贵阳到长沙的飞机票:《三杯茶》的真相：摩顿森错在哪里？

去年九月的时候，我正在写一篇关于美国援助工作者拉杰夫·戈亚尔（Rajeev Goyal）的小短文，在采访过程中，我曾问过他如何看待《三杯茶》（Three Cups of Te）。谈话其间，我们正在尼泊尔东部的丘陵地带中穿行，在过去的十年间，拉杰夫在这一带帮助完成了大量的援助工程，其中包括五所学校的修建。《三杯茶》是葛瑞格·摩顿森（Greg Mortenson）的畅销书之一，摩顿森是一位登山爱好者，他一手创建的中亚协会（Central Asia Institute）宣称已经在巴基斯坦和阿富汗修建或资助了一百七十多所学校。

Rajeev paused for a moment. “It seemed to be mostly about the author, about everything he accomplished,” he said slowly. “And that story is about quantity, about the number of schools built.” Rajeev said his own work had convinced him that construction projects are overvalued, and sometimes they can even have a negative impact on a community. He believed that teacher training and other cultural factors have more value. “A good teacher sitting under a tree can do more than a bad teacher in a new building,” he said. “That’s why I don’t want to do school construction anymore. It might have been a mistake. It’s a good instinct, as you want to help, but maybe it’s not the best thing.”

问题抛出去以后，拉杰夫犹豫了片刻，然后慢慢的说：“这本书的大部分内容好像是关于作者自己，以及他所完成的那些事业，那是一个记录了修建多少学校的故事。”拉杰夫表示，工作使自己意识到，这些建设项目的价值被高估了，有时候甚至会对当地社区造成负面冲击。他相信教师培训和其他文化要素要来得更有价值。“一个坐在树下授课的好老师比一个坐在新教室中授课的糟糕老师要强出许多倍，”拉杰夫说。“这也是为什么我不想再修建学校的原因。它本来就是个错误。从直觉上看，你会觉得不错，因为你想干点实事，但也许它并不是解决问题的最佳方式。”

I asked about his impressions of Mortenson. “I kind of felt sorry for him,” Rajeev said. “That was my reaction reading the book. He must have low self-esteem.”

我又问他对摩顿森印象如何。“我有点替他感到惋惜，”拉杰夫说。“在读这本书的过程中，我就有这样的感觉。他肯定是个对自己不够尊重的人。”

This conversation took place seven months ago—long before the recent episode of “60 Minutes” that accused Mortenson of fabricating key sections of his books and wildly exaggerating the impact of Central Asia Institute projects. Jon Krakauer’s “Three Cups of Deceit,” published online this week, is even more damning. He quotes many former C.A.I. employees who are scathing in their criticism of Mortenson, including board members who resigned in disgust. According to Krakauer, in 2009, C.A.I. spent 1.7 million dollars to promote Mortenson’s books, taking out full-page ads in publications like the New York Times, and chartering private planes for him to attend speaking events. The non-profit purchased tens of thousands of copies of “Three Cups of Tea” and “From Stones Into Schools” from commercial retailers, which meant that royalties would be paid to Mortenson, who doesn’t donate such proceeds to C.A.I. Krakauer quotes a memo from a lawyer at the firm Copilevitz & Canter, who examined C.A.I.’s tax return and warned that the I.R.S. could cite Mortenson for receiving excess benefit from a charity. The memo explains that as C.A.I. had been doing this for years, Mortenson “could face a total liability ranging from $7,868,746.31 … to $23,606,238.62.”

这是发生在七个月之前的一次谈话——而最近，一档名为“60分钟”的电视节目指责摩顿森虚构了《三杯茶》一书中的关键情节，而且过分夸大中亚协会在援助工程方面的功绩。作家乔恩·科莱考尔（Jon Krakauer）于本周在线发表的《三杯茶谎言》（Three Cups of Deceit）一文甚至披露了更多鲜为人知的内幕。他在文中援引了多位中亚协会前雇员的批评言论，这些人对摩顿森的行为都心存不满，这其中甚至包括一位因厌恶摩顿森而愤而辞职的董事会成员。据科莱考尔透露，2009年，为了推销摩顿森的著作，中亚协会不但在《纽约时报》这些平媒上狂打整版广告，而且还租用私人飞机接送摩顿森出席各种演讲活动，这些开销加起来多达170万美元。非营利组织从商业零售商那里成百上千本的购买《三杯茶》和《石头变学校》（From Stones Into Schools），但版税都落到了摩顿森的腰包里，他一分钱也没捐给中亚协会。科莱考尔在文章中还引用了一位Copilevitz & Canter公司律师的备忘录，这位律师在检查过中亚协会的纳税申报单之后，曾警告说美国国税局可能会以利用慈善非法敛财的罪名传讯摩顿森。备忘录中还算了一笔账：因为中亚协会的账目混乱由来已久，摩顿森“可能面临7,868,746.31美元到23,606,238.62美元的负债总额。”

