上外英语语言文学考研翻译《教育与规训》中英文对照版分享

上外英语语言文学考研翻译《教育与规训》中英文对照版分享

Education and Discipline

by Bertrand Russell

教育与规训[①]

［英］伯特兰·罗素　著

刘任翔　试译

Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts: a conception of the ends of life, and a science of psychological dynamics, i.e., of the laws of mental change. Two men who differ as to the ends of life cannot hope to agree about education. The educational machine, throughout Western civilization, is dominated by two ethical theories: that of Christianity, and that of nationalism. These two, when taken seriously, are incompatible, as is becoming evident in Germany. For my part, I hold that where they differ, Christianity is preferable, but where they agree, both are mistaken. The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization, a term which, as I meant it, has a definition which is partly individual, partly social. It consists, in the individual, of both intellectual and moral qualities: intellectually, a certain minimum of general knowledge, technical skill in one's own profession, and a habit of forming opinions on evidence; morally, of impartiality, kindliness, and a modicum of self-control. I should add a quality which is neither moral nor intellectual, but perhaps physiological: zest and joy of life. In communities, civilization demands respect for law, justice as between man and man, purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race, and intelligent adaptation of means to ends.

任何一种严肃的教育理论都包括两部分：有关生命之目的的观念，以及有关人的心理如何运作（例如，情绪变化的规律是什么）的理论——我们没法指望两个对于生命目的理解不同的人会在教育问题上达成一致。在整个西方文明中，教育的机制被两种价值观所主导：一种是基督教，另一种是民族主义[②]。如果两者的理念都被严格地执行，它们的冲突就不可避免，正如我们在德国看到的那样[③]。我认为，在两者产生分歧之处，基督教价值观更为可取一些；但两者达成一致之处则无一正确。在我看来，“文明”应当替代它们作为教育的目的，而“文明”一词的定义则兼有个人与社会的方面。个人意义上的文明包括智识的和道德的品质：前者指必要的常识、专业的技能、根据确凿证据形成观念的习惯；后者指不偏不倚、善心以及适度的自控力。恐怕我还得加上智识和道德之外的、大体属于生理方面的第三点——生活中的愉悦和激情。而社会意义上的文明则包括对法律的尊重、对人与人之间正义的追求、对于任何行为都不能伤害人类族群中任何一部分的自觉意识、以及能够机智地调整方法以达到目标的素质。

If these are to be the purpose of education, it is a question for the science of psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them, and, in particular, what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective.

假如以上就是教育的目标，那么如何实现它、尤其是在此过程中何种程度的自由收效最好，就是一个亟待解决的问题，为此我们需要诉诸心理科学。

On the question of freedom in education there are at present three main schools of thought, deriving partly from differences as to ends and partly from differences in psychological theory. There are those who say that children should be completely free, however bad they may be; there are those who say they should be completely subject to authority, however good they may be; and there are those who say they should be free, but in spite of freedom they should be always good. This last party is larger than it has any logical right to be; Children, like adults, will not all be virtuous if they are all free. The belief that liberty will insure moral perfection is a relic of Rousseauism, and would not survive a study of animals and babies. Those who hold this belief think that education should have no positive purpose, but should merely offer an environment suitable for spontaneous development. I cannot agree with this school, which seems too individualistic, and unduly indifferent to the importance of knowledge. We live in communities which require cooperation, and it would be utopian to expect all the necessary cooperation to result from spontaneous impulse. The existence of a large population on a limited area is only possible owing to science and technique; education must, therefore, hand on the necessary minimum of these. The educators who allow most freedom are men whose success depends upon a degree of benevolence, self-control, and trained intelligence which can hardly be generated where every impulse is left unchecked; their merits, therefore, are not likely to be perpetuated if their methods are undiluted. Education, viewed from a social standpoint, must be something more positive than a mere opportunity for growth. It must, of course, provide this, but it must also provide a mental and moral equipment which children cannot acquire entirely for themselves.

在有关教育应当允许多少自由的问题上，目前有三种观点；其间的分歧，部分来自人们对人生目标的理解，部分来自他们所运用的心理学理论。有些人认为，无论孩子可能会变得多坏，他们都应当被给予绝对的自由；其中一些还补充说，尽管我们给了孩子们绝对的自由，他们也总是会成为好孩子。这群人中真正在逻辑上站得住脚的寥寥无几；就像成人一样，孩子在绝对的自由之下并不都会变得有美德。相信自由能够保证一个人在道德上的完善，是卢梭思想[④]的残余，并且很容易被有关动物和婴儿的研究所证伪。卢梭主义者否认教育应当有任何积极的目标，而觉得它仅仅应当为自发的成长提供合适的环境。这种观点过于强调个体，而且对知识的重要性显得很漠然，这些是我所不能赞同的。我们所生活的社群需要合作，而指望一切必要的合作都出自人们自发的意愿，是一种乌托邦[⑤]式的空想。如果不是因为发达的科学技术，一大群人生活在一块大小有限的地区就是不可能的；因此教育至少要传承一些基本的科技知识。那些容许最大程度自由的教育家们，自己的成功却建立在一定程度的仁慈、自制及智识训练之上，这些几乎不可能在一个一切冲动都不受干涉的环境中养成；因此，如果他们所支持的教育方式不经修正、缓和，他们身上所具有的优点便不太可能传给下一代。从社会的立场来看，教育绝不仅仅是提供一个成长的机缘——成长的机缘当然是必要的，然而教育还应促进儿童心理和道德上的完善，儿童不可能自发地完成它。

