, finally and most confusingly, the hipster, which no one will admit being.

然後還有雅皮士衍生家族的成員，他們都是永不知足的消費者，只不過消費的產品各有不同。有的是士紳族（讀作：非典型白人），他們搬入一個“新興”（讀作：歷史上非白人的）社區是爲了那裏有一家全食超市(Whole Foods)；有的是都市美男族（由於應用範圍太廣，這個詞已經過時），他們對自己顏值的迷戀程度堪比《美國殺人魔》(American Psycho)中的帕特里克·貝特曼(Patrick Bateman)；有的屬於“弟兄幫”，他們已經從當初的“兄弟會”過渡到了現在的“運動吧”（可一起觀看體育賽事的酒吧——譯註），還帶着一個愛喝南瓜拿鐵咖啡的女朋友；再就是吃貨族；靈魂派騎行族(SoulCyclist)或綜合式健身族（CrossFitter）等等，直到最後要提到的、也最令人迷惑的這個成員，也就是沒有人願意承認自己身在其中的嬉普士(hipster)。

The hipster may seem to be the antithesis of the yuppie in his professional complacency, in his disdain for or ironic appropriation of everything mainstream. Yet all but the most bohemian of hipsters still relish the trappings of late capitalism, when he can get his hands on them: the designer jeans and Chuck Taylors, the small-batch bourbon and maple-marinated tempeh, the borrowed HBO Go password and cracked-screen iPhone. (All things I indulge in myself, although I’m certainly not a — whoops.) He’s simply less ambitious about obtaining them and more circumspect about signaling his desire for consumer goods: a yuppie in slacker’s thrift-store clothing.

從嬉普士對工作的滿意度、對一切主流事物的蔑視或諷刺性挪用這些方面來看，他們也許是雅皮士的對立面。只不過，最波西米亞的嬉普士仍然對晚期資本主義的各種噱頭樂此不彼，只要他能弄得到，比如名牌牛仔褲和帆布鞋(Chuck Taylors)，限量版的波本威士忌和楓蜜醃天貝(tempeh)，借用的HBO Go應用軟件密碼和屏幕碎裂的iPhone手機。（這些我全都中了，雖然我肯定不是什麼——呃）嬉普士不會那麼野心勃勃地要得到這一切，但會更謹慎地表露出對消費品的慾望，可以說他是一個穿着懶漢舊衣服的雅皮士。

Perhaps the hipster’s rebellion from the yuppie’s careerism should be commended for its ingenuity. He has deduced how to work the minimal amount for maximal comforts. He’s seen that the yuppie lifestyle didn’t ultimately satisfy his (possibly divorced) boomer parents, has opted out of traditional adulthood and is cutting his losses now, because if the country is no longer ascendant, it probably means he can’t be, either.

也許嬉普士反抗雅皮士追名逐利的行爲是一種獨創，應該受到讚揚。嬉普士已經推導出如何憑藉最少的工作量來追求最舒適的生活。他已經明白，雅皮士的生活方式並沒有最終滿足自己出生於嬰兒潮那一代的（或許已離婚的）父母，他已經決定迴避傳統上的成年期，從而立刻止損，因爲，如果這個國家不再往上走的話，很有可能他也不會。

The hipster’s laissez-faire dissent is not quite as subversive as the Weathermen’s bombing of the Pentagon. But it’s what passes for revolution in our yuppified time.

嬉普士隨心所欲持有的異議並不像氣象員革命派（20世紀70年代活動於美國的一武裝革命組織成員——譯註）轟炸五角大樓(Weathermen’s bombing of the Pentagon)那麼有顛覆性。但這就是我們在雅皮化時代爲革新所經歷的一切。