The Rich Kid Revolutionaries
為何這些年輕富人選擇做“叛徒”

This country is rigged in favor of making the very wealthy even wealthier. That’s what Democrats keep saying on the 2020 campaign trail. And it’s what some of the people who have reaped the rewards of this rigged system think too. Abigail Disney, granddaughter of Roy Disney, is one recent high-profile example. On Tuesday, she called out the “naked indecency” of the $65 million in compensation that goes to Disney’s chief executive, Bob Iger. That figure, she noted, is “1,424 times the median pay of a Disney worker.”

這個(gè)國(guó)家受到操縱，以便讓非常富有的人更加富有。這是民主黨人在2020年大選中一直在說(shuō)的話。這也是一些從這個(gè)被操縱的體系中獲益者的想法。羅伊·迪士尼(Roy Disney)的孫女艾比蓋爾·迪士尼(Abigail Disney)就是最近一個(gè)備受矚目的例子。周二，她指責(zé)迪士尼首席執(zhí)行官鮑勃·艾格(Bob Iger) 6500萬(wàn)美元的薪酬是“赤裸裸的無(wú)禮之舉”。她指出，這個(gè)數(shù)字是“迪士尼員工工資中值的1424倍”。

A growing number of privileged young people, a generation younger than Ms. Disney, are also questioning the morality of their advantages and the social arrangements that produce them. Many are involved with Resource Generation, an organization for people under 35 who are in the top 10 percent through their own or their family’s income and wealth.

越來(lái)越多享有特權(quán)的年輕人，也就是比艾比蓋爾·迪士尼年輕一代的人，也在質(zhì)疑自己的優(yōu)勢(shì)地位以及產(chǎn)生這些優(yōu)勢(shì)的社會(huì)安排是否有違道德。許多人參與了資源一代(Resource Generation)組織，這是一個(gè)面向35歲以下者的組織，這些人通過(guò)自己或家庭的收入和財(cái)富躋身前10%。

These “class traitors” reject the “l(fā)ie of meritocracy,” as Yahya Alazrak, a staff member of the organization, called it, adding that they are “fundamentally challenging this very core belief that our culture in the United States is built on, that people deserve all of the money that they have,” whether it comes from their work or that of their family members. Instead, these beneficiaries of the system want to change it.

如該組織工作人員葉海亞·阿拉茲拉克(Yahya Alazrak)所言，這些“階級(jí)叛徒”拒絕“精英領(lǐng)導(dǎo)體制的謊言”，并稱他們“從根本上挑戰(zhàn)了作為美國(guó)文化建立基石的一個(gè)非常核心的信念，即人們擁有的錢(qián)都是他們應(yīng)得的”，無(wú)論是來(lái)自他們的工作，還是家庭。相反，這些體系的受益者想要改變它。

In the past few months, I have talked in depth with 20 young people engaged in this work. They tend to come from families whose parents or ancestors accumulated wealth, and they have inherited or stand to inherit millions. Some have tech or other skills that bring them salaries they feel are disproportionately high. Most are white; some are children of South and East Asian immigrants. They have all studied at prestigious universities. Some are in college or graduate school, while those with jobs work in education, tech, the arts or organizing.

在過(guò)去的幾個(gè)月里，我與進(jìn)行這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)的20名年輕人進(jìn)行了深入的交談。他們大多來(lái)自父母或祖先積累起財(cái)富的家庭，繼承或即將繼承的財(cái)產(chǎn)以百萬(wàn)美元計(jì)。也有些人擁有一技之長(zhǎng)，他們覺(jué)得這些技能帶來(lái)的薪水高得與他人不相稱。他們大多數(shù)是白人，也有東南亞和東亞移民的后代。他們都曾經(jīng)就讀名校。有些人正在上大學(xué)或研究生院，而那些已經(jīng)工作的人從事的是教育、科技、藝術(shù)或組織方面的工作。

Rather than repeat family myths about the individual effort and smarts of their forebears, those from wealthy backgrounds tell “money stories” that highlight the more complicated origins of their families’ assets. If their fortunes came from the direct dispossession of indigenous peoples, enslavement of African-Americans, production of fossil fuels or obvious exploitation of workers, they often express especially acute guilt. As a woman in her early 20s told me of the wealth generated by her family’s global business: “It’s not just that I get money without working. It’s that other people work to make me money and don’t get nearly as much themselves. I find it to be morally repugnant.”

