正文

不把人生交给标准答案

(2025-06-01 05:19:19) 下一个

 

 

作者:高恒

他们曾是标准答案的书写者。

年少时一路拼搏,被称为“别人家的孩子”,用一张张漂亮的成绩单铺出通往名校的通道。可走出校园才发现,社会也在悄悄抛出另一张试卷:大厂、编制、名企、年薪百万——人生的“正解”似乎早就写好。

只是,有人开始停笔了。

有人去了西南边陲,开一家几乎没有客流的小书店;有人回到厦门记录城市脉搏,感受自己理解的“新闻声音”;有人在疲倦文旅央企的“流量+网红+打卡”式内容下选择另一个方向买下了人生第一支麦克风。

他们没有拒绝成长,只是选择用不同的方式前行。他们不再让名校光环变成人生的镣铐,也不愿再被社会的坐标系定义“成功”。

互联网产业时评人彭德宇认为:不是不优秀,只是不想再做那个“最标准的答案”。他们知道,人生不是单选题,优秀的方式从来不止一种。而哪怕有一天他们重返职场,也会带着更笃定的脚步与更清晰的方向。

这一次,他们决定,先做真正的自己。

01·他毕业于名校,但最后成了一名城市漫游记录者

“我也曾想过进投行的。”

2020年,林知意从人大新闻学院毕业。像他那一届的很多人一样,他的桌面上曾经同时打开着五份简历——给腾讯投的内容运营,给字节投的产品实习,给央媒的新闻编辑,还有一家投行的实习岗。他一边改着word格式的字体间距,一边想:“是不是我能去得最远的地方,就意味着我有价值。”

他是那种“上进得让人放心”的人——高中是市重点前三,大学是保研上岸,成绩一直在年级前10%。他做过校园公众号主编、入选过暑期创新项目、连续三年拿奖学金。每一项履历看起来都很漂亮,像是被刻意擦亮过的玻璃。

“但我好像很久没有真正感到开心了。”林知意回忆起大三那年,他进入一家国资背景的新媒体平台实习。每天9点进办公室,编辑推送、审稿、选题会,一做就是三个月。他说,最开始他很兴奋,以为那是“站在权力节点上发声”,但一个月后,他意识到自己写的选题、下的标题、采访的对象、甚至结尾的金句,早就有“模板”。“我像是个不带情绪的螺丝钉,精准但重复。”

毕业前最后一个实习,是在一家投行做内容策略。“原本我以为投行人都很精英、很能说话。”他笑着说,“但我那段时间学到的最重要的事情是,怎样在凌晨三点催完数据还要说‘谢谢姐’。”他看到的是一群年薪百万的人用“996”在换“中年焦虑的缓期执行”。“我没有能力轻易评价他们,但我开始怀疑,这是不是我想要的生活。”

“我是不是可以,试一次不答题?”

毕业后,他没有选择留在北京,也没有去上海,而是回到厦门老家。他租了一个海边的老房子,接了一些远程的写稿单子,白天走街串巷拍短视频,晚上读书、写城市观察的博客。

最开始,他不敢告诉父母自己“没有正经工作”。妈妈问他,“你不是读新闻的吗?怎么不去电视台?”他笑笑,“我已经拍着视频说话了,只是平台变了。”爸爸则更直白:“你就是在浪费时间。”但林知意说:“他们骂得越凶,我越想确认这是不是我真心想要的。”

他开始自己记录他在厦门的城市角落里遇见的人和事。他记录曾在东渡码头摆摊的印尼移民老奶奶,也拍一个在中山路给流浪猫做窝的退休大爷。他说,他开始理解新闻不是“报道权威的声音”,而是“靠近那些微弱的生活”。

朋友有人来找他说,“你是不是混不下去了?”“你是不是不甘心?”他回答:“不是不甘心,是开始愿意承认自己不一定非得赢。”

如果一直在答题,我可能会忘了问自己问题。”

