WHAT SHALL WE EDUCATE FOR?
教育的目的
By Bertrand Russell
伯特兰·罗素
WHAT SHALL WE EDUCATE FOR?by Bertrand Russell in his Education and the Good Life, as reprinted in Walter Lippmann and Allan Nevins:A Modern Reader, Boston, D. C. Heath and Company, 1936, pp. 473-477.
Bertrand Russell （1872-1970）, later Earl Russell, English journalist, public speaker, and political thinker. After 1918 he lectured at Peking University. While traveling, lecturing, and studying the civilizations of Soviet Russia, China, the United States, and Europe, he has hammered out in detail his view of the future of mankind—lucidly expressed in Proposed Roads to Freedom, Education and the Good Life, and The Prospects of Industrial Civilization. He believes in combining industrialism with leisure, individual liberty, and the cultivation of art. He believes that this new civilization may easily be created if mankind will but establish three bases for it: first, a more equal distribution of goods; second, the abolition of war; third, the acceptance of a stationary or but slowly rising level of population.
Traditional Chinese education was, in some respects, very similar to that of Athens in its best days. Athenian boys were made to learn Homer by heart from beginning to end; Chinese boys were made to learn the Confucian classics with similar thoroughness. Athenians were taught a kind of reverence for the gods which consisted in outward observances and placed no barrier in the way of free intellectual speculation. Similarly, the Chinese were taught certain rites connected with ancestor-worship, but were by no means obliged to have the beliefs which the rites would seem to imply. An easy and elegant skepticism was the attitude expected of an educated adult;anything might be discussed, but it was a trifle vulgar to reach very positive conclusions. Opinions should be such as could be discussed pleasantly at dinner, not such as man would fight for. Carlyle calls Plato “a lordly Athenian gentleman, very much at his ease in Zion.” This characteristic of being “at his ease in Zion” is found also in Chinese sages, and is, as a rule, absent from the sages produced by Christian civilizations, except when, like Goethe, they have deeply imbibed the spirit of Hellenism. The Athenians and the Chinese alike wished to enjoy life, and had a conception of enjoyment which was refined by an exquisite sense of beauty.
传统的中国教育在有些方面与鼎盛时期的雅典教育非常相似。雅典的学子必须通篇背诵荷马的著述，而中国的学子也要熟读儒家的经典。雅典人被教导在礼仪举止中必须表现出对众神的尊敬，但是并不阻碍自由的思想中出现的怀疑。同样地，中国人要学习与供奉祖先相关的礼仪，但并不表示他们必须信奉这些礼仪的含义。受过教育的成年人理应自由且恰当地有所怀疑；任何事情都值得讨论，而只有凡夫俗子才会妄下定论。各种真知灼见应该是餐桌上愉快的谈资，而不是面红耳赤争取来的东西。卡莱尔认为柏拉图是“高贵的雅典绅士，在理想国悠然自得”。从中国的圣贤身上，同样能看到这种“在理想国悠然自得”的品格。而这份悠然自得往往是基督教文明的圣人所不具备的，除非他们像歌德那样深得希腊精神的精髓。雅典人和中国人一样希望享受生活，而且他们对于享受生活的理解中还融入了一份精致的审美品位。
There were, however, great differences between the two civilizations, owing to the fact that, broadly speaking, the Greeks were energetic and the Chinese were lazy. The Greeks devoted their energies to art and science and mutual extermination—in all of which they achieved unprecedented success. Politics and patriotism afforded practical outlets for Greek energy: when a politician was ousted he led a band of exiles to attack his native city. When a Chinese official was disgraced he retired to the hills and wrote poems on the pleasures of country life. Accordingly, the Greek civilization destroyed itself, but the Chinese civilization could be destroyed only from without. These differences, however, seemed not wholly attributable to education, since Confucianism in Japan never produced the indolent cultured skepticism which characterized the Chinese literati, except in the Kyoto nobility, who formed a kind of Faubourg Saint Germain.