那些來(lái)自富裕家境的人講述的“財(cái)富故事”，突出了其家族資產(chǎn)更為復(fù)雜的來(lái)源，而不是重復(fù)有關(guān)祖先個(gè)人努力和聰明才智的家族神話。如果他們的財(cái)富來(lái)自對(duì)原住民的直接剝奪、對(duì)非裔美國(guó)人的奴役、從事化石燃料的生產(chǎn)，或者對(duì)工人的明顯剝削，他們往往表現(xiàn)出特別強(qiáng)烈的罪惡感。一個(gè)20歲出頭的女子告訴我，她家族的財(cái)富來(lái)自在世界各地的業(yè)務(wù)：“這不僅僅是我不工作就能賺錢(qián)。而是其他人工作是為了給我賺錢(qián)，而他們自己卻沒(méi)有那么多的錢(qián)。我發(fā)現(xiàn)這在道德上令人反感?！?/p>

Even those I have talked with whose family wealth was accumulated through less transparently exploitative means, such as tech or finance, or who have high-paying jobs themselves, question what they really deserve. They see that their access to such jobs, through elite schools and social networks, comes from their class (and usually race) advantages.

甚至在那些與我交談過(guò)的人當(dāng)中，家庭財(cái)富通過(guò)不那么顯而易見(jiàn)的剝削手段積累的，比如科技和金融，或者是因?yàn)樗麄冏约簱碛懈咝焦ぷ鳎麄円矔?huì)質(zhì)疑得到的東西是否應(yīng)該。他們看到自己之所以得到這樣的工作，是因?yàn)槟盍司W(xué)校或者擁有各種社會(huì)關(guān)系，也就是來(lái)自他們的階級(jí)（通常還有人種）優(yōu)勢(shì)。

They also know that many others work just as hard but reap fewer rewards. One 27-year-old white woman, who stands to inherit several million dollars, told me: “My dad has always been a C.E.O., and it was clear to me that he spent a lot of time at work, but it has never been clear to me that he worked a lot harder than a domestic worker, for example. I will never believe that.” She and others challenge the description of wealth garnered through work as “earned.” In an effort to break the link between money and moral value, they refer to rich people as “high net wealth” rather than “high net worth.”

他們也知道其他很多人工作同樣努力，但回報(bào)少。一名有望繼承數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元的27歲白人女性告訴我：“我爸爸一直都是個(gè)CEO，我很清楚他花很多時(shí)間在工作上，但我從來(lái)都不覺(jué)得他比，比方說(shuō)家政工人工作更辛苦。我絕不信這個(gè)。”她和其他人對(duì)工作所得財(cái)富是“掙得的”說(shuō)法發(fā)起了挑戰(zhàn)。在打破金錢(qián)與道德價(jià)值鏈條的行動(dòng)中，他們用“高凈值財(cái)富”而非“高凈值”來(lái)指代富人。

Immigrants who “make it” are often seen to exemplify the American dream of upward mobility. The children of immigrants I spoke with, though, don’t want their families’ “success stories” to legitimate an unfair system. Andrea Pien, 32, is a Resource Generation member and a daughter of Taiwanese immigrants who accumulated significant wealth in the United States. She spoke of refusing to be “the token that then affirms the capitalist meritocracy myth, the idea that ‘Oh, if Andrea’s family made it, we don’t need affirmative action, or we don’t need reparations.’”

移民“成功”的人士常被視為實(shí)現(xiàn)向上流動(dòng)的美國(guó)夢(mèng)的典范。但和我交談過(guò)的移民子女卻不希望他們家人的“成功故事”使不公平的制度合理化。32歲的安德莉亞·邊(Andrea Pien)是資源一代成員，在美國(guó)積累起巨額財(cái)富的臺(tái)灣移民之女。她談到拒絕充當(dāng)“轉(zhuǎn)而肯定資本主義精英政治神話的標(biāo)志，或這樣一種想法的寄托，即‘哦，既然安德莉亞家可以成功，我們就不需要平權(quán)法案了，或我們就不需要賠償了?！?/p>

In general, these young people don’t believe they are entitled to so much when others have so little. Many describe feeling guilt or shame about their privilege, which often leads them to hide it. One college student, a woman of color, told me that she worried what other campus activists might think of her. “What a fraud, right?” she said. “To be in those spaces and be acting like these are my struggles, when they’re not.” A white woman who lives on her inheritance of more than $15 million spoke of “deflecting” questions about her occupation, so that others would not know she did not do work for pay.