几年过去了,他没赚大钱,也没靠流量暴富。他接过采访项目,也做过视频号的城市合作栏目,但更多时间,他花在城市里走路、拍照、记录。他的父母从不认同到开始转发他的文章,读者从几十人到如今三千多人。他说,他好像慢慢和世界讲起了话。

“我不觉得我失败了。”林知意说,“我只是选择了不那么标准的成功。”

他偶尔也会和校友聚会,大家聊着大厂的裁员,升职的焦虑,KPI和OKR的计算。“有时候会觉得自己被落下了,但更多的时候,我庆幸自己跳出来了。”

他说:“我从来没觉得名校是一张错的船票,但我不希望它变成一张不能换方向的车票。”

“人生不是一道题,有时候,空着,也是一种答案。”

02·他们不做“标准答案”的人生,但每一个人都清晰如光

1. 刘若云:北大中文系,辞职去藏区支教的那年,她26岁

刘若云曾是“被安排得最顺利的孩子”。

她来自武汉,高中是省重点,文科第一,保送北大中文系,本科期间发表论文、参加交换、进过知名出版社实习,毕业时被三家央媒同时录取。那年春天,她以为自己会像学姐那样,在新闻发布厅穿着白衬衫坐到灯光下,说出一句句斟酌过的国事大局。

但她没想到,新闻发布会前的夜晚,她哭了一整晚。

“不是不感激那些机会,也不是不敬业,我只是突然意识到,我在复制他人的成功,而不是过自己的生活。”那场发布会之后,她主动提出延期入职。三个月后,她出现在了四川甘孜的一个藏族中学,做语文支教老师。

第一年很难,住宿没有暖气,孩子们的普通话水平参差不齐,教学进度完全落后。但她第一次在课堂上读《边城》时,一个孩子偷偷跑来问她:“翠翠最后有没有等到那个船夫?”她记得那一刻,“我突然明白什么叫语言的力量”。

父母气坏了:“你上北大是为了这个吗?”她第一次平静地回答:“我上北大是为了我能有权利选择我的人生,而不是为了去一个更大的框架里卷。”

她如今在成都做青少年写作公益项目,收入不高,生活简单。但她说:“我从未如此热爱过‘中文’这个词——它不再是简历上的专业,而是现实里流动的、活着的表达。”

2. 韩澈:复旦经济系,高盛实习过,如今开了一家二手书店

我一直在走最顶配的人生路径。”韩澈笑说。

在复旦读书时,他是经济系的佼佼者:连续三年专业第一,进过波士顿咨询、投行暑期营,还在大三那年拿到一份高盛香港的暑期offer。他穿着Zegna的西装,在中环的办公室写PPT写到凌晨两点,再吃一碗云吞面回宿舍。

“那年我22岁,年薪百万在望,但我晚上经常梦到自己在高三。”他说那种梦是“焦虑型闪回”——好像一直在冲刺,从没停下来问自己为什么跑。

真正改变他的是一次路过上海五原路。他在周末逛街时,进了一家老旧的独立书店,书架歪斜,灰尘扑面,他随手翻了一本《瓦尔登湖》。店主是个退休语文老师,两人聊了很久。他说:“那一刻,我感觉自己在说人话,而不是在‘表达价值主张’。”

他毕业后拒绝了全部offer,用三个月时间筹划,最后在苏州开了一家独立二手书店。他说,这是一家“供城市人休息的缝隙”。他做旧书回收、做小型读书会、写一些金融行业的人文随笔。“不是不爱经济学,我只是觉得,它也该写在温暖的纸张上,而不是只有策略报告。”

他的复旦同学多数已成中层骨干。他说:“他们都很棒,但我选择了另一种活法——低频的,缓慢的,但有余温。

3. 江诗然:中传研究生,从体制离职后,她成了一名独立播客人

“我毕业就进了北京一家大型文旅央企。”江诗然语速很快,但语气温柔。“父母特别满意,‘稳定、有前景’。”她也满意,第一年就拿了优秀员工,年终奖到手的那一刻,她以为自己“成为了体制内的上升通道”。

但问题是,她每天要修改几十个文案,“不是为了内容质量,而是为了‘领导喜欢’。”她曾经写过一篇古村落振兴的策划案,被连续删改五次,最后变成“文化+流量+网红打卡”,她说:“那是我最沮丧的一天,我意识到我不能再装作自己在创作了。”

2022年,她裸辞。朋友说她疯了,“你知道外面多难找工作吗?”