I didn’t realize how prescient Rajeev Goyal’s analysis was until I read Krakauer’s report. It’s clear that Mortenson is a deeply troubled individual—although at this point people may have difficulty feeling very sorry for him.

在读到了科莱考尔的报告以后，我才意识到了当初拉杰夫·戈亚尔对摩顿森的分析是多么具有预见性。很显然，摩顿森现在是麻烦缠身——但我想，这个时候应该没有人会替他感到惋惜。

* *

                                                                 *******

For years, I’ve found it hard to talk about Mortenson’s books. They often come up in conversation, because I’m a former Peace Corps teacher who lived in Asia for more than a decade. And yet that experience made me wary of any simple narrative that involves an American helping people overseas. Like many volunteers, I often felt overwhelmed and ineffective; it took two years of diligent study just to gain a decent facility with the Chinese language. I was still making cultural mistakes up until the day I left. If anything, I felt most positive about the Peace Corps experience because my impact was limited—I left without building anything, or changing the culture, or revolutionizing classroom patterns in my school. I always viewed it as an exchange: there was some value to my teaching, and in the meantime I learned a great deal from my students, colleagues, and friends. It seemed a tiny part of an incremental, long-term process, as China engaged with the outside world. And the key element was that the Chinese remained in charge—it was up to them to improve their country.

这么些年来，我发现自己一直找不到机会好好讨论讨论摩顿森的著作，只是言谈之间偶有提及，毕竟作为美国和平队的一名教师，我之前也在亚洲生活了十几年。这段生活经历让我尽量不把志愿者行为简单的叙述为美国人在海外助人为乐。和很多其他志愿者一样，在国外生活时，我经常会感到不知所措无所事事；我花了两年时间刻苦学习，才算基本掌握了中文。直到离开的时候，我还一直在犯各种文化上的错误。事实上，对我来说，在美国和平队的支教经历大部分是积极向上，因为我一个人的确是势单力薄——我没有为支教的学校盖上一砖一瓦，也没能改变那里的文化，甚至连改革授课方式的想法也没有。我总是将这段经历视为一种交换：我的教学存在些许价值，同时我也从学生、同事和朋友那里学到了很多。这些点滴部分构成了一种长期向上的力量，就像中国的对外开放一样。关键的主动权还掌握在中国人的手中——国家兴盛，匹夫有责。

I decided to profile Rajeev because I felt comfortable with his attitude toward development work, which had started during his own years in the Peace Corps. He was not a self-promoter; despite having organized an impressive water project in the village where he served, Rajeev’s story hadn’t found its way into the American press. He tended to be highly critical of his work, and he talked more about failures than successes. He often referred to key lessons he had learned from villagers. He had resisted the impulse to expand, because he recognized how hard it is to have a positive effect in even a small community. Most important, he had made a real commitment to Nepal. He had lived there for years, mostly at the village level, and he spoke the language fluently.

之所以会去采访拉杰夫，是因为他对支援开发工作的态度让我感觉很舒服，他也是从和平队开始了自己的志愿者生涯。拉杰夫曾在自己所服务的村庄里帮助修建了一项浩大的水利工程，但由于他本人过于低调，所以美国媒体上鲜见关于他的事迹报道。拉杰夫对工作一直秉承着高度的批判精神，他很少提及成功，失败的案例倒是经常会谈起。他常常提起自己从那些村民们身上所学到的关键知识。拉杰夫一直压抑着自己的开发冲动，因为他知道，即便是在一个小小的村子里，这种开发行为要想产生积极作用也是非常艰难的。在这些品行中，我觉得最重要的是他一直恪守着对尼泊尔的实际承诺。他在尼泊尔生活了很多年，绝大部分时间都待在村子里，本地话也讲得十分流利。