總體上，這些年輕人不認(rèn)為他們擁有過(guò)多而他人擁有過(guò)少是理應(yīng)如此。許多人形容對(duì)自己的特權(quán)感到愧疚或羞恥，于是常常把它隱藏起來(lái)。一名有色人種女大學(xué)生告訴我，她擔(dān)心其他校園活動(dòng)人士可能會(huì)怎么看她。“根本就是個(gè)騙子，對(duì)吧？”她說(shuō)?！吧碓谀菢拥目臻g里，假裝這是我的掙扎，但其實(shí)不是?！币幻运^承的1500多萬(wàn)美元財(cái)富為生的白人女性表示，談?wù)撍穆殬I(yè)時(shí)，她會(huì)問(wèn)一些“轉(zhuǎn)移話題”的問(wèn)題，這樣別人就不會(huì)知道她沒(méi)有靠自己工作掙錢(qián)。

These progressive children of privilege told me they study the history of racial capitalism in the United States and discuss the ways traditional philanthropy tends to keep powerful people at the top. They also spend a fair amount of time talking about their money. Should they give it all away? Should they get a job, even if they don’t need the income? How much is it ethical to spend on themselves or others? How does money shape friendships and relationships? Resource Generation and its members facilitate these conversations, including one local chapter’s “feelings caucus.”

這些進(jìn)步派特權(quán)人士子女告訴我，他們研究美國(guó)的種族資本主義史，探討傳統(tǒng)慈善如何傾向于將有權(quán)勢(shì)的人留在上層社會(huì)。他們還花大量時(shí)間談?wù)撍麄兊腻X(qián)。他們是否應(yīng)當(dāng)全部捐出？他們是否應(yīng)找份工作，即便他們不需要工作收入？把多少錢(qián)花在自己身上或他人身上是道德的？金錢(qián)如何影響友誼與戀愛(ài)關(guān)系？資源一代及其成員幫助促進(jìn)這些談話，一個(gè)本地分會(huì)還設(shè)有“情感核心會(huì)議”。

If you’re thinking, “Cry me a river,” you’re not alone. I have faced skepticism from other sociologists when discussing this research. One colleague asserted that rich young people struggling with their privilege do not have a “l(fā)egitimate problem.” Others ask: How much do they really give, and what do they really give up? Aren’t these simply self-absorbed millennials taking another opportunity to talk endlessly about themselves?

如果你的想法是，“搞得好像多慘似的，”那么有不少人跟你一樣。在探討這項(xiàng)研究時(shí)，我曾遇到其他社會(huì)學(xué)家的質(zhì)疑。一名同事堅(jiān)稱，年輕富人與特權(quán)作斗爭(zhēng)并不是個(gè)“正經(jīng)的問(wèn)題”。還有人則問(wèn)：他們真正給予了多少，又真正放棄了多少？這些難道不過(guò)是自戀的千禧一代又逮著機(jī)會(huì)無(wú)休止地談?wù)撟约海?/p>

I understand this view. There is certainly a risk — of which many of them are aware — that all this conversation will just devolve into navel-gazing, an expression of privilege rather than a challenge to it. It is hard for individual action to make a dent in an ironclad social structure. And it is impossible, as they know, to shed the class privilege rooted in education and family socialization, even if they give away every penny.

我理解這種觀點(diǎn)。確實(shí)存在一種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)——我們中很多人也意識(shí)到了——即所有這些談話難免會(huì)退化為一場(chǎng)空談，淪為對(duì)特權(quán)的表達(dá)而非對(duì)它發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)。要對(duì)鐵一般堅(jiān)硬的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)作出一點(diǎn)改變，憑借個(gè)體的行動(dòng)很難辦到。而他們也知道，即便捐出手里的每一分錢(qián)，要完全擺脫植根于教育和家庭社會(huì)關(guān)系的階級(jí)特權(quán)，是不可能的。

But like Abigail Disney, these young people are challenging fundamental cultural understandings of who deserves what. And they are breaking the social taboo against talking about money — a taboo that allows radical inequality to fade into the background. This work is critical at a moment when the top 1 percent of families in the United States owns 40 percent of the country’s wealth, and Jeff Bezos takes home more money per minute than the median American worker makes in a year.

但就像艾比蓋爾·迪士尼一樣，這些年輕人正在從根本上挑戰(zhàn)文化層面對(duì)于誰(shuí)值得擁有什么的理解。他們也正在打破不許談錢(qián)的社會(huì)禁忌——這項(xiàng)禁忌使得極端不平等狀況被淡化。在美國(guó)百分之一的家庭擁有全國(guó)四成財(cái)富，杰夫·貝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)每分鐘的入賬超過(guò)美國(guó)工薪階層平均年收入的當(dāng)下，這項(xiàng)工作至關(guān)重要。

As Holly Fetter, a Resource Generation member and Harvard Business School student, told me, “It’s essential that those of us who have access to wealth and want to use it to support progressive social movements speak up, to challenge the narrative that the 1 percent are only interested in accumulation, and invite others to join us.”

