When Truth and Reason Are No Longer Enough

In his new book, Steven Pinker is curiously blind to the power and benefits of small-town values.

在斯蒂文·品客的新書中，他全然無視小城鎮的優勢和利益。

I』m a scientist at UC Berkeley—a card-carrying true believer in liberalEnlightenment values. Imagine that I meet a bright young woman in a small townin Wisconsin or Alabama, and that I want to persuade her to become a scientistlike me. 「Listen, science is really great!,」 I say. 「We scientists care abouttruth and reason and human flourishing. We include people from every countryand culture. And our values have transformed the world. For thousands of yearsbefore the Enlightenment, the speed limit was the pace of a fast horse, and children died all the time. Now ideas move at the speed of light, and a child』sdeath is an unthinkable tragedy. Democracy has eclipsed tyranny, prosperity hasoutpaced poverty, medicine has routed illness, individual liberation hasuprooted social convention. Come join us!」

我是加州大學伯克利分校的科學家，堅定秉持自由啟蒙觀。試想我在威斯康辛州或阿拉巴馬州遇見一位漂亮女性，然後我就勸她和我一樣成為一名科學家。我會這麼勸她：「真的，科學確實非常偉大！我們科學家關注真實和理性還有人類繁榮。科學家來自於不同國家和文化，他們的價值觀改變了世界。早於啟蒙運動的數千年，人類的速度還受制於快馬的步伐，而且兒童死亡率居高不下。可如今思想如光速前進，孩童的死亡更是難以置信的悲劇。民主已經傾覆，繁榮戰勝了貧困，醫學已經消除疾病，個人自由已經顛覆社會傳統。快加入我們的隊伍吧！」

The young woman replies, 「That sounds fantastic! But there』s just onething. I love this town. I have a boyfriend who also wants to be a scientist,and I』d like to get married and have a bunch of kids here soon. My parents arelooking forward so much to being grandparents, and my own grandparents need meto look after them. My family and friends are all nearby, and I』d like my kidsto live in my community and take part in the same traditions I grew up with.Can I do that and be a scientist too?」

年輕的女性回答道：「聽上去非常好！但是，我非常熱愛這座小鎮，我的男朋友也想成為科學家，我想儘早在這裡結婚，生一群孩子。我父母也希望趕快成為祖父母，我的曾祖父母也需要我照顧。我的家庭和朋友都在這裡，所以我希望我的孩子也在我們社區居住，和我擁有同樣的成長空間。我這麼做也能成為一名科學家吧？」

The honest answer? 「If you join us, the chances are very slim thatyou』ll end up living in your hometown. You』ll move around from place to placeunpredictably, from college to graduate school to postdoc research toprofessorship, until you』re 40 or so. You』ll be separated from your partner forlong stretches of time. You』ll have to wait to have kids, and you may not havethem at all. If you do, they almost certainly won』t be able to grow up withtheir grandparents. But there』s always Skype.」

你真這麼想？「如果你也成為科學家，那你在家鄉終老的可能性會非常小。你會經常搬家，上大學、讀研究生、博士最後晉陞到教授，直到四十歲或更年長一些。你可能會和你的另一半也肯定不會有祖父母的陪伴。但還有網路電話呢。」

This dialogue isn』t just hypothetical. Colleagues in the Midwest and theSouth describe exactly this kind of conversation, and I』ve had similar talkseven in cosmopolitan Berkeley. And this discussion doesn』t apply only toscientists. People in many walks of life, across the country and around theworld, are having this conversation. It expresses the tension between theglobal and the local, modernity and tradition, professional opportunity andfamily ties, the people who leave the place where they grew up and the peoplewho stay.

這段對話可不是憑空捏造的。在中西部和南部的同事在詢問當地人時，也會碰到這種情況，更有甚者，在伯克利這樣的大城市情況也是如此。這種情況不僅局限於科學界，已經延伸至全國乃至世界各行各業。這體現出了全球與本土、現代與傳統、職業機會與家庭紐帶之間的掣肘，看人們是選擇離開還是留在成長的地方。

The strength of Enlightenment Now, StevenPinker』s new book, is that it articulates the first part of this conversation.Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard and a wide-ranging public intellectual, and hisbook is an extended brief for liberal Enlightenment values. He makes his casewith masses of data, compelling arguments, and considerable eloquence. At amoment when those values are under attack, from the right and the left, this isa very important contribution.