I’ve never seen evidence that Greg Mortenson exhibits these qualities. He’s the hero of his books, and he believes in scale, speed, and the constant need for more money and more construction. He shows no special knowledge of Pakistan or Afghanistan. In fact, he spends very little time in Central Asia, as Krakauer’s report illustrates. Mortenson refused to be interviewed by either Krakauer or “60 Minutes,” and as of yet he has made few responses to the allegations. But even his limited statements have been telling. Outside magazine asked Mortenson whether he had fabricated the dramatic opening episode of “Three Cups of Tea,” citing the testimony of both American climbing partners and local villagers, who said that Mortenson had not been there during the period he described. Mortenson blamed any confusion on the local culture, explaining, “It’s worth noting that in the Balti language of northeast Pakistan, there is little or no emphasis on tenses, and ‘now’ can mean a few minutes, weeks, or even a whole season. The Balti find westerners’ emphasis on time confusing.”

但在葛瑞格·摩顿森身上，我看不到类似的品质。他是自己书中的英雄，他的眼里只有规模、速度以及对更多资金和更多项目无休止的需求。摩顿森并没有展示出他在巴基斯坦和阿富汗学到的特殊知识，事实上，正如科莱考尔在报告中提及的那样，他在中亚待的时间并不长。摩顿森拒绝接受科莱考尔和“60分钟”节目组的采访，而迄今为止他也没有针对上述指控作出任何回应。极为有限的声明是他在接受《Outside》杂志采访时被捅出来的：来自其登山同伴和当地村民的证词表明，摩顿森在书中所记述的那段时间里根本就不在事发地，杂志引用了这些证词，并向他求证是否虚构了《三杯茶》一书中跌宕起伏的起始章节。而摩顿森则轻描淡写的将这一切归咎于文化交流上的障碍，他解释说，“值得注意的是，巴基斯坦东北部巴尔蒂人（Balti）的语言很少或根本不强调时态，‘现在’可能意味着几分钟、几个礼拜甚至整个季度之前。西方人对时态的强调让巴尔蒂人感到迷惑。”

I know nothing about the Balti language, but I recognize the tone of Mortenson’s statement. It’s the kind of simplified generalization that tends to be made by an individual with a shallow understanding of a language and a culture. Chinese also has no past tense; does this mean that the people don’t understand time? Or that history is unimportant, or that they speak of the past without accuracy? Such analysis is disrespectful; it’s a way of exoticizing and infantilizing a foreign culture. In this case it also seems highly evasive.

对于巴尔蒂人的语言，我是个门外汉，但我能感觉到摩顿森在作这番表述时的语气。那是一种简而言之的概括方式，这是那些对语言对文化理解浅薄的人经常会使用的伎俩。汉语中也没有过去时态；但这就意味着中国人无法理解时间概念？难道说历史对他们不重要？缺少精确的时间他们如何谈及过去？这样的分析太过无礼；这是一种将外国文化异化幼稚化的恶劣行径。所以说，摩顿森的这番话是彻头彻尾的托辞。

* *

                                                                   *******

Another reason I’ve always had trouble talking about Mortenson’s books is that it’s hard to give an alternative for people who feel the need to act. Even before the reports of C.A.I.’s mismanagement, I saw little value in this model of development. It’s centered around a foreigner, and the foreigner has no special expertise in either education or Central Asia. Even a balanced and reasonable individual is likely to fail in this situation. Mostly, I don’t believe that problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan stem from a lack of money or a lack of school buildings. There are deep-rooted cultural issues, as there are in any part of the developing world, where obstacles tend to be complicated and localized. Contact is the most critical starting point—it helps to have foreigners living in and learning about these places, just as it helps to have Central Asians studying abroad. As knowledge deepens, the people involved are more likely to find solutions to local problems. But most folks who read “Three Cups of Tea” are not interested in living in northwestern Pakistan and learning how to speak Pashto. They want to donate money from a distance, and they want to be part of something that shows tangible, physical results, like a new school building.

