Unwritten rules seem natural and unquestionable. Commit a rule to writing or speak it out loud, however, and it can be probed at with logic, illuminated through debate, or, as parents and teachers will often be all too aware, sidestepped entirely. Let’s stroll past some quirks and oddities of the rules-based world we live in, and see what we learn along the way.
不成文的規則似乎很自然，也是毋庸置疑的。 然而，承诺制定一个规则，把它写出来或大声說出來，它可以用逻辑探究，通过辩论得到阐明，或者，正如父母和老师通常非常清楚的那样，完全回避。 让我们漫步过去我们生活的基于规则的世界的一些怪癖和怪癖，看看我们一路上学到了什么。
It seems smart to start from a point of agreement and understanding; and indeed, most definitions of the word “rule” include some reference to rules being “accepted” or “understood”. The question then becomes, by who? Well, society, of course. But when were you given a chance to “accept” any of the rules you live by in advance? And what if you decide that in fact you don’t accept one of these rules?
从协议和理解的角度出发似乎是明智的；事实上，“规则”一词的大多数定义都包括一些“被接受”或“理解”的规则。 那么问题就变成了，由谁？ 嗯，当然是社会。 但你什么时候有机会提前“接受”你生活的任何规则？ 如果你决定实际上你不接受这些规则之一呢？
I recently conducted an entirely scientific survey of a group of teenagers in advance of reading Lord of the Flies (it seems a rule that students in a Western education setting come across this Don’t-Do-it-Yourself example of society building at one point or another). Reflecting on who creates rules, how they enforce them and what the purposes of these rules are revealed just how deeply ingrained unwritten rules can feel. It also reassured me that the classic, “You can’t leave the table until your dinner is finished”, rule is still alive and kicking.
我最近在阅读《蝇王》之前对一群青少年进行了一次完全科学的调查（似乎有一个规则，在西方教育环境中，学生会在一次或另一个时候遇到这个不自己动手的社会建设的例子）。 反思谁制定了规则，他们如何执行这些规则，以及这些规则的目的是什么，揭示了根深蒂固的不成文规则的感觉。 它也讓我放心，經典的「在晚餐吃完之前，你不能離開餐桌」的規則仍然有效。
The range of rules exposed this way ran from, “Don’t say bad words” (enforced by Mum and Dad) to, “Thou shalt not murder”, (biblical manifestation my own dramatic spin). Just as interesting were the purposes expressed behind the rules, often some form of, “To avoid getting in trouble”, indicating one of two things. Firstly, that the rule had succeeded in becoming invisible in that person’s mind, or secondly, that they didn’t really know why it existed at all.
以这种方式揭露的规则范围从“不要说坏话”（由爸爸妈妈强制执行）到“不可杀人”（圣经表现我自己的戏剧性旋转）。 规则背后表达的目的也一样有趣，通常是某种形式的“避免惹上麻烦”，表明了两件事之一。 首先，这个规则成功地在那个人的脑海中变得不可见，其次，他们真的不知道为什么它存在。
Where purposes were brought to light, rules at the less severe end of the spectrum were understood to exist so people could “not offend” or “keep harmony”, a fascinating indication of cultural values. Rules, and purposes behind them at the serious end of the severity range were perhaps more universal and less surprising. The widely agreed upon injunction against stealing inevitably had values of fairness and respect behind it.
当目的被揭示时，人们理解为存在不那么严厉的规则，这样人们就可以“不冒犯”或“保持和谐”，这是文化价值观的迷人迹象。 规则及其背后的目的在严重程度范围的严重结束处也许更普遍，不那么令人惊讶。 广泛同意的禁止偷窃禁令不可避免地具有公平和尊重的价值观。
So, while this was reaffirming, especially to those of us who worry that the world is going to hell in a handcart and the youth are all to blame, it didn’t drill down into exactly how rules function, or explore what happens when they don’t.