斯蒂文·品客的新書《現在啟蒙，為時不晚》，其引人之處在於，它表達了對話第一部分的內容。作為哈佛大學的一名心理學教授和涉獵各界的知識分子，他的作品進一步闡釋了自由啟蒙主義的價值觀。案例包含大量數據，旁徵博引、引人入勝。不管來自於偏左還是偏右的反對意見，對於自由啟蒙主義而言都是一部重大作品。

The weakness of the book is that it doesn』t seriously consider thesecond part of the conversation—the human values that the young woman from thesmall town talks about. Our local, particular connections to just one specificfamily, community, place, or tradition can seem irrational.

這本書的不足在於並沒有認真思考對話的第二部分：那座小城鎮年輕女性所說的人類價值觀。對於當地人，特別是對一個特定家族、社區、地區或傳統的聯繫而言是沒有什麼理性而言的。

Why stay in one town instead of chasing better opportunities? Why feelcompelled to sacrifice your own well-being to care for your profoundly disabledchild or fragile, dying grandparent, when you would never do the same for astranger?

為什麼選擇待在一座小鎮而不去尋求更好的機會？為什麼會被迫放棄自己本來好好的生活而去照顧體弱的孩子或者孱弱多病的祖父母？可你卻絕對不會對陌生人這麼做。

And yet, psychologically and philosophically, those attachments are ascentral to human life as the individualist, rationalist, universalist values ofclassic Enlightenment utilitarianism. If the case for reason, science,humanism, and progress is really going to be convincing—if it』s going to amountto more than preaching to the choir—it will have to speak to a wider spectrumof listeners, a more inclusive conception of flourishing, a broader palette ofvalues.

然而，無論是從心理學亦或是哲學，對於秉持經典啟蒙實用主義價值觀的個人主義者、理性主義者、普遍主義者而言，祖父母和孩子等家庭紐帶是至關重要的。如果從理性、科學、人本主義角度而言，進步真是非常可喜——遠非對唱詩班的說教，而是更廣泛的受眾群體、更包容的繁榮理念和五湖四海皆準的價值觀。

The core of Enlightenment Now is a genericgraph, variations of which appear over and over. Each one charts anindisputable measure of human progress—whether it』s more education, peace, andprosperity, or fewer infectious diseases, murders, and even deaths bylightning.

《現在啟蒙，為時不晚》的核心是一張基本圖景，總是會發生變化。每一個都描繪了人類進步勢不可擋的舉措——不管是傾注於教育、和平、繁榮亦或是傳染疾病、謀殺、雷劈事件發生率的降低。

To accompany each graph, Pinker provides a summary of scientific data and social-science studies, involving hundreds of thousands of people, spanning human history and extending across the globe. The conclusion,startlingly, is that on almost every measure, things have gotten better and arestill getting better. Even that dumpster-fire year 2017 marks an advance over2016. This pattern of radical improvement began in the 17th and 18th centuries.It accompanied the rise of Enlightenment values in general, and of science anddemocracy in particular.

品客提供了科學數據和社科研究，涵蓋數以萬計的人，上至人類歷史下至全球，都配有圖片。總而言之，很明顯，幾乎所有的舉措，都是好上加好，迄今仍舊向好發展。即使是最糟糕的2017年，相較於2016年仍有進步。這種絕對性的改進形式始自17、18世紀。這種形勢也是伴著啟蒙價值觀的全面興起，尤其是科學和民主的復興。

Earlier books and articles have made this point, as Pinker acknowledges. Among them, in fact, is one that he wrote, The Better Angelsof Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. But arraying all theevidence in one place is an impressive and useful accomplishment. And Pinker ishonest about some significant exceptions to this pattern—inequality, suicide,and climate change, for instance—although he doesn』t think they undermine hisargument.

正如品客所言，他的早期作品和文章對此有所闡述。其中有一本《人性本善：為什麼暴力減少了》就闡述了這一要義。但把所有證據都鋪列到一處是非常醒目和有用的，且品客也如實地列出了一些重要特例，諸如不平等、自殺和氣候變化等，但他並不認為這些不利因素削弱了他的論據。

He also notes that the U.S. is an outlier on some measures, notbecause America does better than other countries, but because it does worse.Ironically, the country that was founded on Enlightenment values lags farbehind others in fulfilling the promise of those values.

他也指出美國在一些舉措上屬於個例，不是因為美國比其他國家做的更好，相反不如他國。頗具諷刺意味的是，這個建立在啟蒙價值觀的國度在兌現承諾時，反倒落後他人。

But if things are so much better, why do they feel, for so many people,so much worse? Why don』t people experience the progress that Pinker describes?Pinker doesn』t spend much time focusing on this question, and he gets a littletetchy when he does. Skepticism about Enlightenment values, in hisview, comes from leftist humanities professors and highbrow-magazine editorswho have read too much Nietzsche, or from theocrats on the right.