她花了半年时间做播客,设备是二手买的,剪辑是自学的,选题是她最想聊却没人聊的:城市年轻女性的微妙挣扎。从“中产焦虑语录”到“逃离北上广但依然不快乐”,她一集一集做下去,如今节目有了两万订阅。她说:“也许有一天我会回到职场,但至少我试过真正表达自己。”

她不富有,但她说:“我现在赚的钱少一半,但每一块都属于我自己。”

4. 陈渝:交大计算机硕士,放弃大厂,转身走进山里教编程

“你知道我当时手上拿的是哪家公司的offer吗?”陈渝语气平静,“字节AI Lab,腾讯AI平台,还有一家硅谷回国的创业公司,做AIGC工具。我基本是那种一进面试就会被‘秒要’的人。”

他本科和硕士都在交大,计算机系。在导师眼里,他是最有希望“进FAANG,打进世界中心”的学生。顶尖学校,对口专业,热门赛道,前途一片“可预测的光明”。

但他却在毕业那年,选择了偏航。他拒掉了所有头部公司的高薪offer,拎着一只行李箱去了云南,加入了一家专注公益教育的非营利机构,负责在边远山区小学推动少儿编程与数字素养课程。

“我不是不想做AI,只是比起优化模型,我更想教人理解它。”他说。

在那些被地图模糊处理的小县城小学,他带着孩子们用Scratch做游戏,用Python写日记。他教一个六年级的男孩用代码模拟了家乡的梯田灌溉,也带着女生们用Blockly拼出“太空探险”的互动故事。

“他们不知道什么是Transformer,也没听说过GPT,但他们能用代码画出梦想。”他说,“那一刻我觉得,这些技能如果能早点被点亮,就不只是未来的竞争力,更是他们理解世界的另一种方式。”

有朋友说他这样是“浪费学历”。他笑了:“可能吧。但我一直觉得,学历不该只是通向高薪的通行证,而应该是让我看见世界不同面的窗口。”

如今的他,在做着与AI相关,却不被AI定义的工作。他没去创造一个模型,而是在播种一代人能去理解模型的可能性。

这些人没有放弃过努力,他们只是用另一种方式,继续走向自己想要的生活。他们不是失败者,而是定义者。不是绕过名校光环,而是不让它遮蔽自己真正的光。

03·当我们不再问“值不值”,而是“想不想”

1. 人生不是考卷,时代也不只押一个答案

我们这一代人,早就不再相信“努力=好结果”这道万能公式了。从小学就开始刷题,刷到了985、211,刷到保研出国,刷进大厂名企。可越是走得“正确”,越是有人开始质疑:“我想要的,真的是这个吗?”

就业难、赛道卷、内卷化的理想,在2020年代后半段成了所有年轻人共同的BGM。你可能年薪三十万,但每天加班到十一点,你可能上的是顶尖名校,但转专业、转行、被实习PUA,一样没少经历。精英教育带来的,不再只是“比别人强”,而是“比别人更快崩溃”。

不是名校不值钱了,是它的意义,正在发生变化。

2. 当“出路”变成“出身焦虑”的出口

很多时候,社会对名校生的期待是自带天花板的:“你是北大的,就该进体制;你是复旦的,就该搞金融;你是交大的,干嘛不去大厂?”仿佛名校的光环本身就预设了唯一轨道,谁转身了,就是“浪费”。

