Education_and_Discipline原文及翻译word文本

Educati on and Discipli ne

Betrand Russell

Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts:

a conception of the ends of

life

,

and a scienee 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 n atio nalism. These two,

whe n take n seriously,

are in compatible

,

as is beco ming evident in Germany. For my part,

I hold that where they differ,

Christianity

is preferable

,

but where they agree, both are mistake n.

The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization

,

a term which

,

as I meant it

,

has a defi niti on which is partly in dividual

,

partly social.

It con sists

,

in the in dividual

,

of both in tellectual and moral qualities

:

in

tellectually

,

a certa in minimum of general knowledge

,

technical skill in one's own

profession

, and a habit of forming opinions on evidenee;

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 com mun ities

,

civilizati on dema nds respect for law

,

justice as betwee n man and man

,

purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race

,

and intelligent

adaptati on of means to en ds.

If these are to be the purpose of educati on

,

it is a questi on for the scie

nee of

psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them

,

and

,

in particular

,

what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective.

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 differe

nces in psychological theory. There are those who say that childre n 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 in sure moral perfecti on is a relic of Rousseauism

,

and would n ot 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 com mun ities which require cooperati on

, and it would be utopia n 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 gen

erated where every impulse is left un checked

；

their merits

,

therefore

,

are

not likely to be perpetuated if their methods are undiluted. Education

, viewed

from a social sta ndpo int

,

must be someth ing more positive tha n a mere opport

unity for growth. It must

,

of course

,

provide this

,

but it must also provide

a mental and moral equipme nt which childre n cannot acquire en tirely for

themselves.

The argume nts in favor of a great degree of freedom in educati on 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.

The submissive lose initiative

,

both in thought and action

;

moreover

,

the

an ger gen erated by the feeli ng of being thwarted tends to find an outlet in bully

ing those who are weaker. That is why tyranni cal in stitutio ns are self-perpetuat

ing what a man has suffered from his father he inflicts upon his son

, and the

humiliati ons which he remembers hav ing en dured at his public school he passes

on to "natives" when he becomes an empire-builder. Thus an unduly authoritative

educati on turns the pupils into timid tyra nts

,

in capable of either claimi ng

or tolerati ng origi nality in word or deed. The effect upon the educators is eve

n worse

:

they tend to become sadistic discipli naria ns

,

glad to in spire

terror

,

and content to

in spire nothing else. As these men represe nt kno wledge

,

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.

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 dan ger

in the tendency to suppose that opposition to authority is essentially meritorious

and that unconven ti onal 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 rebellious ness is ofte n the effect that too much authority has on

spirited pupils. And whe n rebels become educators

,

they sometimes en courage defia

nee in their pupils

,

for whom at the same time they are trying to produce a perfect

environment

,

although these two aims are scarcely compatible.

What is wan ted is n either submissive ness nor rebelli on

, but good n

ature

,

and gen eral frien dli ness 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 impote

nee which arises whe n 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 great ness of on e's coun try. 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 whe n this is true. When the pupil cooperates

willingly

,

he learns twice as fast and with half the fatigue. All these are valid

reas ons for a very great degree of freedom.

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. Con sideratio n for others

,

n ot on ly in great matters

,

but also

in little everyday things

,

is an essential element in civilization

, without which

social life would be in tolerable. I am not thi nki ng of mere forms of polite ness

,

such as say ing "please"

and "tha nk you":

formal mann ers are most fully developed among barbaria ns,

and diminish with every advanee in culture. I am thinking rather of willingness

to take a fair share of n eeessary work

,

to be obligi ng in small ways that save

trouble on the bala nee. It is not desirable to give a child a sense of omn ipote

nee

,

or a

belief that adults exist only to minister to the pleasures of the young. And those

who disapprove of the existenee of the idle rich are hardly eonsistent if they bring

up their ehildre n without any sense that work is n eeessary

,

and without the habits

that make eon ti nu ous applieati on possible.

There is ano ther eon siderati on to whieh some advoeates of freedom attaeh

too little importanee. In a eommunity of ehildren whieh is left without adult in

terfere nee there is a tyranny of the stron ger

,

whieh is likely to be far more

brutal

than most adult tyranny. If two ehildren of two or three years old are left to play

together

,

they will

,

after a few fights

,

diseover whieh is bound to be the vietor

,

and the other will the n beeome a slave. Where the nu mber of ehildre n is larger

,

one or two aequire eomplete mastery

,

and the others have far less liberty tha n

they would have if the adults in terfered to proteet the weaker and less pug nacious.

Con sideratio n for others does not

,

with most ehildre n

, arise spontan eously

,

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 abdieation of the adults.

I do not thi nk that educators have yet solved the problem of comb ining the

desirable forms of freedom with the neeessary minimum of moral training. the right

solution

child is brought to an enlightened school. Just as psyehoanalysts

, it must be admitted

,

is often made impossible by parents before the

,

from their