人，还是人矿：中美组织结构性差异与差距
Human or Resource: Structural Differences and Differentiations Between China and the United States
——从资源化对象到交互主体共生的文明分殊 — A Civilizational Differentiation from Resource-Object to Intersubjective Symbiosis
钱宏（Archer Hong Qian） 2026年4月16日于温哥华 内容提要：本文以“人被当作什么”为起点，比较中美组织结构的深层差异。通过外交、救援与收养等具体情境的分析，呈现两种取向：一是以人作为主体（Subject），制度围绕其边界与责任校准；一是将人纳入资源化对象（Resource-Object），进入配置与消耗逻辑。由此分化出两类信任（TRUST）生成机制，并决定交互主体性（Intersubjective Symbiosis）能否成立。文章认为，文明的可持续性取决于人是否被承认为主体而非资源，这一差异构成关键的文明分殊。结论是：短期效率并不能替代长期生成能力。当人被稳定地承认为主体时，社会更可能形成可持续的信任与创新；当人被持续资源化时，系统将趋向内耗与临界。这一区分构成"LIFE-AI-TRUST"组织结构未来前景的当下选择。
一、问题的起点：人，被当作什么？ 作为一个从中国大地上生长出来的思行者，我越来越觉得，中美之间最深的差异，恐怕并不首先在制度名称、技术水平、财富规模，甚至也不完全在于所谓文化传统，而在于一个更根本、也更容易被忽略的问题： 人，在组织结构中究竟被当作什么？ 这个问题，不是一上来就能抽象讨论清楚的。它往往不是从概念里出来，而是从一些很具体、甚至让人发愣的场景里逼出来的。 当我读到《方励之夫妇在美国大使馆的流亡岁月》时，就是这种感觉。 那里面最抓人的，并不只是一个著名思想家、科学家的遭遇，而是那种几乎令人窒息的细节：在使馆官邸二楼那间紧锁窗帘的小房间里，方励之夫妇必须压低声音，说话像耳语一样；走路要穿软底拖鞋，不能靠近窗户；外面的监听设备、高倍相机，日夜对着每一个可能暴露行踪的窗口；送饭、倒垃圾，都要小心翼翼地处理，不能留下任何让人起疑的痕迹。两个大活人，活得像幽灵一样，整整一年。 但更让人难忘的，不只是那间小屋，而是另一边在人民大会堂密室里进行的谈判。那边摆在桌上的，不只是一个人的生死命运，还有最惠国待遇、世界银行贷款、经贸关系、国际局势、面子与里子。一个知识分子的去留，被放到了国家利益、外交安排和政治博弈的同一张桌子上。 读到这里，人很难不生出一种极强的不适感。 因为事情忽然被撕开了：原来一个人，既可以在某个瞬间被极严密地保护起来，也可以在更大的谈判组织里，被卷入一种无法摆脱的交换逻辑。这里最让人难受的，不只是政治强弱，而是那种说不出口却又明摆着存在的事实： 个体命运，会不会在某些时刻，被纳入国家层面的成本收益计算？ 二、一个人，被组织放在什么位置？ 再往下看，类似的不适感并没有停止，反而扩大了。 一个方向，是美国人常讲、也常拍的那种战争叙事。像《拯救大兵瑞恩》这样的故事，真正让人震动的，不是战争场面，而是那种几乎不合“算计”的前提：为了让一个母亲不至于失去所有儿子（已经三个在欧战牺牲），要派一支小队深入火线，把最后那个儿子找回来。一路上，一个个士兵倒下去，危险越来越大，代价越来越高。放在习惯于权衡利弊的人那里，这种安排几乎不可思议。因为无论怎样算，这似乎都不是最优解。 可它偏偏被拍出来、讲出来、被千千万万人接受、理解，甚至当作一种理所当然的叙事。 另一个方向，则更让人说不出话来。现实中的飞行员搜救、战场救援，往往并不是先算“值不值得”，而是先展开行动，再说代价。飞机、卫星、侦察、护航、接应，一层层资源压上去，不是因为人们不懂成本（全球关注），而是在那一刻，成本似乎已经退到了第二位。逻辑很简单：人得带回来。 再往民间走，就更奇特了。几十年来，数以万计的中国弃婴被美国家庭收养。这里面当然有机构、程序、费用，也有复杂的社会与政治背景，甚至不乏难堪和争议的部分。可是，事情依旧在那里：一个个并不富裕的普通家庭，拿出真金白银（每个孩子领养费高达三万多美元），承担漫长而琐碎的抚养责任，把一个与自己没有血缘、没有语言、没有文化共同体背景的孩子带进家门。孩子一旦进门，就不再是“外来的中国孩子”，而是： “我的孩子”。 这里面当然不纯粹，也不是没有灰色地带。可即便如此，它还是会逼着人去想一个问题： 为什么同样是“人”，在不同组织结构里，会被放在如此不同的位置上？ 三、从发愣到发问：真正的问题是什么？ 事情讨论到这里，我才渐渐发现，真正的问题并不是“美国人为什么这么做”，也不是“美国人是不是比中国人更善良”。问题甚至也不在“美国是不是总这样”。真正的问题是： 在一个社会的组织结构中，人究竟首先被当作主体（Subject），还是首先被当作资源（Object）？ 这才是中美差异真正开始显形的地方。 如果顺着这个角度往下看，许多原本混乱的现象一下就有了主线。 在一种组织结构里，人首先是主体——赋有自组织连接动态平衡力的生命（LIFE）。制度、组织、技术、国家，都必须围绕这个主体来运转。换句话说，人的位置，是起点，是边界，是某些东西不可以轻易跨过去的地方。正因为如此，某些行为看起来才会“不合算”，因为一旦触到这个边界，计算就必须停下来。 在另一种组织结构里，人虽然也会被写进宏大叙事，甚至天天被放在嘴上，但在现实运行中，人更容易先被放进功能、位置和目标之中。先是岗位，先是任务，先是增长，先是稳定，先是大局，最后才是那个具体的人。于是，人慢慢就不再是起点，而成了材料，成了变量，成了可以被动员、被配置、被替换、被牺牲的东西。 四、“人矿”：人的资源化状态 我后来想，用今天流行的一个刺眼却并不空洞的词来说，这种状态就叫： 人矿。 “人矿”不是骂人，不只是网络上的泄愤，而是对一种组织结构状态的命名。 所谓“人矿”，说到底就是： 人被当作当权者支配、操纵、掠夺的资源（resource），也就是对象（Object）。 一旦人以这种方式进入组织结构，就不再是一个可以与他人相互承认、彼此界定边界的主体，而是一个可被开采、可被计算、可被消耗的对象。一个对象当然也可以被愛惜、被珍惜、被高效使用，但那仍然不是主体（Subject）。对象终究是被安排的，不是能与他者共同构成关系的。 事情到了这里，中美之间真正的差异，也就开始从“制度差异”上升到“主客关系差异”。 五、主客关系差异：主体与对象 在一种社会组织结构中，人和人之间，哪怕有权力、阶层、财富、身份的差异，终究还倾向于被理解为主体与主体之间（Intersubjectivity）的关系。你可以不同意我，可以讨厌我，可以与我冲突，但你不能轻易取消我的主体资格。你不能理直气壮地把我当成一个可以无限调配的对象。正因为如此，承诺会有分量，责任会形成边界，信任会有基础。 在另一种组织结构中，人和人之间则更容易滑向主体与对象的关系。尤其当权力高度集中、组织高度单一、资源高度垄断时，当权者是主体，下面的人则容易被当作资源对象。所谓“为了大局”“为了稳定”“为了发展”“为了国家利益”“为了组织”，在这里并不只是口号，而是不断把人从主体拉回对象的机制。 于是，许多差异就都顺着这条线呈现出来了。 为什么有的社会会反复出现那种“看起来不计代价地救一个人”的行为？ 因为在那里，人的主体地位构成了某种禁算区。不是他们不会算，而是有些东西不允许算。 为什么有的社会则更容易出现“为了整体利益牺牲个体”“为了长远目标消耗当下的人”的正当化叙事？ 因为在那里，人早已部分地被资源化、对象化了，既然是资源，就当然要进入配置和计算。 也就是说，中美差异，表面上看是制度、文化、战略风格的不同，深层上看其实是： 人是Subject，还是Resource-Object。 六、组织信任（TRUST）的来源：控制，还是内在互信 一旦抓住这一点，很多原本割裂的讨论就都贯通起来了。 比如组织信任（TRUST）的问题。 一个社会如果把人不断往对象、资源的方向推，信任就不可能是内生的。因为每个人都知道，自己随时可能被重新纳入更大的算计，于是就必须自我保护，必须防御，必须学会看风向、留后路、找靠山、藏资源，要成为“自己人”而避免成为“异己分子”。这样的社会当然也能运转，但它的运转，更多依赖控制、惩罚、威慑和利益刺激，而不是彼此之间的内在互信。 反过来，一个社会如果在相当程度上把人当作主体，允许人作为“不可轻易替代”的存在来进入制度与关系，那么信任就会从边界里长出来。因为人知道，自己并不只是被利用的材料；人知道，某些东西不能拿自己去换；人知道，即便有冲突、有分歧、有代价，自己仍然不是可以随时丢弃的对象。 再往深一层，这其实就碰到了我这些年越来越看重的那个词： Intersubjectivity（交互主体）。 人一旦被资源化为Object，交互主体性——生命自组织连接动态平衡力，就会被压缩。 人和人之间，不再是主体与主体的关系，而退化为主体对对象的支配、安排和管理。 这样一来，所谓Symbiosism（共生）就没有了现实的活生生的土壤。因为共生不是把对象摆在一起，而是主体之间彼此承认、彼此限界、彼此激励、彼此竞合、彼此成全，共襄生成的一种关系状态。 七、一旦失去“Live”，必然滑向“Evil” 所以，“人矿”真正可怕的地方，并不只是它让人辛苦、贫穷、无力，而是它会从根上破坏人与自然（天人）、人与社会（人我）、人与自己（身心灵）之间的交互主体关系，使一个社会越来越难形成“你中有我，我中有他，他中有你”的三维组织结构常识。 一旦这种常识失效，Live and let live（生且共生，生生不息）的生命活力，就不再是生活哲学，而只剩下一句空话。 再往后走，组织结构就会不可避免地滑向更深的内耗、对立、冲突与恶化，滑向Be evil and let evil be（自己邪恶，也让别人邪恶）的深渊。 人和人之间会越来越不把彼此当作共襄生成且构成世界的主体，而是越来越像争夺资源、占据位置、彼此消耗算计的对手。 这时，失去“Live”的所谓“Evil”，往往不是谁天生邪恶，而是交互主体关系坍塌之后，组织结构犹如肿瘤一样自然长出来的结果。
八、两种不同的组织信托方式 讨论到这里，中美之间的差异与差距，也就不能仅仅理解为谁更富、谁更强、谁更先进，而首先应该理解为两种不同的组织信托（TRUST）方式。 一种方式，是围绕主体组织社会。 一种方式，是围绕资源组织社会。 前者，当然也会有它自己的虚伪、矛盾、双标和问题，但它的边界在那里，人的主体性仍然构成某种约束或纠错机制。 后者，也会有它自己的效率、规模、动员能力和短期优势，但只要人不断被往资源和对象的方向压缩，这种优势终究会越用越薄。因为它消耗的不只是资源，更是构成文明本身的那个东西——人的主体性、彼此信任、组织信用，以及社会自组织连接平衡的能力（《一切危机说到底是信用危机！——资本退出未来：殖官主义政体终结的现实显影》http://symbiosism.com.cn/11930.html）。 从这个意义上说，中美的差异，不只是文明样式之别，还是文明质量与前景之别。 九、优势为何长不了：临界点与伯阳父 表面上看，资源化组织结构可能一时很强，很能忍，很能卷，很能撑，甚至能靠低价、动员、牺牲和透支未来，取得某些阶段性优势； 但这种优势长不了。因为“和实生物，同则不继”（伯阳父，公元前8世纪思想家），一个抹杀人的个体差异和主体价值，把人当资源“标准化”、当对象“同质化”的组织信托结构里，到头来一定会遇到自己的临界点：市场长不起来，主体（人尊严）站不起来，自由创新稳不下来，信任依托一旦丧失就回不来，社会不再能自然生长，只能靠不断加压维持。 