但那些“转身”的人,其实很清醒。他们不是不配进入主流,而是清楚主流不代表全部。他们拿到了“最强剧本”的入场券,却选择自己写台词。这不是叛逆,是更新。

就像刘若云说的:“我读书不是为了走一条更好的路,而是为了拥有更多条可以走的路。”

3. 选择不是“退而求其次”,而是看清之后的坚定

他们不一定比别人更自由,但比很多人更清楚“什么不适合自己”。比起“稳定”“体面”“能说出去”,他们更在意“做了之后会不会开心,会不会有意义”。

在这个由流量定义热度,由KPI定义价值的时代,这些人选择慢下来,做一点“不那么有用”的事:支教、书店、播客、公益教育。看起来脱离主流,其实是在打开另一种属于他们自己的路径系统。

他们依然很卷,只不过是卷在自己选的地形上。像是在主流剧场外,自建舞台,灯光虽不耀眼,但始终为自己点亮。

他们毕业了,没有走上看起来“最对”的那条路。他们有的去了远山,有的去了老街,有的躲进自己的麦克风后面,有的走进小学教室。但他们都没走错。他们没有放弃名校身份的意义,而是拒绝用它来定义整个人生。

他们不问“这样做值得吗”,他们只问“这是不是我想要的”。

这群人,是不被定义的一代,是用人生破题的一代。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2023/06/edward-enninful-vogue-departure-end-editor

 

Inside the downfall of Edward Enninful

Did the former Vogue editor really live up to his mission?

By Nina-Sophia Miralles

This month Edward Enninful, in what is becoming another of his loudly self-publicised achievements, managed to be promoted and demoted at the same time. On 2 June it was announced that he would stop being editor-in-chief of British Vogue after six years, and move to a new job: “editorial adviser at British Vogue and global creative and cultural adviser”. Was he promoted or was he fired upwards?

The BBC was among those outlets that treated his departure as a promotion. “Throughout his six-year tenure, the firsts have continued,” agreed the Guardian, “with Enninful recently promoted to a new global role, championing a series of pioneering moments.”

But his tenure is also coming under critical scrutiny, arguably for the first time. “It’s funny how everyone’s coming out now. It’s like it’s safe to let rip,” one Vogue insider tells me.

“Ed is gone. Anna cut him off,” a source in the industry says, referring to Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of American Vogue since 1988. A rift between the two was widely reported. Another source tells me that “after six years I can see why Edward might feel he was no longer a mentee. But it’s the kind of role you take knowing it’s number two in the fleet.”

What was Enninful trying to achieve at Vogue? Last year, he claimed in an interview that he had thought “I’m probably going to get fired for making it [Vogue] inclusive”. Diversity and inclusion were his professed aims. “I look at magazines that are now so much more diverse and I realised nobody was having this conversation in 2017,” Enninful says in 2022, implicitly celebrating his own narrative: that his tenure at Vogue was changing the fashion industry.

[See also: Coco Chanel’s second coming]

Yet it is far from clear that he lived up to his mission (or “manifesto”, as he called it). “He obviously wanted to change the colour of the magazine, and it went from being fully white to a really good mix,” a former member of his team told me last week. “But diversity behind the scenes? No. He definitely brought his friends in.”

Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month

There are claims that Enninful did not create an inclusive environment that nurtured all members of staff. “There was a real culture of blame, a lot of throwing people under the bus if something goes wrong. It was not at all supportive,” says a source. “I got a lot of ‘we don’t do it like that here’. He has a clique around him, and it’s not a nice place to work unless you’re with the in-crowd.” Staff have reported to me of a culture in which they were made fun of for previously working at magazines considered less glamorous than Vogue – behaviour that was never addressed.

Nor did Enninful break new ground in photography, the lifeblood of the title. In the first 30 issues of his tenure, he hired only two photographers under the age of 50, and only one was a relative unknown. He typically worked with Vogue mainstays such as Steven Meisel, who has worked for the magazine since the 1980s.

