Skip to content








作者:Simon May

译者:李静轩 & 邵海灵



Why the power of cute is colonising our world


In such uncertain and uneasy times, and with so much injustice, hate and intolerance threatening the world, don’t we have more serious things to focus on than the escapades of that feline girl-figure Hello Kitty? Or Pokémon, the video-game franchise that’s hot again in 2019 with a major US and UK film release for its rodent detective Pikachu, its YouTube trailer notching up more than 65 million hits and counting. Why the proliferation of emojis? Or the cute logos that adorn countless products, from computers and phones, to guns and food; from children’s toys and calendars, to condoms and contact lenses?
在如此动荡不安的时代,在一个被重重不公、仇恨和狭隘威胁着的世界里,我们却对猫脸女孩Hello Kitty的冒险故事乐此不疲,难道就没有比这更严肃的事情值得关注吗?还有宠物小精灵——随着《大侦探皮卡丘》在2019年上映,这部英美主创的动画片使神奇宝贝的电子游戏再度大热,其预告片在YouTube上的点击量已经达到了6500万,而且还在持续上升。为什么表情包数量激增?为什么从电脑到手机,从枪支到食品,从儿童玩具到日历,从避孕套到隐形眼镜,不计其数的产品商标都是那么的可爱?
The craze for all things cute is motivated, most obviously, by the urge to escape from precisely such a threatening world into a garden of innocence in which childlike qualities arouse deliciously protective feelings, and bestow contentment and solace. Cute cues include behaviours that appear helpless, harmless, charming and yielding, and anatomical features such as outsize heads, protruding foreheads, saucer-like eyes, retreating chins and clumsy gaits.
Perhaps, as the Austrian scholar of animal behaviour Konrad Lorenz suggested in 1943, our response to these sorts of cues evolved to motivate us to give our offspring the extensive care and nurture that they need to prosper. According to Lorenz, the same visual cues can arouse us to equally intense – or possibly more intense – caregiving when we encounter them in exaggerated and distilled form in animals, such as birds and puppies, and even in dummy models, such as dolls and teddy bears.
The social psychologists Gary Sherman and Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia go so far as to consider the cuteness response as a ‘moral emotion’ par excellence: a ‘direct releaser of human sociality’ that stimulates us to expand our circle of altruistic concern to an ever-wider social sphere.
But if cuteness were merely about the charming, innocent and unthreatening, or if our attraction to it were motivated just by protective instincts, or the search for infantile and reassuring distractions from the anxieties of today’s world, it wouldn’t be so ubiquitous. Those qualities speak only of what we might call the ‘sweet’ end of a whole spectrum of cuteness. As we move toward the ‘uncanny’ end, sweet qualities get distorted into something darker, more indeterminate and more wounded. Something like Jeff Koons’s Balloon Dog series (1994-2000), which seems at once powerful (made of stainless steel) and powerless (hollow and lacking a face, mouth or eyes). It is hulking yet vulnerable-seeming, familiar and also unfamiliar, reassuringly innocent and also unsafe, defective, knowing. It both comforts us in a world of unnerving uncertainty – and gives voice to that same world, but crucially in a lighthearted register.
This faintly menacing subversion of boundaries – between the fragile and the resilient, the reassuring and the unsettling, the innocent and the knowing – when presented in cute’s frivolous, teasing idiom, is central to its immense popularity.
Cute is above all a teasing expression of the unclarity, uncertainty, uncanniness and the continuous flux or ‘becoming’ that our era detects at the heart of all existence, living and nonliving. In the ever-changing styles and objects that exemplify it, it is nothing if not transient, and it lacks any claim to lasting significance. Plus it exploits the way that indeterminacy, when pressed beyond a certain point, becomes menacing – which is a reality that cute is able to render beguiling precisely because it does so trivially, charmingly, unmenacingly. Cute expresses an intuition that life has no firm foundations, no enduring, stable ‘being’, and that, as the philosopher Martin Heidegger intimated, the only ground for life lies in the acceptance of its ungroundedness. And it often does so with something like the ‘artifice and exaggeration’, expressed in a manner that ‘dethrones the serious’ or fails in its seriousness, that the cultural critic Susan Sontag attributed to camp.