但是，在这两种文明之间也有着巨大的差异。从广义上说，这些差异源自这样一个事实：希腊人精力旺盛，中国人懒散。希腊人把精力倾注在艺术、科学和战争上——在所有这些方面他们都取得了空前的成就。政治与爱国精神给希腊人提供了宣泄的实用途径：被罢黜的政客会带着一队流放者发起反攻。而在中国的官员遭到罢免之后，则会归隐山林，吟诗作赋，从田园生活中寻找乐趣。相应地，希腊文化自我摧毁，而中国文明只可能被外部力量所破坏。但是这些差异似乎并不全然是因为教育，因为在日本，儒家教育就没有带来中国文人身上那种慵懒得成了气候的怀疑主义。只有京都是个例外，在那里形成了类似巴黎圣日尔曼法布街的贵族圈子。
Chinese education produced stability and art; it failed to produce progress or science. Perhaps this may be taken as what is to be expected of skepticism. Passionate beliefs produce either progress or disaster, not stability. Science, even when it attacks traditional beliefs, has beliefs of its own, and can scarcely flourish in an atmosphere of literary skepticism. In a pugnacious world, which has been unified by modern inventions, energy is needed for national self-preservation. And without science democracy is impossible: the Chinese civilization was confined to the small percentage of educated men and the Greek civilization was based on slavery. For these reasons the traditional education of China is not suited to the modern world, and has been abandoned by the Chinese themselves. Cultivated eighteenth-century gentlemen, who in some respects resembled Chinese literati, have become impossible for the same reasons.
中国的教育带来了稳定和艺术，却不能产生进步或科学。也许这正是怀疑论的必然结果。激进的观念带来的要么是进步，要么是灾难，但绝不是稳定。科学在对传统观念进行攻击时，拥有的是科学的信念。而在怀疑论的文化氛围中，这种信念是难有一席之地的。在一个借助现代发明才得以统一的充满争斗的世界上，国家要自我保护就必须充满活力。没有科学就没有民主：中国的文明局限于一小部分文人，而希腊文明的基础是奴隶制。正是因为这些原因，中国的传统教育难以适应现代世界，也为中国人自身所摒弃。十八世纪的绅士们在某些方面跟中国文人很是相似，现在也同样难以为继了。
Modern Japan affords the clearest illustration of a tendency which is prominent among all the Great Powers—the tendency to make national greatness the supreme purpose of education. The aim of Japanese education is to produce citizens who shall be devoted to the state through the training of their passions, and useful to it through the knowledge they have acquired. I cannot sufficiently praise the skill with which this double purpose has been pursued. Ever since the advent of Commodore Perry's squadron the Japanese have been in a situation in which self-preservation was very difficult; their success affords a justification of their methods, unless we are to hold that self-preservation itself may be culpable. But only a desperate situation could have justified their educational methods, which would have been culpable in any nation not in imminent peril. The Shinto religion, which must not be called in question even by university professors, involves history just as dubious as Genesis; the Dayton trial pales into insignificance beside the theological tyranny in Japan. There is an equal ethical tyranny; nationalism, filial piety, Mikado-worship, etc., must not be called in question, and, therefore, many kinds of progress are scarcely possible. The great danger of a cast-iron system of this sort is that it may provoke revolution as the sole method of progress. This danger is real, though not immediate, and is largely caused by the educational system.
在所有主要国家中，现代日本最清晰地表明了这样一种趋势——教育的终极目标是为了强国。日本教育的目的是通过调动热情培养国民为国献身的意识，并通过他们掌握的知识为国家效力。这种一石二鸟的高超技巧当得起任何称赞。自佩里舰长率领舰队远征以来，日本人一直处境艰难，危在旦夕；而如今他们取得的成功证明那些方法是行之有效的，除非我们认为寻求自保本身应当受到谴责。然而，日本的教育方法只有在濒临绝境时才是正当的，任何一个国家如果没有陷入同样的境地，便难逃指摘。神道教的内容连大学教授也不可置疑，但是里面包含的历史就像《创世记》一样未必可信；跟日本的神学统治相比，美国的代顿审判案都不免相形见绌。伦理道德上的统治也是如此；民族主义、孝道、天皇崇拜等等通通不允许讨论。因此，日本在许多方面难以取得进步。僵化的统治制度可能导致一种巨大的危险，就是一旦要取得进步，就会引起革命。尽管还没有到一触即发的地步，但是这种危险是真实存在的，并且主要是由教育体系引发的。
We have thus in modern Japan a defect opposite to that of ancient China. Whereas the Chinese literati were too skeptical and lazy, the products of Japanese education are likely to be too dogmatic and energetic. Neither acquiescence in skepticism nor acquiescence in dogma is what education should produce. What it should produce is a belief that knowledge is attainable in a measure, though with difficulty;that much of what passes for knowledge at any given time is likely to be more or less mistaken, but that the mistakes can be rectified by care and industry. In acting upon our beliefs, we should be very cautious where a small error would mean disaster; nevertheless, it is upon our beliefs that we must act. This state of mind is rather difficult: it requires a high degree of intellectual culture without emotional atrophy. But though difficult, it is not impossible; it is in fact the scientific temper. Knowledge, like other good things, is difficult, but not impossible; the dogmatist forgets the difficulty, the skeptic denies the possibility. Both are mistaken, and their errors, when widespread, produce social disaster.