Enninful was the first editor to put a man on the cover of Vogue, but that was Timothée Chalamet, a Hollywood actor. The LGBT+ creative who graced Vogue in August last year was Cara Delevingne, a supermodel. He made another model, Adwoa Aboah, his first cover star in 2017, in a move heralded for its diversity. But a key detail was missed: Aboah is the god-daughter of Ronnie Cooke Newhouse, whose husband Jonathan Newhouse is the chairman of Condé Nast, which owns Vogue.

The rich and storied history of Vogue suggests advisory roles of the sort Enninful has now been handed are mere tokens given to editors on their way out, typically to spare them public humiliation. Jessica Daves, the homely editor-in-chief who saw American Vogue through the boom years of the 1950s was moved to “editorial adviser” when management was seduced by Diana Vreeland’s outlandish aesthetic. Vreeland was herself unceremoniously made a “consulting editor” in 1971 on her way to retirement. She was never consulted.

Condé Nast has taken to inventing new titles in recent years. Anna Wintour, for instance, was made artistic director of Condé Nast, then in 2020 its chief content officer (as well as global editorial editor of Vogue). Wintour’s titles handed her almost total control of Condé Nast, a mission she has been pursuing assiduously since the 1990s. Enninful’s new title, decoded, hints at something else. Being named an “adviser” twice over allows Enninful to return to what he was doing before.

[See also: The joyless rise of Anna Wintour]

Before Vogue, Enninful was a kind of fashion gun-for-hire. Scouted as a model for i-D at 16, shortly after moving from Ghana to Britain, he became its fashion director at 18. Though i-D has since become a leading youth fashion title, it was launched as a fanzine and the grandiose title bestowed on Enninful was a premature vote of confidence. While there, he was free to build his relationships with brands, taking on lucrative extracurricular projects. When he became contributing editor at Vogue Italia, and then contributing editor at American Vogue, he could continue to style and consult on the side.

Such creative work for commercial brands is far better paid than anything Condé Nast can muster now, even for its brightest stars, and is less demanding. (The company used to offer its editors interest-free mortgage loans on Park Avenue flats in Manhattan.) As editor-in-chief of British Vogue, Enninful could not take on freelance work: many of the magazine’s advertisers were would-be clients, which would have created conflicts of interest. By relinquishing the shackles of the editorship, he will now be free to do some well-paid projects elsewhere.

There is precedent for Enninful’s move. The celebrated fashion editor Grace Coddington gave up her title as US Vogue creative director in 2016, becoming an editor-at-large to “pursue external projects”. “She bought a big house in the Hamptons [on Long Island, New York state] and needs to earn the money to pay it off,” one former editor-in-chief of Vogue tells me. Coddington herself said she was “not running away from Vogue” and that it would be “nice to collaborate… nice to go out [and] give talks to people. It’s just another approach.”

Vogue itself is unlikely to suffer from Enninful’s departure as editor. The scoops he pursued – such as the first images of Naomi Campbell’s daughter and of Rihanna’s son – were frequently predictable. But they generated an easy buzz. Nurturing new creatives may never have done so. “He was trying to get those people [the celebrities] on the pages of the magazine, rather than searching for something new,” a former employee says. Meaningful change may have been beyond Enninful. “I like him personally,” one insider suggested, “but I always thought this [role] was too big for him.”

The role of a Vogue editor-in-chief used to be one of the most powerful in journalism, involving a delicate balancing act between commercial, creative and editorial concerns. Now that role is evolving. The last two editors-in-chief of Vogue Paris, Carine Roitfeld and Emmanuelle Alt, were both stylists, as was Enninful. (The position at Vogue Paris has since been replaced by a “head of content”.)

Vogue’s history is dominated by editors-in-chief who had a journalistic background. But journalists have been usurped. Stylists – one-person brands – have increasingly been placed in this sacred role, underlining how important the visual has become. “I know people are saying that he [Enninful] wasn’t an editor in the true sense,” a former staffer says. “He did read the proofs, but I’m not sure how well he read them. He really relied on [the journalist] Giles Hattersley, and pretty much went with every word Giles said.”