但是如果真是越來越好，為什麼很多人認為他們過得越來越差呢？為什麼人們沒有感受到品客所描述的改變呢？品客並沒有過多的關注這個問題，所以當他碰到質疑時有點急躁。在他看來，持左翼人本主義觀點的教授和自詡趣味高雅的雜誌編輯之所以懷疑啟蒙價值觀，是因為他們受尼采影響太深或是受神權影響過重。

Yet there』s a deeper reason that ordinary, well-meaning people may feelthat something has gone wrong, despite so much evidence to the contrary.Pinker』s graphs, and the utilitarian moral views that accompany and underliethem, are explicitly about the welfare of humanity as a whole. But values arerooted in emotion and experience as well as reason, in the local as well as theuniversal.

然而還有一個更深層的原因就是，普通的中等收入家庭可能並沒感受到生活變好，儘管有很多證據都證明社會是向好發展的。品客的論述和實用道德觀兩者並存而且互為依託，很明顯都是有關人類福利的。但是價值觀無論在當地還是放眼全球，在情感、經驗和理性方面都已根深蒂固。

From infancy, human beings develop specific attachments to particularpeople and places around them, and those connections underpin commitment, care,trust, and love. In the language of neuroscience you might call this the「oxytocin axis,」 though it』s far too complex to be reduced to a singlechemical. In most mammals, a 「tend and befriend」 brain system—which involvesthe neurotransmitter oxytocin, among others—plays an important role in thebonding between mothers and babies. In humans, with our distinctive capacityfor cooperation, this system of attachment has been expanded to apply to a muchbroader range of relationships, from pair-bonded partners to friends andcollaborators.

從嬰兒起，人類就對周圍的人和地有特殊的情感，並且隨著責任、關心、信任和愛的延伸這種情感不斷加強。儘管這遠非單一化學元素那麼簡單，但用神經科學的話講，可以將這種情感稱作「催產素軸」。大多數哺乳動物的代際傳遞關係，就是腦系統中的神經遞質催產素，對聯繫母親和孩子的關係起著重要作用。對人類而言，我們獨特的合作能力、代際傳遞體系已經延展至更廣泛的關係，從成對的夥伴關係擴展至朋友和合作夥伴。

You might think these bonds reflect the fact that people are similar orhave the same interests. In fact, the economist Robert Frank and the philosopherKim Sterelny have proposed exactly the opposite view. The feelings that go withattachment—such as love, trust, and loyalty—allow people who have differentcapacities and clashing short-term interests to cooperate in a way thatbenefits everyone in the long run. Parents versus children, wives versushusbands, hunters versus gatherers—all of these relationships inevitablyinvolve tension and conflict.

你可能會認為這些聯繫反映出的是人們的相似性或有共同的興趣。實際上，經濟學家羅伯特·弗蘭克和哲學家金·斯特林認為正好恰恰相反。這種聯繫是建立在——愛、信任和忠誠之上——正所謂君子和而不同，方能長久相處。父母和孩子、妻子和丈夫，獵人和收集者——所有的這些關係都不可避免地存在衝突和緊張。

Rationality and contractual negotiation alone can』t resolve thedifferences that arise. If individuals all just pursue their own interests,even in coordination with others, they may end up worse off. But emotions canhelp. Sterelny argues that attachments act as 「commitment mechanisms.」 Theyensure that partners won』t just walk out of an argument or renege on anagreement when it becomes inconvenient.

理性和協議性協商不會解決業已存在的分歧。如果每個人都追求個人利益，即使與他人協商，也終究可能發生衝突。但是情感會緩和衝突。斯特林認為情感聯繫就如「責任機制」。保證夥伴間不會因爭論而走散或者當有異議時違背協議。

The very same economic and social forces (such as a global free market)that have fueled the progress that Pinker charts have also made it harder tomaintain a network of local attachments. Pinker』s book doesn』t include onenotably pessimistic set of graphs: those that chart the signs that localrelationships are threatened—even the most-basic relationships, betweenpartners and between parents and children. Since 1960, the marriage rate in theU.S. has declined substantially, particularly for lower-income andless-educated people, and the proportion of single-parent families amongAmerican households has risen. Meanwhile, the child poverty rate has remainedhigh. And public-support systems for families, such as paid parental leave anduniversal subsidized child care, hardly exist in the U.S.