資源一代成員、哈佛商學(xué)院的學(xué)生霍莉·菲特(Holly Fetter)告訴我,“我們這些可以獲得財(cái)富的人想用它來(lái)支持激進(jìn)的社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)，重要的是，我們要為此發(fā)聲，挑戰(zhàn)那種1%的富人只對(duì)斂財(cái)感興趣的說(shuō)法，并且邀請(qǐng)其他人加入我們?！?/p>

Wealthy people are more likely to convince other wealthy people that the system is unfair. And they are the only ones who can describe intimately the ways that wealth may be emotionally corrosive, producing fear, shame and isolation.

富人更有可能讓其他富人相信，這個(gè)體系是不公平的。只有他們能夠詳細(xì)描述財(cái)富如何侵蝕情感，制造恐懼、羞恥和孤立。

Class privilege is like white privilege, in that its beneficiaries receive advantages that are, in fact, unearned. So for them to conclude that their own wealth is undeserved, and therefore immoral, constitutes a powerful critique of the idea of meritocracy.

階級(jí)特權(quán)與白人特權(quán)相似，其受益者得到的好處實(shí)際上并不是努力贏得的。因此，他們認(rèn)為自己的財(cái)富是他們不應(yīng)得的，因此是不道德的，這構(gòu)成了對(duì)精英政治理念的有力批判。

The fact that the system is immoral, of course, does not make individuals immoral. One person I spoke with, a white 30-year-old who inherited money, said: “It’s not that we’re bad people. It’s just, nobody needs that much money.” But judgments of systems are often taken as judgments of individuals, which leads white people to deny racism and rich people to deny class privilege.

當(dāng)然，制度的不道德并不會(huì)使個(gè)人變得不道德。我采訪的一位繼承遺產(chǎn)的30歲白人說(shuō)：“這不意味著我們是壞人。只是，沒(méi)人需要那么多錢(qián)。”但針對(duì)制度的評(píng)判往往被視為針對(duì)個(gè)人的評(píng)判，這導(dǎo)致白人不承認(rèn)種族主義，富人不承認(rèn)階級(jí)特權(quán)。

So even the less-public work of talking through emotions, needs and relationships, which can seem self-indulgent, is meaningful. As Ms. Pien put it, “Our feelings are related to the bigger structure.”

因此，即使是對(duì)情感、需求和人際關(guān)系不那么公開(kāi)的討論，看起來(lái)像是一種自我陶醉，也是有意義的。正如安德莉亞·邊所說(shuō)，“我們的感覺(jué)與整體的組織是相關(guān)的?！?/p>

One huge cultural support of that structure is secrecy around money, which even rich people don’t talk about.

對(duì)金錢(qián)的遮掩是這種體制背后的巨大文化支持，即使富人也不會(huì)談?wù)撨@個(gè)話題。

Wealthy parents fear that if they tell their kids how much they will inherit, the kids won’t develop a strong work ethic. Yahya Alazrak, of Resource Generation, has heard people say, “My dad won’t tell me how much money we have because he’s worried that I’ll become lazy.” One man in his early 30s recounted that his parents had always told him they would pay for his education, but not support him afterward until they revealed that he had a trust worth over $10 million. Parents also have a “scarcity mentality,” Resource Generation members said, which leads them to “hoard” assets to protect against calamity.

富有的父母擔(dān)心，如果告訴孩子他們將繼承多少遺產(chǎn)，孩子們就不會(huì)養(yǎng)成良好的職業(yè)道德。資源一代的葉海亞·阿拉茲拉克曾聽(tīng)人們說(shuō)，“我爸爸不會(huì)告訴我，我們有多少錢(qián)，因?yàn)樗麚?dān)心我會(huì)變得懶惰?！币幻?0歲出頭的男子回憶說(shuō)，父母一直告訴他，他們會(huì)支付他的學(xué)費(fèi)，但等他畢業(yè)后就不會(huì)給他出錢(qián)了，但后來(lái)他們透露，他擁有一個(gè)價(jià)值超過(guò)1000萬(wàn)美元的信托基金。資源一代的成員們表示，父母?jìng)冞€有一種“匱乏心態(tài)”，導(dǎo)致他們“囤積”資產(chǎn)，以便抵御災(zāi)難。

Secrecy also often goes hand in hand with limited financial literacy. Women, especially, may not learn about money management growing up, thanks to gendered ideas about financial planning and male control of family assets. Some people I met who will inherit significant amounts of money didn’t know the difference between a stock and a bond.