因此，虽然这重申了这一点，特别是对我们这些担心世界将在手推车上走向地狱，年轻人都应该受到指责的人，但它并没有深入研究规则的确切运作方式，也没有探索规则不发挥作用时会发生什么。
Lord of the Flies itself does ask these questions. At the risk of spoiling a 70-year-old school stalwart for anyone who’s (somehow) managed not to read it, watch a version of it or encounter any of the many parodies of it, the answers are not good. The small society of all male, all English students make a good effort at first of upholding rules, law and order while simultaneously having fun and reaching for a childish Utopia, but slowly, surely collapse under the weight of the dark sides of their own humanity. The author, William Golding, argued that without laws, you’re finished, you’re done. They’re the only thing keeping us from our beastly inner natures.
苍蝇之王本身确实提出了这些问题。 对于任何（不知何故）设法不阅读它、观看它的版本或遇到它的许多模仿者的人来说，冒着破坏70岁学校支持者的风险，答案并不好。 所有男性的小社会，所有英国学生一开始都努力维护规则、法律和秩序，同时享受乐趣，实现一个幼稚的乌托邦，但慢慢地，肯定地，在他们自己人类的黑暗面的重压下崩溃了。 作者William Golding认为，没有法律，你就完蛋了，你就完蛋了。 他们是唯一能让我们遠離野兽般的内心的东西。
With this rather pessimistic view of humanity’s inner truth in mind, let’s see if any history or evidence backs up or refutes this stance. Of the few worldwide examples of successful anarchic societies, Christiania merits study. Founded in an abandoned military area in Denmark, the residents discourage private property; for example, ownership of private cars is forbidden. There are also basic bylaws against guns and violence. A contradiction emerges. It would seem that even in places designed to be as free from oversight and intervention as possible, human beings still need to codify basic tenets of behaviour.
考虑到这种对人类内在真理的相当悲观的看法，让我们看看是否有任何历史或证据支持或反驳这一立场。 在全球为数不多的成功无政府主义社会的例子中，Christiania值得研究。 成立于丹麦一个废弃的军事区，居民们不鼓励私有财产；例如，禁止拥有私家车。 还有禁止枪支和暴力的基本細則。 矛盾出现了。 似乎即使在尽可能不受监督和干预的地方，人类仍然需要编纂基本行为原则。
Another small-scale example is the Twin Oaks Community in Virginia, USA. It is leaderless, aims to be self-supporting and is partly self-sufficient. It is “income-sharing”, with money generated by hammock, casual furniture and tofu production. Each member of the community works 42 hours a week in the community’s business and domestic areas, and receives housing, food, healthcare, and personal spending money from the community. Again, this society exists on top of and through interaction with wider, rules-based societies (in this case, the rest of the USA) and so is difficult to hold up as a rule-less example.
另一个小规模的例子是美国弗吉尼亚州的双橡树社区。 它没有领导，旨在自给自足，部分自给自足。 它是「收入分享”，由吊床、休閒傢俱和豆腐生产產生的資金。 社区的每个成员每周在社区的商业和家庭领域工作42小时，并从社区获得住房、食物、医疗保健和个人消费。 同样，这个社会存在于更广泛的、基于规则的社会（在这种情况下，美国其他地区）的互动之上，因此很难作为一个没有规则的例子。
Still, it seems that if you are of a mind to reject (some of) the rules you were born in to, there are places in the world you can go.
尽管如此，似乎如果你想拒绝（一些）你天生就遵循的规则，世界上有一些地方你可以去。
Understanding these rules seems a vital first step, but it is not as easy as simply pulling up a list of laws and rules that is applicable to the country you live in. Some rules, especially in countries where rules and laws have accumulated over time, seem to exist only within the minds of lawyers and the confines of a court room. And while many rules, and the purposes behind them, can be pleasingly transparent, there are some that logic seems to have bypassed.
了解这些规则似乎是重要的第一步，但这并不像简单地调出适用于您居住的国家的法律和规则清单那么容易。 一些規則，特別是在規則和法律隨著時間的推移而積累的國家，似乎只存在於律師的頭腦和法庭的範圍內。 虽然许多规则及其背后的目的可以令人愉悦地透明，但有些规则似乎被逻辑绕过了。
A choice few are as follows, and good luck divining the purposes behind these laws, though they do perhaps say some fascinating things about the values of the places concerned.
