点击经济学人/经济学人杂志查看全部经济学人文章

一、经济学人杂志双语文章摘要

桑德尔的关注点更加集中。他瞄准的是精英治理的社会及其意图实现的理想——机会均等。在那些追求更公平结果的真正的平等主义者看来,统一的起跑线从来都像是一种敷衍。而在一些顽固的保守派看来,面对不可能满足的大众诉求,承诺机会均等是一种必要的空头支票。政治哲学家桑德尔最终持观望态度。他不是一个彻头彻尾的平等主义者,但也没有放弃对实现某种程度上真正的公民平等的希望。

二、经济学人杂志双语文章中英对照翻译

All for one 人人为我

2020.11


American society 美国社会
Robert Putnam and Michael Sandel diagnose America
罗伯特·帕特南和迈克尔·桑德尔为美国把脉【《上扬》、《功绩的暴政》书评】

经济学人双语杂志


THE RANCOUR of American politics, say these two distinguished scholars, is a symptom of an even deeper malaise. Robert Putnam charts a rise in economic inequalities, cultural tribalism and frayed social connections since the 1960s—when, he recalls, the spirit of solidarity and reform was by contrast strong. Michael Sandel focuses on the meritocratic rat-race and its justifications, which create, in his words, “hubris among the successful and resentment among the disadvantaged”.
这两位杰出的学者称,美国政治中的仇恨反映了一种更深层次的弊病。罗伯特·帕特南(Robert Putnam)记录了自20世纪60年代以来经济不平等、文化部落主义以及社会关系破裂愈演愈烈的进程。而在60年代,他回忆道,团结和改革的精神很强烈。迈克尔·桑德尔(Michael Sandel)聚焦精英制度下的激烈竞争及对此的辩护,用他的话说,这造成了“成功人士的傲慢和弱势群体的怨憎”。
Both blame the ills they identify on widespread acceptance of egotistical go-getting at a cost to common purpose. Their bleak picture of private indifference to public welfare prompts an equally sweeping solution. America needs nothing less, they think, than a recovery of community and rededication to the common good.
两人都将他们发现的弊病归咎于社会普遍认同的一味追求自我成功而罔顾共同目标。他们描绘了一幅个人对公共福利漠不关心的灰暗景象,提出了同样影响广泛的解决方案。他们认为,美国需要的正是社区的复兴和重新致力于公共利益。
Mr Putnam, a political scientist, is well-known for “Bowling Alone” (2000), which reported a drop of clubbability in a nation of joiners. Written with Shaylyn Romney Garrett, “The Upswing” is a reprise that answers critics and laments a yet broader retreat to private concerns. It offers a historical account of trends in public commitment over 120 years.
政治学家帕特南因2000年出版的《独自打保龄》(Bowling Alone)闻名。书中指出在一个“社团参与者”的国度,人们不像往日那么积极社交了。他和萨琳·罗姆尼·加勒特(Shaylyn Romney Garrett)合著的《上扬》(The Upswing)老调重弹,回应了各界评论,哀叹“各人自扫门前雪”的现象变得愈加普遍。它回顾了120多年来公共奉献精神如何变化的历史。
The narrative arc is simple. A dog-eat-dog Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century prompted ever greater social engagement and reform in three stages—Progressivism, the New Deal and the 1960s. Soon, however, dog-eat-dogism returned and is now again uppermost. To support that analysis, a mass of survey data and statistics is mapped onto what Mr Putnam calls “I-we-I” curves, which show a rise and fall in economic equality, political co-operation, social solidarity and a sense of shared American culture.
书中的叙事弧很简单。19世纪末弱肉强食的“镀金时代”促发了社会参与和改革不断扩大的三个阶段——进步时代、罗斯福新政和1960年代。然而,无情的竞争主义很快卷土重来,如今又再次占据主导。为了支持这一分析,帕特南利用了大量调查数据和统计分析,绘制出了他所称的“I-we-I”(个人-集体-个人)曲线,显示了经济平等、政治合作、社会团结和美国文化认同感的兴衰起落。
“The Upswing” ranges widely, yet its scrupulous survey-mining and curve-fitting is not wholly persuasive, or indeed necessary. Up on the latest research and impeccably open to counterargument, Mr Putnam tends to take away with one study what he has just offered with another. A heartfelt communitarian essay, “What ails America”, without the social-science apparatus, might have been just as convincing.