“It did lose something editorially. I don’t think the writing or the stories were as strong,” the staffer thinks. “It was trying to be very young.” This is perhaps unsurprising given the company’s pivot to digital. “We put YouTube first,” the magazine’s publisher Vanessa Kingori said in 2021. Rather than looking for the next Virginia Woolf, Angela Carter and Marina Warner (all of whom at one time wrote for British Vogue), the title was tasked by management with pursuing “magic moments”, which is its house term for viral content. What is important now, as Alyson Lowe, Vogue’s audience growth manager has said, is to “own the story” and “shape the moment”. And to make cameo appearances in the selfies of celebrities.

Through the prism of these new rules, it is easier to understand what may seem like left-field appointments to the Vogue roster, not least the hiring of Margaret Zhang as editor-in-chief of Vogue China in 2021. The move confused many, not least because Zhang, at just 27 years old, was the youngest editor-in-chief in Vogue history. Zhang is Chinese but was born and had lived most of her life in Australia. Yet she was an influencer, with a huge personal following. Zhang’s predecessor, Angelica Cheung, had done the gruelling work of setting up Vogue in a new country and winning a position in the market, as Enninful’s predecessors did at British Vogue. Zhang inherited a ready-made brand. Vogue needed her to front it rather than run it.

“It’s important to have a figurehead who understands how to best appear in the public eye; a zeitgeist conductor,” says Anja Aronowsky Cronberg, founder of the academic fashion publication Vestoj. “An influencer is probably better-suited to doing this than a traditional editor.”

The game Condé Nast plays today is not to pick the right editor but the right influencer; a nominal editor who is really more of a brand ambassador, with unseen deputies editing the actual magazine and any other products in question. The job of editors and creative directors at fashion magazines is “to incarnate the brand”, according to Cronberg.

Picking untested influencers is, however, fraught. Social audiences are fickle. “I used to follow her,” says one stylist in Hong Kong, referring to Zhang. “But then she got predictable. I was surprised when she became China’s Vogue editor, as she hasn’t lived in China and doesn’t know the country from a Chinese reader’s perspective.”

One former staffer expressed her surprise at Enninful’s exit: “He was supposed to be this great hope.” The news has shocked those who believed Enninful was being primed to take over from Wintour and run Vogue globally. In September 2022, Enninful published his memoir with Bloomsbury, A Visible Man. Publishers tell me he sought £2m for the manuscript. It was one of the few ways he could make money while editing Vogue.

Enninful may also have decided that going up against Wintour was not worth it. By shifting positions, he can continue to claim relevance with his role as an “adviser”, while Vogue can continue to draw on his activist credentials. Wintour, meanwhile, can go on happily amalgamating every Condé Nast property and moulding it in her image.

Promotion or demotion? More than anything this move is an obituary for the once-lauded position of editor-in-chief of British Vogue. Enninful’s successor will not be an editor but a “head of content”. Wintour can finally integrate the last company outlier, British Vogue, into her global editorial structure. The merger of Vogue’s gorgeously varied, culture-specific editions into a homogenised blur will be complete.

Vogue’s founding principle was to be one thing to a very select group of people. Intended for a monied elite since its launch as a New York journal of society and fashion in 1892, Condé Montrose Nast bought the title in 1909. He refined the audience even further, targeting wealthy women. That focus has been all but forgotten in Vogue’s desperate bid to compete with the avalanche of digital content now available online.

Vogue today seeks to snare an audience anywhere it can: on social media, at fashion week events, through newsletters or in print. It relentlessly manufactures such content. Its new mode – “more and cheaper” – is at odds with the title’s past artistry. There is a perpetual tension between its claims of inclusion and the exclusivity luxury magazines must offer. “I don’t know what Vogue stands for anymore,” says Cronberg in the wake of Enninful’s exit. “I suppose that’s what they are trying to figure out themselves.”

[See also: Why everyone wants to be friends with Edwa

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (1)
评论
stillthere 回复 悄悄话 好文。
登录后才可评论.