這種遮掩往往伴隨著財(cái)務(wù)知識(shí)的局限。尤其是對(duì)于女性來(lái)說(shuō)，由于理財(cái)觀念的性別化和男性對(duì)家庭資產(chǎn)的控制，她們可能無(wú)法在成長(zhǎng)過(guò)程中學(xué)會(huì)理財(cái)。我認(rèn)識(shí)的一些將要繼承大筆遺產(chǎn)的人連股票和債券的區(qū)別都不知道。

When wealthy parents do talk about money, they tend to put forth conventional ideas about merit: They or their ancestors worked hard for what they have, scrimped and saved to keep and increase it, and gave some of it away. When their children reject these metrics, parents’ sense of being “good people” is challenged.

當(dāng)富有的父母談?wù)摻疱X(qián)時(shí)，他們往往會(huì)談起傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值觀念：他們或他們的長(zhǎng)輩為自己擁有的東西努力工作、精打細(xì)算，用存錢(qián)來(lái)保持和增加財(cái)富，并且捐一些錢(qián)。當(dāng)孩子拒絕接受這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的時(shí)候，父母身為“好人”的感覺(jué)就會(huì)受到挑戰(zhàn)。

When one woman told her immigrant parents she wanted to give their millions away, it was like “a slap in the face” for them, she said, because they felt they had “sacrificed a lot for this money.”

一個(gè)女人告訴她的移民父母，自己打算把他們的數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元捐出去，她說(shuō)，感覺(jué)就像是“扇了他們一記耳光”，因?yàn)樗麄冇X(jué)得自己“為這筆錢(qián)犧牲了很多”。

Parents — and the financial professionals who manage family wealth — also tend to follow conventional wisdom about money: Never give away principal. Charitable donations should be offset by tax breaks. And the goal of investing is always to make as much money as possible. As one 33-year-old inheritor said, “No financial adviser ever says, ‘I made less money for the client, but I got them to build affordable housing.’”

父母——以及管理家庭財(cái)富的金融專業(yè)人士——也傾向于遵循關(guān)于金錢(qián)的傳統(tǒng)智慧：永遠(yuǎn)不要放棄本金。慈善捐款應(yīng)該用減稅來(lái)補(bǔ)償。而投資的目標(biāo)總是盡可能多地賺錢(qián)。正如一位33歲的繼承人所說(shuō)，“沒(méi)有哪個(gè)理財(cái)顧問(wèn)會(huì)說(shuō)，‘我為客戶賺的錢(qián)減少了，但我成功地讓他們?nèi)ソㄔ炝私?jīng)濟(jì)適用房?！?/p>

Talking about how it feels to be rich can help build affordable housing, though. Once the feeling of being a “bad person” is replaced by “good person in a bad structure,” these young people move into redistributive action. Many talked about asserting control over their money, pursuing socially responsible investments (sometimes for much lower returns) and increasing their own or their families’ giving, especially to social-justice organizations. And eventually — like the people I have quoted by name here — they take a public stand.

不過(guò)，談?wù)撋頌楦蝗说母杏X(jué)確實(shí)有助于廉價(jià)住房的建造。一旦身為“壞人”的感覺(jué)被身為“不良體制中的好人”所取代，這些年輕人就會(huì)將再分配付諸行動(dòng)。許多人談到要控制自己的金錢(qián)，追求有社會(huì)責(zé)任感的投資（有時(shí)回報(bào)要低得多），增加自己或家人的捐款，尤其是對(duì)社會(huì)公正組織的捐款。最終——就像在本文中透露姓名的人們一樣——他們采取了公開(kāi)立場(chǎng)。

Finally, they imagine an alternative future, based on a different idea of what people deserve. Ms. Pien, for example, wants to be “invested in collective good, so we can all have the basics that we need and a little more.” In her vision, this “actually makes everyone more secure and fulfilled and joyful, rather than us hiding behind our mountains of money.”

最后，基于對(duì)人們應(yīng)該得到什么的不同看法，他們?cè)O(shè)想了另一種未來(lái)。例如，安德莉亞·邊希望“投資在集體福祉上，這樣我們都能擁有我們所需要的最基本的東西，然后再有一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)盈余。”在她看來(lái)，這樣“其實(shí)會(huì)讓所有人都能更安全、更充實(shí)、更快樂(lè)，而不是躲在我們的金山后面?！?/p>