Moments of great tragedy often elicit national soul-searching. So it is with last week’s South Korean ferry disaster, which has triggered an outpouring of not only grief and anger, but also of something close to self-loathing. “This was a stereotypical man-made disaster resulting from Korean society’s indifference to safety,” thundered one editorial, which went on to ask contemptuously: “What kind of country is this?” Another opined: “Unless we change South Korean society, there’s no way of knowing what other kind of tragedy will come our way.”

重大悲剧常常引起全国性的反思。4月16日的韩国客轮沉没事件也不例外，它不仅激发了悲痛与愤怒之情，还导致了一种近似自我厌恶的情绪。“这是典型的人祸，源于韩国社会对安全的漠视，”一篇社评怒斥。它接下来鄙夷地问道：“这是什么样的国家？”另一篇文章指出：“除非改变韩国社会，否则不知道还有怎样的悲剧会向我们袭来。”

In their efforts to understand what caused an accident that may end up claiming more than 300 lives – many of them teenage students – Koreans have cast their net wide. Those who have come under most scrutiny include the ferry’s captain, who allegedly abandoned ship, and the government which, like its Malaysian counterpart after last month’s aircraft disappearance, was slow to respond and sent out conflicting messages about the rescue operation.

事故可能最终将造成300多人丧生，其中许多是十几岁的学生。在试图理解事故原因的过程中，韩国人撒下了大网。最受质疑的是客轮的船长和政府。前者被指弃船逃跑，后者应对缓慢，发出的救援行动信息自相矛盾，表现颇似上月航班失踪事件后的马来西亚政府。

Yet beyond the immediate culprits, Koreans have delved deeper to ask questions about their own society. From the outside, South Korea looks incredibly successful as it closes in on western living standards. But from the perspective of many of its people, their society can seem severely flawed – unequal, caught up in an educational rat race and with a high tendency to suicide. Among the ultimate causes of the ferry disaster, some have identified an economic model that prizes growth, profits and the prestige of Korea Inc above the welfare of its citizens. Others, in a narrative seized on by many foreign commentators, have even blamed Korean culture itself, particularly the adherence to hierarchy that allegedly caused students to obey fatal instructions to stay below decks.

但除了直接元凶之外，韩国人进行了更深层次的挖掘，对他们的社会提出了疑问。在外界看来，韩国成就斐然，生活水平接近西方。但在不少韩国人眼里，他们的社会似乎存在严重缺陷——不平等，教育竞争激烈，自杀倾向严重。有人指出，客轮沉没事件的终极原因之一，是韩国的经济模式，它重视增长、利润和韩国企业的声望，牺牲公民的福祉。另一种被不少外国评论家引用的说法甚至对韩国文化本身提出指责，尤其是对等级制度的遵守——据说，正是它导致学生们听从指示留在舱内，最终酿成致命悲剧。

South Korea’s safety record is indeed woeful. Among advanced nations, it comes below only Turkey in the number of fatal industrial accidents. In 1995 a department store in Seoul, built on the cheap, collapsed, killing 500 people and injuring almost 1,000 more. Korea’s nuclear industry has also compromised safety. Last year it was found using fake parts. Three nuclear power stations were shut down for using cables with phoney safety certificates. The lack of safety culture extends to Korea’s roads, where drink-driving is common and seatbelt-wearing less so. The country’s driving test is so easy that Chinese are flocking to Seoul to get licences.

韩国的安全记录确实糟糕。在发达国家中，它发生的致命工业事故数量仅次于土耳其。1995年，首尔（当时称为汉城——译者注）一家建造成本低廉的百货商场倒塌，导致500人死亡、近1000人受伤。韩国的核工业同样不重视安全，去年曾被发现使用假冒零件。三家核电站因为所使用的电缆涉及伪造安全许可证而被关闭。安全文化的缺失还表现在韩国的马路上，酒驾司空见惯，系安全带却不那么常见。韩国的驾考非常简单，以至于中国人涌入首尔考取驾照。

In the case of the capsized Sewol, safety protocols appear to have been hopelessly inadequate. The crew followed no discernible evacuation procedure. The ferry’s public address system was not working properly and instructions given to passengers appear to have been misleading at best and deadly at worst. In a reflection of the greater casualisation of Korea’s workforce – sharply divided between those with well-paid, full-time jobs and the rest – many crew members were irregular workers. The ferry was only running thanks to a change of law extending the life of ships from 20 to 30 years. There is speculation that the ship, twice refurbished to add new capacity, was unstable. If that is true, it suggests a negligent inspection regime.

