为何哈佛女孩的演讲没打动你？Why Harvard Girl’s Speech Didn’t Land

🍀言初🍀

【作者前言】

‍

‍今天下午，在头马来了个备稿英文演讲，就前段时间哈佛女孩的演讲做了分享。

‍为了力求客观，我几易其稿。

‍一开始题目拟为 Is your voice truly yours? 主要是想说说内容不够动人，表达却过于动情造成表演痕迹重的问题，后来想想还是再冷静一点，从纯文本出发吧，于是重写，有了这一版。

‍这一版主要从写作训练的角度出发，分析了她演讲稿存在的问题以及引发的观众的情绪反应。

‍现将中英文稿件存录如下，现场我其实自由发挥了不少，夜深了，懒得再改了。

‍ 演讲完，现场的年轻人问我，如果让我修改，怎么改。我说换掉这个故事，如果不换掉这个故事，就目前她提及的这个故事的素材来看，主题挖掘的难度比较大，提炼出什么新道道不太容易，地球村这个概念都老掉牙了。

‍蒋雨融生活经历丰富，求学之路比较国际化，应该能找到她自己经历过的更合适的故事来支撑这个主题。

‍ PS：头马演讲限时，只有七分钟。

中文翻译:

‍

‍不久前，一位叫蒋雨融的女孩，在哈佛毕业典礼上所做的演讲在网络上走红，迅速引起争议。

‍虽然有人表示赞赏，但不少人认为其演讲空洞、做作、自我中心。

客观来说，平心而论，一位二十出头的年轻女性，从哈佛毕业，被选为同届学生的代表进行发言，无疑是勤奋且优秀的。到目前为止，没有相关证据表明她有道德行为上的问题——因此，我们没有理由仓促下结论，也不应该给她贴上各种刻薄的道德标签。必须要说的是，生于富裕家庭并不是道德污点，更不是罪过。

那么问题来了，为什么她的演讲没有打动你？她的演讲是否存在薄弱环节？

让我们重新回顾一下她演讲的内容。

‍演讲的开始部分，她讲述了一个个人亲历的小故事：她和几位哈佛同学跨越大洲大洋，线上讨论如何在非洲使用一台中国制造的洗衣机，因为谷歌翻译不够准确。后半部分，她将这个话题升华，呼吁作为全球公民的这一代年轻人，要承担起消除贫困与饥饿的责任。最后，她总结：在这个世界上，我们拥有共同的人性，一个人的苦难，就是所有人的苦难。

‍最后落脚点或者说主题是非常有价值的，也蕴含了伤痛和悲悯的人文情愫。

‍那么问题又来了，她的故事能撑起这么宏大的理想吗？

我们都知道，出国留学的费用十分高昂，哈佛这些常青藤学校的学费可能高达数百万人民币。出身普通家庭的孩子不仅缺乏经济支持，也缺乏接触那些能打开哈佛大门的精英资源与人脉的机会和路径。

即使她的故事是真实的，但它在情感和象征层面上，依然引发了观众一系列的追问。

看啊，观众暗地里想，这些哈佛大学生竟然不懂使用洗衣机！于是很多人开始质疑更深层次的问题：像蒋雨融这样的女孩，出身富裕家庭，成长顺利，在精英学校受教育，是否能真正地理解苦难的含义，并且承担起公平正义的责任和使命。

‍一台洗衣机——即便是个善意的故事——真的能承载全球贫困与不平等的情感重量吗？

一次关于如何使用家用电器的对话，真的能体现出这些哈佛精英对饥饿、不公或代际苦难的深刻理解吗？

‍她以及她代表的精英是否真的能感受到，什么是贫穷？

什么是饥饿？

什么是霸凌？

‍ 什么是不平等？

这个单薄的故事，最终成了导致整个演讲摇摇欲坠的松开了的螺丝钉。尽管她在结尾情感表达的过程中，提高了声调，充满泪水，想表现得无比真挚，但很多观众评价为感觉更像是一场表演。

不少观众没有被打动，因为她讲述的这个故事没有将观众带入她的情境之中，情感铺垫不成功，理性共鸣就变得抽象空洞。

这种割裂——她的个人经历与她试图引申出的宏大道德命题之间的错位——是她演讲中最薄弱的一环。

共情不是凭空想象出来的，它建立在真正的理解和感受之上。

而没有现实根基，再宏伟的理想，也会轰然倒塌。

谢谢。

‍Some time ago, the “Harvard girl’s” graduation speech went viral across the internet. While some offered praise, many more mocked it as hollow, staged, and self-centered.

To be fair, a young woman in her early twenties who graduates from Harvard and is chosen to speak on behalf of her peers is undoubtedly diligent and accomplished. Thus far, there is no evidence to suggest any morally questionable behavior on her part and being born into a wealthy family is no sin— so there’s no reason to rush into judgment or apply harsh labels.

But the questions remain:

Why didn’t her words land? Where is the weakest link?

Let’s revisit the content. In the first half of her speech, she shared a personal anecdote: she and a few Harvard classmates discussed how to use a China-made washing machine in Africa. In the second half, she elevated the message — calling on her generation, as global citizens, to take on the responsibility of eradicating poverty and hunger. She closed with a familiar moral appeal: we share the same humanity that the suffering of one is the suffering of all.

But does her story truly support such sweeping ideals?

We know studying abroad is expensive, and tuition at Harvard can reach into the millions of RMB. Children from underprivileged backgrounds often lack not only the financial means but also the access to the kind of elite networks that open Harvard’s gates.

That weak anecdote becomes a shaky foundation for everything that follows. As a result, her emotional crescendo — tearful and earnest as it may be — comes across as performative. The audience isn’t moved, because they’re never truly drawn in.

‍Look! These Harvard students actually don't know how to use a washing machine. Many instead draw a harsher conclusion: that a privileged girl, raised in comfort, simply doesn’t understand what suffering actually means.

So even if her story is true in the literal sense, it raises deeper questions on an emotional and symbolic level.

Can a conversation about using an appliance genuinely reflect a deep understanding of hunger, inequality, or injustice?

Do you believe it can?

That fragile anecdote becomes a shaky foundation for everything that follows. Her emotional crescendo — tearful and sincere as it may have been — ends up feeling performative. The audience isn’t moved, because they were never truly engaged.

Instead, many reach a more cynical conclusion: that a girl born into privilege, raised in comfort, and educated at elite institutions cannot authentically speak about real suffering.

Has she ever earned a master's degree only to end up delivering food to make ends meet?

Has she ever watched a farmer in Henan work an entire day for just 40 yuan?

This disconnect — between her personal story and the vast moral conclusions she tries to draw — is the weakest link in her speech.

So maybe the problem isn't just that her story was weak.

Maybe what it revealed was something deeper:

That she doesn’t truly understand what poverty is.

What hunger is.

What inequality is.

What being bullied is.

And, perhaps most of all — what sincerity really is.

Empathy isn’t built on imagination. It’s built on understanding.

And without roots in reality, even the grandest ideals collapse.

‍

Thank you!