所以，我十分赞赏Scott在《国家的视角》（Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed）导言中强调的话：“我反对特定的某一类国家，并不表明我主张弗里德里希·哈耶克和米尔顿·弗里德曼所推动的政治上自由的市场协作。我们将会看到，从现代社会工程的失败中所得出的结论，既适用于市场推动的标准化，也适用于科层制的同质化。” 结语：走向交互主体共生 而一个仍然在相当程度上把人当主体的组织结构，哪怕笨一点、慢一点、贵一点，哪怕不那么精明、不那么善变，哪怕看起来经常“不合算”，它终究更接近文明能持续长出来的方向。 所以，到最后，中美之间最深的比对，不在制度标签，不在GDP总量，不在购买力平价是不是世界第一，不在一时一地一事的胜负赶超，而在这样一句再简单不过、却最难被真正承认的话： 人，究竟是共生的主体，还是被当作资源而被消耗？ 如果是主体，那么制度、技术、组织都必须围绕人的尊严、边界与责任来校准。 如果是资源，那么一切都可以被重新安排，人终究只是被开采、被动员、被消耗的对象。 而这，正是“人矿”与“交互主体”的根本分殊。 也是中美差异与差距最深处的答案。
Human or Resource: Structural Differences and Differentiations Between China and the United States — A Civilizational Differentiation from Resource-Object to Intersubjective Symbiosis
Archer Hong Qian
Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation (Canada)
Vancouver, April 16, 2026
Abstract (Unified Version) This paper takes as its point of departure a simple yet fundamental question: what is a human being treated as within an organizational structure? It compares the deep structural differences between China and the United States through the analysis of concrete situations, including diplomacy, rescue operations, and transnational adoption. Two distinct orientations emerge. In one, the human being is treated as a Subject, and institutions are calibrated around the boundaries and responsibilities of the person. In the other, the human is incorporated as a Resource-Object, entering a logic of allocation and consumption. This divergence gives rise to two fundamentally different mechanisms of TRUST formation, and determines whether Intersubjective Symbiosis can be sustained as a lived relational structure. The paper argues that the long-term sustainability of a civilization depends on whether human beings are recognized as subjects rather than resources. This distinction constitutes a key civilizational differentiation. The conclusion is that short-term efficiency cannot substitute for long-term generative capacity. When human beings are stably recognized as subjects, societies are more likely to develop sustainable trust and innovation; when they are persistently reduced to resources, systems tend toward internal exhaustion and critical thresholds. This differentiation defines the present choice that shapes the future trajectory of LIFE–AI–TRUST organizational structures. I. The Point of Departure: What Is a Human Being Treated As? As a thinker shaped by the soil of China, I have increasingly