The arguments in favor of a great degree of freedom in education are derived not from man's natural goodness, but from the effects of authority, both on those who suffer it and on those who exercise it. Those who are subject to authority become either submissive or rebellious, and each attitude has its drawbacks.

那种在教育中要求极大程度自由的论调，并非是因为考虑到自由是人的一种善的天性，而毋宁说是威权作用的结果，这种作用对受压迫者和压迫者都有影响。受威权所压迫的人，要么变得驯顺，要么变得叛逆，而这两种态度都是有缺陷的。

The submissive lose initiative, both in thought and action; moreover, the anger generated by the feeling of being thwarted tends to find an outlet in bullying those who are weaker. That is why tyrannical institutions are self-perpetuating: what a man has suffered from his father he inflicts upon his son, and the humiliations which he remembers having endured at his public school he passes on to "natives" when he becomes an empire-builder. Thus an unduly authoritative education turns the pupils into timid tyrants, incapable of either claiming or tolerating originality in word or deed. The effect upon the educators is even worse: they tend to become sadistic disciplinarians, glad to inspire terror, and content to inspire nothing else. As these men represent knowledge, the pupils acquire a horror of knowledge, which, among the English upper class, is supposed to be part of human nature, but is really part of the well-grounded hatred of the authoritarian pedagogue.

驯顺者在思想和行动方面都会失去创造力；而且，压抑引起的愤怒常以欺凌更弱者的方式得到发泄。这就是暴政的机制得以维系的原因：一个人把父辈给他的痛苦同样地施加给他的儿女；当他成为帝国的缔造者时，则把它在中学时所受的耻辱施加给他的“国民”[⑥]。因而，一种威权泛滥的教育把孩子们都变成了怯懦的暴君，在言行方面既不能提出自己的、又不能容忍别人的独创。教育者受到的影响甚至更坏：他们往往变成萨德[⑦]式的规训者，除了散布恐惧之外别无所求。由于教育者们代表着知识［及其权力］，学生们对知识的恐惧便与日俱增。英国的上流社会认为这种恐惧是人性的一部分，但实际上它却揭示了人们对于充斥着威权之教育的普遍仇视。

Rebels, on the other hand, though they may be necessary, can hardly be just to what exists. Moreover, there are many ways of rebelling, and only a small minority of these are wise. Galileo was a rebel and was wise; believers in the flat-earth theory are equally rebels, but are foolish. There is a great danger in the tendency to suppose that opposition to authority is essentially meritorious and that unconventional opinions are bound to be correct: no useful purpose is served by smashing lamp-posts or maintaining Shakespeare to be no poet. Yet this excessive rebelliousness is often the effect that too much authority has on spirited pupils. And when rebels become educators, they sometimes encourage defiance in their pupils, for whom at the same time they are trying to produce a perfect environment, although these two aims are scarcely compatible.

另一方面，尽管社会确实需要一些叛逆者，但他们中对现实怀有公正之态度的却是凤毛麟角。况且，叛逆的方式有很多，其中只有极少数是明智的。伽利略是一个明智的叛逆者；信奉“大地是平的”的人也是叛逆者，然而却是愚蠢的。我们很容易觉得，对于威权的反抗必定值得赞许，反传统的观点必定正确，这种倾向是危险的：砸毁路灯，或是声称莎士比亚不配被称作诗人，并不能带来任何实质上的益处。这种过度的叛逆，往往是对具有独立见解的学生施加过多威权的恶果。叛逆者自己成为教育者时，可能会唆使学生蔑视一切，尽管与此同时他想要为学生创造一个优异的环境，而这两个目标在绝大多数情况下水火不容。

What is wanted is neither submissiveness nor rebellion, but good nature, and general friendliness both to people and to new ideas. These qualities are due in part to physical causes, to which old-fashioned educators paid too little attention; but they are due still more to freedom from the feeling of baffled impotence which arises when vital impulses are thwarted. If the young are to grow into friendly adults, it is necessary, in most cases, that they should feel their environment friendly. This requires that there should be a certain sympathy with the child's important desires, and not merely an attempt to use him for some abstract end such as the glory of God or the greatness of one's country. And, in teaching, every attempt should be made to cause the pupil to feel that it is worth his while to know what is being taught--at least when this is true. When the pupil cooperates willingly, he learns twice as fast and with half the fatigue. All these are valid reasons for a very great degree of freedom.