当代日本的缺陷跟古代中国恰好相对。中国文人疑虑重重，而且懒散，而日本人接受教育以后，变得太过教条和精力过剩。恪守怀疑或者恪守教条都不应当是教育所追求的成果。教育应当造就的是一种信念，那就是尽管需要克服一些困难，但知识是可以设法获得的；在某个时间点，许多冒充知识的东西可能或多或少带来误解，但这些错误可以通过细心和勤奋得到纠正。基于信念来采取行动时，在小错可能带来大祸的地方，我们就要小心翼翼；但无论如何，一切行动都应当以信念作为基础。这样的心态很难达到：既要有较高程度的智识，又要保持热情不会消退。尽管困难重重，仍是可以实现的；事实上这就是科学的心态。知识正如其他美好的事物一样，虽难求，却并非不可得。教条主义者忘记了困难，而怀疑论者否认了实现的可能。二者都有误解，一旦这些误解大规模扩散，社会就会遭殃。
Doctor Arnold's system, which has remained in force in English public schools to the present day, had another defect:namely, that it was aristocratic. The aim was to train men for positions of authority and power, whether at home or in distant parts of the Empire. An aristocracy, if it is to survive, needs certain virtues; these were to be imparted at school. The product was to be energetic, stoical, physically fit, possessed of certain unalterable beliefs, with high standards of rectitude, and convinced that it had an important mission in the world. To a surprising extent, these results were achieved. Intellect was sacrificed to them, because intellect might produce doubt. Sympathy was sacrificed, because it might interfere with governing “inferior” races or classes. Kindliness was sacrificed for the sake of toughness; imagination, for the sake of firmness.
至今英国公立学校实行的仍是阿诺德博士的教育体系，但这一体系却有着另一种缺陷：它是贵族式的。其目的是为大英帝国本土或是遥远的海外领地培养有权有势的官员。贵族阶级如果想延续下来，必须拥有美德；而这些美德是在学校传授的。学校对人的培养目标是精力充沛、坚忍克制、体魄强健、具有某些坚定不移的信念、刚正不阿，并且坚信自己在这个世界上担负着重要的使命。让人惊讶的是，上述目标都得到了实现。但为此却抛弃了思辨，因为思辨产生怀疑；抛弃了同情，因为同情心会干扰对“劣等”民族或阶级的统治；抛弃了善良，选择了铁石心肠；抛弃了想象力，选择了一意孤行。
In an unchanging world the result might have been a permanent aristocracy, possessing the merits and defects of the Spartans. But aristocracy is out of date, and subject populations will no longer obey even the most wise and virtuous rulers. The rulers are driven into brutality, and brutality further encourages revolt. The complexity of the modern world increasingly requires intelligence, and Doctor Arnold sacrificed intelligence to “virtue.” The battle of Waterloo may have been won on the playing fields of Eton, but the British Empire is being lost there. The modern world needs a different type, with more imaginative sympathy, more intellectual suppleness, less belief in bulldog courage and more belief in technical knowledge. The administrator of the future must be the servant of free citizens, not the benevolent ruler of admiring subjects. The aristocratic tradition embedded in British higher education is its bane. Perhaps this tradition can be eliminated gradually; perhaps the older educational institutions will be found incapable of adapting themselves. As to that, I do not venture an opinion.