come to feel that the deepest difference between China and the United States does not primarily lie in institutional labels, technological capability, or economic scale. Nor can it be fully explained by cultural traditions. Rather, it lies in a more fundamental and often overlooked question: Within an organizational structure, what is a human being treated as? This question does not emerge from abstract reasoning alone. It is forced upon us by concrete situations—moments that make us pause, even leave us momentarily stunned. Such a moment came to me when reading the account of Fang Lizhi and his wife during their year-long refuge in the U.S. Embassy. What struck me was not merely the fate of a prominent intellectual, but the suffocating details: a small room with curtains tightly drawn; voices lowered to whispers; soft-soled slippers to avoid noise; surveillance devices and high-powered cameras monitoring every possible window; food delivered through concealed routines; even garbage carefully handled to avoid suspicion. Two living human beings existed almost like ghosts—for an entire year. Yet even more striking was the parallel scene: negotiations unfolding in a sealed room within the Great Hall of the People. On that table lay not only the fate of an individual, but also Most-Favored-Nation trade status, World Bank loans, economic relations, geopolitical considerations, and political face. A single human life had entered the same field as national interests. At that point, a deep discomfort becomes unavoidable. Something has been exposed: A human being can be intensely protected at one moment,
and yet simultaneously drawn into a larger structure of exchange. The unease lies not simply in political asymmetry, but in a more difficult question: At what point does an individual life enter the calculus of national cost and benefit?
II. Where Is a Person Positioned Within an Organization? This discomfort does not stop—it expands. One direction appears in American war narratives, such as Saving Private Ryan. What is truly striking is not the battle itself, but the premise: to send a squad deep into combat simply to retrieve one soldier—the last surviving son of a family that had already lost three. One by one, members of the rescue team fall. The risk escalates. The cost grows. From the standpoint of calculation, such a decision seems almost irrational. Yet it is repeatedly told, widely accepted, and rarely questioned.