译者注:“艺术技巧和夸张造作”这个词组之所以广为人知,是因为2019年的Met Gala(大都会博物馆慈善晚宴)主题是“Camp: Notes on Fashion”,其灵感取自美国作家Susan Sontag于1964年撰写的文章《Note on Camp》。在那篇文章里,Sontag写道:“The essence of Camp is its love of the unnatural: of artifice and exaggeration. (浮夸本质上就是对非自然事物的爱好——对艺术技巧和夸张造作的格外欣赏。)”

This ‘unpindownability’, as we might call it, that pervades cute – the erosion of borders between what used to be seen as distinct or discontinuous realms, such as childhood and adulthood – is also reflected in the blurred gender of many cute objects such as Balloon Dog or a lot of Pokémon. It is reflected, too, in their frequent blending of human and nonhuman forms, as in the cat-girl Hello Kitty. And in their often undefinable age. For though cute objects might appear childlike, it can be strikingly hard to say, as with ET, whether they are young or old – sometimes seeming to be, in human terms, both.
原本在人们眼中泾渭分明的边界和无法连续的概念,比如童年与成年,现在却在“可爱”的腐蚀下模糊了界限。这种渗透于“可爱”之中的、我们姑且称为“不可定位”的特质,也体现于很多可爱之物模糊化的性别中,比如杰夫•昆斯的“气球狗”和很多宠物小精灵。这些可爱之物的造型往往融合了人类和非人的外形特征,比如长着猫咪脑袋的小女孩Hello Kitty,这也反映出了“可爱”在本质上的模糊性。这种模糊性还体现于它们难以判断的年龄,因为这些可爱之物虽然看起来像小孩子,但要让你说它们究竟年轻还是老,有时却比登天还难,比如ET外星人——但有时候呢,用人类的话来说,它们仿佛鹤发童颜,似乎很老,又似乎比谁都年轻。
In such ways, cute is attuned to an era that is no longer so wedded to such hallowed dichotomies as masculine and feminine, sexual and nonsexual, adult and child, being and becoming, transient and eternal, body and soul, absolute and contingent, and even good and bad – dichotomies that once structured ideals but that are now taken to be more fluid or porous.
Moreover, as a sensibility, cute is incompatible with the modern cult of sincerity and authenticity, which dates from the 18th century and assumes that each of us has an ‘inner’ authentic self – or at least a set of beliefs, feelings, drives and tastes that uniquely identifies us, and that we can clearly grasp and know to be truthfully expressed. Cute has nothing to do with showing inwardness. In its more uncanny forms, at least, it steps entirely aside from our prevailing faith that we can know – and control – when we are being sincere and authentic.
Although attraction to such cute objects as the mouthless, fingerless Hello Kitty can express a desire for power, cuteness can also parody and subvert power by playing with the viewer’s sense of her own power, now painting her into a dominant pose, now sowing uncertainty about who is really in charge, now making her realise that the cute one’s surrender is actually a way of entrapping her, now making demands for care or protection from her.
尽管对无嘴也无脚的Hello Kitty的痴迷能体现出我们对权力的渴望,但可爱也能通过玩弄观者对自我权力的认知来恶搞权力,从而颠覆权力。比如一会儿把观者放在一个掌控者的位置,一会儿又在观者心中种下不确定的种子,搞不清到底谁才是老大,从而让人们意识到,那个可爱的东西之所以降服于你,其实不过是一个陷阱,让你甘愿听命于它,为它付出更多关爱和保护。
For this reason, cute is one – perhaps very trivial, very tentative – way of exploring whether and how the paradigm of power can be exited. Indeed, this might explain why cute has stormed popular culture in those parts of the world – notably the US, Europe and above all Japan – that since the Second World War have sought, intermittently and with many setbacks, to reduce the role of power in determining the structure of human relations and, most conspicuously, of international relations.


  • 本文原载于 Aeon

  • 原文链接:

一、了解取经号 |我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入
三、翻译服务| 咨询邮箱:[email protected]
四、社交媒体 |微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW
五、译文归档 | 访问网站
六、学习社群 |翻译社(暂停中)


Be First to Comment


电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注