在“岁月号”(Sewol)沉船事件中，安全规范的不足似乎已经到了无可救药的地步。没有清楚的疏散流程可供船员遵循。客轮的广播系统工作不正常，向乘客发布的指令往好处说是坑人，往坏处说是要命。许多船员是临时工，这体现出韩国劳动力的“临时工化”加剧——薪酬丰厚的全职工作与其他工作之间差异巨大。客轮之所以还能航行，是因为法律做出修改，将船只的服役寿命从20年延长到30年。有猜测称这艘为了增加客容量而两度翻新的客轮不太稳定。如果猜测属实，则表明检验制度形同虚设。

The whole saga, as many Koreans have concluded, points to a society where, in the words of Daniel Tudor, author of Korea: The Impossible Country, “growth is everything and quality of life can be sacrificed”. Shim Jae-hoon, a political commentator, speaks of his nation’s balli-balli, or quick-quick, culture.

正如很多韩国人所总结的那样，整个事件折射出韩国社会的性质：用《韩国：不可思议之国》(Korea: The Impossible Country)作者丹尼尔•图德(Daniel Tudor)的话来说，就是“增长即一切，而生活质量是可以牺牲的。”政治评论家Shim Jae-hoon提到，韩国有一种“balli-balli”文化，即“赶快赶快”文化。

Many Koreans, particularly those on the left, bemoan the weak social safety net and the intensely competitive nature of the society. It is an echo of what the Japanese once called the “empty affluence” of their hell-for-leather lunge for growth in the go-go 1960s and 1970s.

许多韩国人，尤其是持左翼立场的韩国人，抱怨社会保障网络薄弱，社会竞争激烈。这让人回想起繁荣的20世纪60、70年代，日本人在拼命追求增长过程中所谓的“空虚的富裕”。

What about the cultural question? Mr Shim talks about a Confucian deference to hierarchy, which he postulates may have slowed the rescue effort and curbed life-saving initiative. In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell offers a probably far-fetched thesis that a 1997 Korean Air crash occurred because the first officer and engineer felt unable to warn the captain of impending disaster. Cultural explanations of this sort are usually too glib and almost always unhelpful. A report into Japan’s 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster blamed “the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture”, an explanation that let individuals off the hook and underestimated the usefulness of clear safety procedures.

那么文化问题呢？Shim Jae-hoon谈到了遵从等级制度的儒家思想，他推测这可能拖慢了救援努力，阻止了救生行动。在《异类》(Outliers)一书中，马尔科姆•格拉德威尔(Malcolm Gladwell)提出了一个或许牵强的观点：1997年大韩航空(Korean Air)的一起空难，是因为副驾驶和工程师认为自己不能向机长通报迫在眉睫的灾难。诸如此类的文化解读通常太过肤浅，几乎毫无用处。关于2011年日本福岛第一核电站(Fukushima Daiichi)核泄漏事故的一份报告指责了“日本文化根深蒂固的传统”，这种解释开脱了个人的责任，淡化了清晰安全流程的作用。

Mr Tudor rejects sweeping cultural judgments, arguing that they lead to self-hatred and inertia. If something is “cultural”, the next step is to regard it as unchangeable. He is right. Koreans should drop the existential wailing and concentrate instead on what can be practically achieved. That may indeed involve a recalibration of postwar values that have too often prioritised growth over human welfare. But there may be simpler things that can be done too. Proper safety drills and adequate safety regulations, strictly enforced, would be a good place to start.

图德驳斥了广泛流传的文化解读，称这导致自我憎恨和懒惰。如果一件事被认为是“文化性的”，那么下一步便是认为它无法改变。图德是对的。韩国人应该放下关于生死存亡问题的悲痛，关注实际行动可以办到的事情。事实上，这可能包括调整战后的价值观，因为它太过频繁地强调增长，轻视人的福祉。不过，或许还有一些更容易做的事情。适当的安全演练和充足的安全法规，再加以严格的执行，将是个不错的起点。