对于那些有志于从事志愿活动的人来说，从摩顿森的书中很难找出富有建设性的建议来，这是我不愿谈及其作品的另一个原因。甚至在读到披露中亚协会管理失当的报告之前，我也看不出这种开发模式有何可取之处。它只是以某个外国人为中心，而且这个外国人并不具备教育学或中亚文化方面的专业技能。即便是一个稳重理性的人，面对这种情景也会遭遇失败。更关键的是，我认为阿富汗和巴基斯坦的问题并不是缺钱或缺教室所导致的。和所有发展中国家的遭遇一样，这其中有根深蒂固的文化因素在作怪，这种无形的阻碍不仅复杂，而且充满地域性。接触是最关键的出发点——它有助于外国人融入和了解所支援的当地，同时也有助于当地人了解西方。随着理解的进一步加深，志愿者们才更有可能找到本土问题的解决之道。但我估计《三杯茶》一书的大部分读者对于住到巴基斯坦东北部同时学习普什图语并无兴趣。他们只是希望远远的捐献点钱，然后感受一下那些有形资产如新校舍所带来的满足感。

In recent days, some have defended Mortenson by noting that a number of C.A.I. schools were built and are still functioning, and they claim this is better than nothing at all. But there’s no reason to set the bar so low. One of the main problems with N.G.O.s is a lack of accountability, because donors and journalists tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m bothered by the inaccuracies in Mortenson’s books, especially because there’s a pattern of disrespect for local culture. The worst is his claim that he was kidnapped by the Taliban, which now appears to be a twisted version of a trip in which he was actually hosted by generous villagers. I hope that Viking, his publisher, responds to these allegations in some meaningful way. But I find it more troubling that countless journalists have profiled Mortenson in strictly hagiographic terms. This is partly because they’ve taken quick tours of model schools; as any teacher will tell you, a visitor doesn’t learn much from a walk-through and a few translated conversations with hand-picked students. Krakauer didn’t have to do much digging to find evidence of mismanagement at C.A.I., where many former employees spoke openly and critically. (“Greg regards CAI as his personal ATM,” said a former treasurer for the organization.) In 2002, four board members resigned, but it took nearly a decade for their complaints to become public.

最近几年来，一些为摩顿森辩护的人总是将目光聚集于中亚协会盖了多少所学校，有多少学校现在还在使用这些问题上，他们宣称这总比无所事事要来得强。但是将标准设得如此之低完全没有道理。NGO面临的一个主要问题即在于缺少管理责任，因为捐献者和记者都会给予它们充分信任。但摩顿森书中的不准确之处还是让我感到恼怒，尤其是那些对当地文化缺乏尊重的表现。书中最糟糕的陈述莫过于他被塔利班绑架那一段，现在看来是他在被热情好客的村民款待之后却倒打了一耙。我真心希望出版这些作品的维京出版社能做点表示。但现在局面愈发复杂，有很多记者把摩顿森刻画成了一个严以自律的圣徒形象，这大概是他们在走马观花参观样板学校后得出的结论；那都是已经提前预演过的场景，学生经过精挑细选，寥寥数语的翻译也是有讲究的，就这样参观者还能指望得到什么有价值的线索？科莱考尔根本无需深挖就能发现中亚协会管理混乱的证据，因为很多曾在协会工作过的雇员已经将批评公开化了（“葛瑞格将中亚协会当成自己的私人提款机，”协会的一位前任会计评价说）。协会有四位董事会成员早在2002年就已经辞职，但他们的抱怨之辞差不多在十年之后才得以公开化。

A number of years ago, a wealthy friend of mine considered investing in Bernie Madoff’s hedge fund. But his family’s policy is that they won’t invest in any company until they speak to a number of former employees. They talked with people who had left Madoff’s Ascot Partners, and they concluded that something didn’t feel right, so they put their money elsewhere. When I heard this story, it reminded me that any good journalist should follow this strategy when he’s writing about a company. And after the revelations of the past week, I’ll be sure to apply the same standard to any N.G.O.

很多年以前，我的一位富人朋友曾考虑投资伯尼·麦道夫（Bernie Madoff）的对冲基金。但他的家族有这样的政策规定：在投资任何一家公司之前，你必须和该公司的多位前雇员进行一番沟通。于是，朋友的家族人士和那些曾在麦道夫的阿斯科特合伙人公司（Ascot Partners）工作过的员工进行了交流，结果他们隐约感到有什么地方不对劲，于是将钱投到了别处。这个故事提醒了我，其实每个优秀的记者在准备以某个公司作为写作对象时，都应该遵循这样的策略。在经历了上周一系列的内幕曝光以后，我开始确信，同样的标准也适用于任何一家NGO。