假使世界一成不变，具备斯巴达人优缺点的贵族或许能得以代代相传。但是贵族已经落后于时代，即使是最富智慧、最具美德的统治者也无法让黎民百姓俯首听命了。于是统治者采取了暴力统治，而暴行进一步引发了起义。现代世界的复杂越来越需要智慧，而阿诺德博士却为所谓的“美德”牺牲了智慧。在伊顿公学的操场上，滑铁卢战役或许能够打赢，但是大英帝国却将一败涂地。现代世界需要一种新的人才，需要更多富于想象力的同情心，更善于思辨的随机应变，少一些对凶狠蛮力的迷信，多一些对技术知识的信心。未来的管理者应当成为自由公民的仆人，而不是大众称颂的明君。英国高等教育中的贵族化传统埋下了祸根。或许这种传统可以逐渐消除；或许古老的教育机构无法适应新的形势。对此我不敢妄加评论。
The American public schools achieve successfully a task never before attempted on a large scale: the task of transforming a heterogeneous selection of mankind into a homogeneous nation. This is done so ably, and is, on the whole, such a beneficent work, that on the balance great praise is due to those who accomplish it. But America, like Japan, is placed in a peculiar position, and what the special circumstances justify is not necessarily an ideal to be followed everywhere and always. America has had certain advantages and certain difficulties. Among the advantages were: a higher standard of wealth; freedom from the danger of defeat in war;comparative absence of cramping traditions inherited from the Middle Ages. Immigrants found in America a generally diffused sentiment of democracy and an advanced stage of industrial technique. These, I think, are the two chief reasons why almost all of them came to admire America more than their native countries. But actual immigrants, as a rule, retain a dual patriotism: in European struggles they continue to take passionately the side of the nation to which they originally belonged. Their children, on the contrary, lose all loyalty to the country from which their parents have come and become merely and simple Americans. The attitude of the parents is attributable to the general merits of America; that of the children is very largely determined by their school education. It is only the contribution of the school that concerns us.
美国的公立学校进行了一项前所未有的大规模创举，并大获成功：将不同种族的人转变为一个民族。这一创举完成得十分巧妙，而且整体上非常有益，那些成就创举的人实在值得称颂。但是美国跟日本一样，处境非常特殊，在特殊处境下合理正当的事业未必适用于每时每地。美国拥有特定的优势，也面临特别的困难。其优势包括：相对富足；免于战败的危险；相对免于中世纪遗留传统的束缚。移民们眼中的美国弥漫着民主的氛围和相对发达的工业技术水平，我认为这是几乎所有移民逐渐推崇美国甚于祖国的两个主要原因。但是一般而言，真正的移民保有双重的爱国主义：在欧战期间，他们总是旗帜鲜明地站在祖国一边。他们的孩子则不再忠于父母的祖国，而是彻底地成了美国人。父母的态度要归因于美国的优势；而孩子的态度则很大程度上由学校教育决定。我们所关心的正是学校发挥的作用。
In so far as the school can rely upon the genuine merits of America, there is no need to associate the teaching of American patriotism with the inculcation of false standards. But where the Old World is superior to the New, it becomes necessary to instill a contempt for genuine excellencies. The intellectual level in Western Europe and the artistic level in Eastern Europe are, on the whole, higher than in America. Throughout Western Europe, except in Spain and Portugal, there is less theological superstition than in America. In almost all European countries the individual is less subject to herd domination than in America: his inner freedom is greater even where his political freedom is less. In these respects the American public schools do harm. The harm is essential to the teaching of an exclusive American Patriotism. The harm, as with the Japanese, comes from regarding the pupils as means to an end, not as ends in themselves. The teacher should love his children better than his state; otherwise he is not an ideal teacher.
若学校教育可以取材于美国确实具备的优点，此时当然没有必要传授那些错误的标准，来干扰美国爱国主义的灌输。但是在讲到欧洲旧世界比美国新世界优越之处时，就非得装作对真正的卓越漫不经心的样子。西欧的知识水平和东欧的艺术造诣整体上都比美国高出一筹。除了西班牙和葡萄牙，整个西欧也不像美国那么迷信。在几乎所有的欧洲国家中，个人都不像美国人那样容易盲从：即使政治自由少于美国，但是内心却更加自由。在这些方面，美国公立学校的做法是有害的。这种害处决定了传授的内容是排他性的美国爱国主义。同日本学校一样，这种错误根源在于将学生当作实现目的的工具，而非目的本身。教师应当热爱学生甚于热爱国家，否则就不是理想的教师。
（郑文博 译）