少数选择如下，祝你好运，占卜这些法律背后的目的，尽管它们可能确实对相关地方的价值观说了一些引人入胜的话。
• It’s Illegal to Climb a Tree in Toronto, Canada
•在加拿大多伦多，爬树是违法的
• You Must Walk Your Dog 3 Times Daily in Turin, Italy
•在意大利都灵，你必须每天遛3次狗
• It’s Illegal to Handle Salmon Suspiciously in the U.K.
•在英国，可疑地处理鲑鱼是违法的。
• It’s Illegal to Wrestle a Bear in South Africa
•在南非，与熊摔跤是非法的
• It’s Illegal to Play Dominoes in Sevilla, Spain
•在西班牙塞维利亚玩多米诺骨牌是违法的
• It’s Illegal to Drive a Dirty Car in Russia
•在俄罗斯，驾驶脏车是违法的
• Men Must Wear Speedos on French Beaches
•男人在法国海滩上必须穿Speedos
• It’s Illegal to Be Shirtless in Barcelona, Spain
•在西班牙巴塞罗那，不穿衣服是违法的
• It’s Illegal to Wear a Fake Moustache in a Church in Alabama, USA.
•在美国阿拉巴马州的教堂里戴假胡子是违法的。
Silly, senseless, or strangely appealing? These laws may be on the kookier outward edge of human law-making, but they do point to an apparently innate desire to impose control on our environments, for reasons of fairness, respect, equality, avoidance of threat and even aesthetics.
愚蠢、毫无意义，还是奇怪地吸引人？ 这些法律可能处于人类立法的外在边缘，但它们确实表明了出于公平、尊重、平等、避免威胁甚至美学的原因，对环境施加控制的明显先天愿望。
So, what about here in China? We all have experiences of friction with some of the rules and regulations imposed upon us during life here, especially during the turbulent recent years. I won’t go into restrictions upon movement and travel, as these deserve more space than can be afforded here. In pursuit of the light-hearted, I stumbled across a law in Luolang Elementary School in Guizhou Province, requiring children to stop and salute passing cars. The intended effect seems to be to reduce accidents, and how can drivers not stop and take notice of school children raising hands in deference? It has, by all accounts, been a wholly successful rule.
那么，在中国这里呢？ 我们都经历过一些强加给我们的规则和条例的摩擦，特别是在动荡的近几年。 我不会限制行动和旅行，因为这些应该得到比这里所能承受的更多的空间。 为了追求轻松，我在贵州省罗朗小学偶然发现了一项法律，要求孩子们停车向路过的汽车敬礼。 预期效果似乎是减少事故，司机怎么能不停下来，注意到学童举手表示尊重呢？ 从各方面来看，这是一个完全成功的规则。
So finally, to our very own Nanjing. What rules, written or unwritten, clear of purpose or oblique, guide our little lives in the Southern Capital? Speaking from my relative inexperience of the city, it seems to be a nation-wide rule: be ready for anything.
所以最後，去我們自己的南京。 哪些规则，书面的或非书面的，明确的或间接的，指导我们在南方首都的小生活？ 从我对这座城市相对缺乏经验来说，这似乎是全国性的规则：为任何事情做好准备。
Each of us, undoubtedly, will have pushed up against rules and regulations in our lifetimes, whether formal codified ones or rules our families and friends enforce. One way of looking at youth is as an extended exercise in learning the “rules of the game” in a low-stakes environment, to prepare us for adulthood, where we uphold, or break, these rules ourselves.
毫无疑问，我们每个人在有生之年都会反对规则和条例，无论是正式的编纂规则还是我们家人和朋友执行的规则。 看待青春的一种方式是在低风险的环境中学习“游戏规则”的扩展练习，让我们为成年做好准备，在那里我们自己坚持或打破这些规则。