III. From Bewilderment to Inquiry: What Is the Real Question? Another direction is even harder to articulate. In real-world rescue operations, when a pilot is downed, the first question is not whether it is “worth it,” but how to bring him back. Aircraft, satellites, reconnaissance, escort units—resources are mobilized layer by layer. The logic is simple: He must be brought back. At the level of everyday life, the pattern continues. Over decades, tens of thousands of Chinese orphans have been adopted by American families. This involves institutional processes, financial costs, and social complexity, not without controversy. Yet the fact remains: ordinary families invest real money and long-term commitment to raise children with no shared language, culture, or bloodline. Once a child enters the household, he or she is no longer “a foreign child,” but: my child. Placed side by side, these situations raise an unavoidable question: Why is the same human being positioned so differently in different organizational structures?
IV. “Human Resources”: The Objectification of the Human At this point, I realized that the original question had been misplaced. The issue is not whether Americans are more benevolent, nor why they behave this way. The real question is: Within a given social structure, is a human being treated first as a Subject,
or first as a Resource (Object)? This is where the deeper differentiation between China and the United States begins to emerge. In one type of structure, the human being is first a Subject—a living being (LIFE) with the capacity for self-organizing, dynamic relational balance. Institutions, organizations, technologies, and the state must align around this. In another structure, the human being is gradually absorbed into functions, roles, and objectives—positioned as a variable, a resource, something to be mobilized, allocated, replaced, or even sacrificed.
V. The Differentiation of Subject–Object Relations What is often called “human resources” is not merely a rhetorical expression. It names a structural condition. A human being becomes a resource—subject to allocation, mobilization, and consumption. Once placed in this position, the human ceases to function as a subject in relation, and instead becomes an object within a system. At this point, the difference between China and the United States shifts from institutional differences to differences in subject–object relations. In one structure, relations tend toward subject–subject (intersubjective) interactions. In the other, relations tend toward subject–object arrangements.
VI. The Source of TRUST: Control or Intrinsic Mutual Confidence Once this distinction is recognized, many fragmented discussions begin to converge. Consider the issue of TRUST. In a structure where human beings are continually pushed toward objectification, trust cannot be internally generated. Individuals must protect themselves, anticipate shifts, secure positions, and align with power structures. Such a system can function—but largely through control, discipline, deterrence, and incentives. In contrast, when individuals are treated as subjects—non-substitutable and not easily expendable—trust emerges from within structural boundaries. People know they are not merely tools to be exchanged.
VII. Once “Live” Is Lost, the Drift Toward “Evil” Becomes Inevitable At a deeper level, this leads to the concept of Intersubjectivity. When human beings are reduced to objects, intersubjective relations collapse. Symbiosism loses its living ground. Symbiosis is not the arrangement of objects, but the co-emergence of subjects—mutually recognizing, constraining, enabling, and co-creating. Once this relational structure is lost, the principle of
“Live and let live”
ceases to function as a living force. What follows is not necessarily intentional malice, but structural degeneration. Human relations increasingly resemble competition over resources, positioning, and mutual consumption. What we call “Evil” is often not a moral origin, but the natural outcome of collapsed intersubjective structures.
VIII. Two Distinct Modes of Organizational TRUST At this point, the difference between China and the United States can no longer be understood merely in terms of wealth, strength, or advancement. It must be understood as two distinct modes of organizing TRUST: The former retains internal corrective boundaries grounded in human subjectivity. The latter may achieve short-term efficiency and scale, but progressively exhausts the foundations of civilization: human agency, trust, organizational credibility, and self-organizing capacity.
IX. Why Such Advantages Cannot Last: The Critical Threshold A resource-centered structure may appear strong—capable of endurance, mobilization, and expansion. But such strength cannot last. As Boyangfu observed:
“Harmony generates vitality; uniformity leads to stagnation.” When human individuality and subjectivity are suppressed—when people are standardized and objectified—the system inevitably reaches a threshold: markets fail to mature,
dignity fails to stand,
innovation loses stability,
trust cannot be restored once broken,
and society can no longer grow organically.
Conclusion: Toward Intersubjective Symbiosis A structure that treats human beings as subjects—even if less efficient, less calculated, or less optimized—remains closer to the conditions under which civilization can continue to generate itself. Ultimately, the deepest comparison between China and the United States does not lie in GDP, institutional labels, or temporary advantage. It lies in a simple yet decisive question: Is the human being a subject of symbiosis,
or a resource to be consumed? If a subject, institutions must align with dignity, boundary, and responsibility. If a resource, everything becomes subject to rearrangement. This is the fundamental differentiation between “human as resource” and intersubjective being. And it is here that the deepest difference—and divergence—between civilizations unfolds.
|