正如品客所說，相同的經濟和社會力量（諸如全球自由市場）已為進步注入強勁動力，讓本地的聯繫紐帶愈加難以維繫。品客的書並沒有明顯的消極主義色彩，比如那些描述本地紐帶——甚至是最為基礎的關係、夥伴之間以及夥伴與孩子之間受到威脅的論斷。自從1960年，美國的結婚率，尤其是低收入和受教育水平低的群體的結婚率持續下降，單親家庭的比例卻上升了。與此同時，兒童的貧困率居高不下。諸如父母帶薪假和全民照護兒童補助的公共資助體系已幾乎悄聲匿跡。

It』s crucially important to distinguish these sorts of local attachmentsfrom nationalism and racism—ideas that, as Pinker points out, have had andcontinue to have devastating effects. The claim that social bonds are rooted incommon origin or blood or skin color is profoundly wrong, both scientificallyand morally. And there is no reason that loyalty to people you know should makeyou hostile to people you don』t. But scientific as well as intuitive evidencesuggests that tribalism can be seductive when people feel that their localconnections are under threat. At the same time, the Enlightenment emphasis onthe autonomous, rational individual can also lead to alienation and isolation,which make tribalist mythology all the more appealing.

正如品客所指，把本地的情感紐帶和民族主義、種族主義相區分是至關重要的，如不區分就會使已經存在的摧毀效應愈演愈烈。有共同起源、血緣、膚色的社會紐帶已根深蒂固，這種論斷無論從科學還是道義角度都是大錯特錯的，而且也沒有理由要你對你認識的人忠實而對其他人就否之。但是科學也好直覺也罷都給人這樣一種感覺，就是當人們的本地聯繫受到威脅時，區域文化是有凝聚力的。同時，啟蒙的重點是自主的、理性的個體也可導致疏離和孤獨，這樣一來，區域文化就更具吸引力。

The dream of the 18th century was that a single, coherent set of values,rooted in rationality, could make a heaven on Earth. Pinker shares that dream.But more-recent philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin, sobered by the 20thcentury』s failed utopias, have argued for a more modest liberal pluralism thatmakes room for multiple, genuinely conflicting goods. Family and work, solidarityand autonomy, tradition and innovation are really valuable, and really intension, in both the lives of individuals and the life of a nation. Onechallenge for enlightenment now is to build social institutions that can bridgeand balance these values. Family policy is a good example. People on both sidesof the political and cultural divides in the U.S. are in rare agreement thatprograms like family leave and preschool deserve more support, even if thepolitical will for such measures never seems to emerge.

18世紀的夢想是一套基於理性的單一、統一的的價值觀，會讓整個世界變成天堂。品客追求的正是這種夢想。但是近現代的哲學家：以賽琳·柏林對20世紀未成功的烏托邦式理想持謹慎態度，傾向於一個更加平和的自由多元主義，讓多種真正的衝突有發展空間，反倒是好事。家庭和工作、團結和自主、傳統和創新都極其重要，也互相發生衝突，無論之於個體還是國家都是這樣。目前對啟蒙的一個挑戰就是建立社會體系，來跨越、平衡價值觀的分歧。家庭政策為此樹立了一個好的榜樣。美國分站在政治、文化兩端的人很少能達成一致，也只有像家庭假和學前教育這種會獲得廣泛支持，即使是單一政治派別傾向的舉措也不可能獲准。

But thinking about families may be able to inform liberalism in a deeperway. For the Enlightenment philosophers, as Pinker』s book reminds us, the greatproblem of politics was how to combine the desires and goals of thousands ofautonomous individuals—how to coordinate the pursuit of happiness. The ancientChinese philosopher Mengzi identified another conundrum: how to expand themutual commitment and trust that define a family to the very different scale ofa state.

This is not an easy lift, especially for a nation as large and scatteredas the U.S. But perhaps we can take a lesson from family terrain. Marriagecounselors often say that relationships can weather anger, misunderstanding,jealousy, fundamentally different values—even the occasional bout of hatred. But they can』t survive contempt, which has become the signature politicalemotion of our age. Trying to make a state more like a community doesn』t meanmaking it more homogeneous or even more harmonious. Instead, the problem forenlightenment now is how to establish a background of trust and commitment that allows conflict without contempt.

但試想一下，家庭會以一種更深遠的方式影響自由主義。品客書中告訴我們，對於啟蒙哲學家而言，最大的政治問題是如何包含普羅大眾的目標和願望——如何調和幸福的追求。中國古代哲學家孟子提出了另一難題：如何增加相互的責任和信任是區別家庭和國家的本質。這可不容小覷，特別是對美國這樣大而分散的國家。但是也許我們可以從家庭領域找到應對對策。婚姻顧問經常說：親情可以化解憤怒、誤解、嫉妒甚至偶爾也可以化解仇恨等截然不同的情感。但是也不能輕視，因為他們是橫行在當今時代的政治戾氣。所謂把國家治理得如社區一樣並不意味著要更加趨同或和諧。相反，對於當代啟蒙而言，問題是如何建立信任和責任，存不同而驅戾氣。

譯者：金絲豘

推薦閱讀：

相关文章