《上扬》的内容涉及广泛,但它细致的调查发掘和曲线拟合并不完全令人信服,或确有其必要。帕特南熟悉各种最新研究,对于反驳意见的开放态度也无可挑剔,结果就是往往刚依据一项研究提出的观点又被另一项研究削弱。真情实感地写一篇《美国得了什么病》(What ails America)的社群主义文章,舍弃社会科学论证的那套,或许说服力也差不多。
Mr Sandel’s focus is tighter. His target is meritocratic society and the ideal it aims to realise, equality of opportunity. For true egalitarians, who want fairer outcomes, a uniform starting line has always seemed a fudge. To some rugged conservatives, promising equal opportunity is necessary lip-service to unmeetable popular demands. Mr Sandel, a political philosopher, ends up on the fence. He is not an out-and-out egalitarian, but nor does he dismiss hopes for some degree of genuine civic equality.
桑德尔的关注点更加集中。他瞄准的是精英治理的社会及其意图实现的理想——机会均等。在那些追求更公平结果的真正的平等主义者看来,统一的起跑线从来都像是一种敷衍。而在一些顽固的保守派看来,面对不可能满足的大众诉求,承诺机会均等是一种必要的空头支票。政治哲学家桑德尔最终持观望态度。他不是一个彻头彻尾的平等主义者,但也没有放弃对实现某种程度上真正的公民平等的希望。
He recognises that gauges of performance and success often measure the wrong things—or measure the right things badly. His critique of over-reliance on paper credentials in hiring and university placements is telling. (Similar flaws of ranking mania in medicine, policing, schooling and the armed forces were expertly exposed in Jerry Muller’s “The Tyranny of Metrics”.) Mr Sandel’s larger concern, however, is not whether achievement is properly calibrated but whether its rewards are rightly merited. As he says, that ethical question runs back to theological disputes about the arbitrariness or earnability of God’s grace. These days, free-marketeers and redistributionists tussle over whether and how to offset the lottery of talent and energy that underlies supposedly merited rewards.
他指出,对业绩和成功的衡量指标往往把关注点放错了地方——或者有时虽切中要害却又衡量得过于拙劣。他强有力地批评了在企业招聘和大学招生中对书面证书的过度依赖。(杰里·穆勒[Jerry Muller]在《指标的暴政》[The Tyranny of Metrics]一书中巧妙地揭露了医疗、治安、教育和军队等领域中存在同样问题的“排名狂热”。)不过,桑德尔更关心的不是对成就的衡量是否恰当,而是其奖赏是否理所应得。正如他所说,这个伦理问题可以追溯到神学上的争议——上帝的恩典究竟是随意赐予的,还是可以通过修行赢得?如今,自由市场主义者和再分配主义者还在争论是否以及如何对才能与精力的天生差异做出弥补——这种运气因素是所谓应得奖赏的基础。
Like Mr Putnam’s, the solutions Mr Sandel suggests call for profound changes in prevailing attitudes: acknowledgment of luck in the share-out of rewards, recognition that all work has dignity, new commitment to the public good, and readiness to argue such matters out in a healthier, more deliberative democracy. A sceptic may share the pair’s concerns about American society yet wonder if, in such a vigorously competitive, capitalist place, those profound changes in thinking are probable. And whether, given how long the arguments over unmerited disadvantage have lasted, they are likely to end soon.
和帕特南一样,桑德尔提出的解决方案也意味着当前的主流态度需要发生深刻的变化:承认在奖赏分配中存在运气的成分,认识到所有工作都有尊严,重新致力于公共利益,并且愿意在一个更健康、更审慎的民主制度下讨论这些议题。怀疑论者或许与这两位学者一样对美国社会感到忧虑,但他们会寻思,在这样一个竞争激烈的资本主义国家,这些深刻的思想变革有可能发生吗?再说,鉴于对“不应得的劣势”的争论已经持续了那么长时间,也不知道是否能很快争出一个结论。