我们需要的既不是驯顺，也不是叛逆，而是优秀的天性，和对人的、以及对新观点的普遍宽容和欣赏。这些必要的素养，部分来自被旧式的教育家所忽视的身体层面的原因，然而更多地来自自由——当生命的冲动受到压抑，人们由此有一种无能的挫败感时，对自由的渴望便油然而生。在多数情形下，为了使孩子成长为友善的人，我们必须让他们觉得自己生活的环境就是友善的；这就要求我们对他们基本的愿望怀有一种同情，而不仅仅是试图把他们作为达到一个抽象的目标的工具——这些目标可能是上帝之荣耀，或国之辉煌。而且，在教育过程中，我们应当尽己所能让孩子们觉得，他们正在学的知识是值得学的——至少这些知识确实值得学的情况下理应如此。如果孩子主动地参与学习，则其效率会加倍，而疲倦会减半。以上种种都是对教育中应当有足够自由这一观点的有力支持。

It is easy, however, to carry the argument too far. It is not desirable that children, in avoiding the vices of the slave, should acquire those of the aristocrat. Consideration for others, not only in great matters, but also in little everyday things, is an essential element in civilization, without which social life would be intolerable. I am not thinking of mere forms of politeness, such as saying "please" and "thank you": formal manners are most fully developed among barbarians, and diminish with every advance in culture. I am thinking rather of willingness to take a fair share of necessary work, to be obliging in small ways that save trouble on the balance. It is not desirable to give a child a sense of omnipotence, or a belief that adults exist only to minister to the pleasures of the young. And those who disapprove of the existence of the idle rich are hardly consistent if they bring up their children without any sense that work is necessary, and without the habits that make continuous application possible.

然而，我们很容易矫枉过正。假如孩子们为了避免奴隶的恶行，就染上了贵族的恶行，这就并不是一件值得想望的事。无论在大事还是小事上，对他人的考虑都是文明的基本要素，没有了它，社会生活就会成为地狱。我并不仅仅是指说“请”与“谢谢”这样的有限的礼节：这种道貌岸然的礼节在野蛮的社会中达到其顶峰，随着文化的进步却变得越来越不必要。毋宁说我指的是自愿地参加一定量的必要工作，并且在细微之处保持自制，以免招致不必要的麻烦。让孩子觉得自己无所不能，或者让他们觉得大人的存在仅仅是为了取悦他们，并不是件好事。而且，如果有人觉得游手好闲也能够致富，他们所培养的孩子就会缺乏对于工作之必要的认同，并且即使出身富家也会迅速没落。

There is another consideration to which some advocates of freedom attach too little importance. In a community of children which is left without adult interference there is a tyranny of the stronger, which is likely to be far more brutal than most adult tyranny. If two children of two or three years old are left to play together, they will, after a few fights, discover which is bound to be the victor, and the other will then become a slave. Where the number of children is larger, one or two acquire complete mastery, and the others have far less liberty than they would have if the adults interfered to protect the weaker and less pugnacious. Consideration for others does not, with most children, arise spontaneously, but has to be taught, and can hardly be taught except by the exercise of authority. This is perhaps the most important argument against the abdication of the adults.

还有一点受到了某些鼓吹自由之人的忽视。在一群不受大人监护的孩子中，强者会建立起霸权，它似乎远比成人世界的霸权要残酷。如果两个二三岁的孩子在一起玩，他们在打了几架后就会发现谁总是能获胜，而另一个就会成为奴隶。当孩子的数量增加时，其中的一两人掌握了绝对的统治，其余人的自由则少得可怜；而假如成人在此时介入、保护弱者，则弱者的自由会大大增加，并且孩子们会不再那么好斗。对于多数孩子而言，推己及人并不是自发形成的品格，而是别人教给他们的，这种教育甚至往往需要在一个威权的作用下来完成。这也许是对放纵孩子之观点的最好批驳。

I do not think that educators have yet solved the problem of combining the desirable forms of freedom with the necessary minimum of moral training. The right solution, it must be admitted, is often made impossible by parents before the child is brought to an enlightened school. Just as psychoanalysts, from their clinical experience, conclude that we are all mad, so the authorities in modern schools, from their contact with pupils whose parents have made them unmanageable, are disposed to conclude that all children are "difficult" and all parents utterly foolish. Children who have been driven wild by parental tyranny (which often takes the form of solicitous affection) may require a longer or shorter period of complete liberty before they can view any adult without suspicion. But children who have been sensibly handled at home can bear to be checked in minor ways, so long as they feel that they are being helped in the ways that they themselves regard as important. Adults who like children, and are not reduced to a condition of nervous exhaustion by their company, can achieve a great deal in the way of discipline without ceasing to be regarded with friendly feelings by their pupils.

我并不认为，教育家们已经明白如何将人见人爱的自由与必要的道德规训结合起来。必须承认，由于孩子在入学之前已经受到父母的负面影响，等他们进入学校才寻求这一种平衡几乎是不可能的。正如精神分析学者从其临床研究中所总结的：我们都是疯子。因而，一旦父母将孩子弄得难以管束，之后负责教育的学校就会觉得所有孩子都成了“老大难”，而父母们则是十足的傻瓜。父母以溺爱形式伪装起的专制，使孩子变得桀骜不驯，对待每个大人都满腹狐疑，也许只有给他们一段时间的绝对自由，才能改善这种情况。相比之下，那些在家中受到悉心照料的孩子，只要觉得对自己有益，就会接受别人在细节上为自己提出的建议。大人们只要喜爱孩子，同时也没有被自己的工作搞得焦头烂额，就能够在友好的氛围中对孩子进行至关重要的培养。

I think modern educational theorists are inclined to attach too much importance to the negative virtue of not interfering with children, and too little to the positive merit of enjoying their company. If you have the sort of liking for children that many people have for horse or dogs, they will be apt to respond to your suggestions, and to accept prohibitions, perhaps with some good-humoured grumbling, but without resentment. It is no use to have the sort of liking that consists in regarding them as a field for valuable social endeavor, or--what amounts to the same thing--as an outlet for power-impulses. No child will be grateful for an interest in him that springs from the thought that he will have a vote to be secured for your party or a body to be sacrificed to king and country. The desirable sort of interest is that which consists in spontaneous pleasure in the presence of children, without any ulterior purpose. Teachers who have this quality will seldom need to interfere with children's freedom, but will be able to do so, when necessary, without causing psychological damage.

在我看来，现代的教育理论家倾向于过度强调“不干涉孩子”这一消极标准，而忽视了另一种积极的价值——即与孩子相伴是一种享受。假如你像别人爱他们的马或狗一样爱孩子，他们就乐于接受你的忠告；并且只要你和他们打一些有趣的赌，他们就会毫无怨言地不做你所禁止的事情。把孩子们当成是为社会做贡献的资源，换言之，把他们当成当权者个人冲动的牺牲品，并不是教育的本意——假如你整天想着把孩子教育成某一党派的捍卫者，或一具有待为了君主或国家而牺牲的躯体，他们对你就毫无感激可言。只应当在这种意义上对孩子感兴趣：当你和孩子在一起时，就由衷地感到快乐，而不是为了任何将来的考虑。具有这一品质的教师，很少需要干涉孩子的自由，但有必要时也能够干预，只不过这种干预并不会造成心理创伤。

Unfortunately, it is utterly impossible for overworked teachers to preserve an instinctive liking for children; they are bound to come to feel towards them as the proverbial confectioner's apprentice does toward macaroons. I do not think that education ought to be any one's whole profession: it should be undertaken for at most two hours a day by people whose remaining hours are spent away with children. The society of the young is fatiguing, especially when strict discipline is avoided. Fatigue, in the end, produces irritation, which is likely to express itself somehow, whatever theories the harassed teacher may have taught himself or herself to believe. The necessary friendliness cannot be preserved by self-control alone. But where it exists, it should be unnecessary to have rules in advance as to how "naughty" children are to be treated, since impulse is likely to lead to the right decision, and almost any decision will be right if the child feels that you like him. No rules, however wise, are a substitute for affection and tact.

不幸的是，指望操劳过度的教师们保持他们出于本能的对孩子的喜爱，全然是无稽之谈；教师必定对孩子感到厌倦，正如俗话所说，卖糖的不会觉得糖甜。我反对教育成为一个人终身的事业：人们每天从事教育的时间不得多于两小时，而在其它时间里他们应该干着与孩子无关的活。与孩子的交往使人疲倦，在不能采取严肃的纪律来帮助自己时尤其如此。而疲倦终究会导致愤怒，无论教师秉持多么完美的教育理论，这种愤怒都会以某种方式发泄出来。在教育中不可或缺的友善态度，并不是仅凭教师的自制力所能维持的。但只要这种友善得以保持，那种把丑话说在前头、规定“淘气”的孩子将如何受罚的做法就全无必要，因为教师天然的意愿就通向正确的决策，况且只要孩子们感到了你对他们的爱，你做出的几乎所有决策都会是正确的。规则无论多么明智，都无法取代教师的关爱与随机应变。

本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/7b519c0bf6ec4afe04a1b0717fd5360cba1a8d8c.html