The tyranny of merit | Michael Sandel

譯者: LoHsien Huang 審譯者: Yi-Ping Cho (Marssi)

Here's a question we should all be asking:

我們所有人都應該要問這個問題：

What went wrong?

到底哪裡出錯了？

Not just with the pandemic

不是只有疫情大爆發而已，

but with our civic life.

還有我們的公民生活。

What brought us to this polarized, rancorous political moment?

是什麼原因把我們帶到這個兩極化 而且充滿怨恨的政治時局？

In recent decades,

近幾十年來，

the divide between winners and losers has been deepening,

成功者與失敗者之間的鴻溝深化了，

poisoning our politics,

毒害了政治環境，

setting us apart.

分裂了我們。

This divide is partly about inequality.

這樣的鴻溝一部分是不平等所造成，

But it's also about the attitudes toward winning and losing

但這也牽涉到

我們對於隨之而來的 輸贏的態度有關。

that have come with it.

Those who landed on top

那些在頂層的人

came to believe that their success was their own doing,

認為自己的成功 都是自己努力的成果，

a measure of their merit,

這是一種衡量價值的方式，

and that those who lost out had no one to blame but themselves.

而那些失敗者不應歸咎任何人 只能責怪他們自己。

This way of thinking about success

這種對於成功的想法

arises from a seemingly attractive principle.

來自一種看似吸引人的原則。

If everyone has an equal chance,

如果每個人都有平等的機會，

the winners deserve their winnings.

那麼成功者就應該獲得獎賞。

This is the heart of the meritocratic ideal.

這是功績體制理想的核心。

In practice, of course, we fall far short.

當然在實際面上， 我們離這樣的理想還很遙遠。

Not everybody has an equal chance to rise.

不是所有人都有平等的機會能往上。

Children born to poor families tend to stay poor when they grow up.

出身貧窮家庭的孩童 往往在長大後依然貧困。

Affluent parents are able to pass their advantages onto their kids.

富裕的父母可以 將自己的優勢傳遞給孩子。

At Ivy League universities, for example,

舉例來說，在常春藤聯盟大學中，

there are more students from the top one percent

來自金字塔頂端 1% 家庭的學生人數

than from the entire bottom half of the country combined.

比來自金字塔後 50% 家庭的 學生加總起來還多。

But the problem isn't only that we fail to live up

但是問題不僅在於我們未能達到

to the meritocratic principles we proclaim.

我們所宣稱的功績體制原則。

The ideal itself is flawed.

而是這樣的理想本身就有缺陷。

It has a dark side.

它有一個黑暗面。

Meritocracy is corrosive of the common good.

功績主義會侵蝕公共利益。

It leads to hubris among the winners

這會導致成功者的傲慢，

and humiliation among those who lose out.

而使失敗者蒙羞。

It encourages the successful to inhale too deeply of their success,

它鼓勵成功者去深信他們成功的事實，

to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way.

忘記幫助他們前進的運氣和好運。

And it leads them to look down on those less fortunate,

而且讓他們開始輕視 那些運氣比他們差、

less credentialed than themselves.

資格條件比他們差的人。

This matters for politics.

這對政治來說很重要。

One of the most potent sources of the populous backlash

其中一個最強烈的群眾反彈來源就是

is the sense among many working people that elites look down on them.

許多勞動者感受到菁英的鄙視。

It's a legitimate complaint.

這是合理的抱怨。

Even as globalization brought deepening inequality

即使全球化加劇了不平等

and stagnant wages,

以及停滯的薪資，

its proponents offered workers some bracing advice.

全球化的支持者為勞動者 提供了一些令人振奮的建議。

"If you want to compete and win in the global economy,

「如果你想在全球的經濟中 競爭並且獲得勝利，

go to college."

那麼就去念大學。」

"What you earn depends on what you learn."

「你賺多少錢取決於你學習什麼。」

"You can make it if you try."

「如果你嘗試就可以成功。」

These elites miss the insult implicit in this advice.

這些菁英忽略了這當中隱含的羞辱。

If you don't go to college,

如果你不去念大學，

if you don't flourish in the new economy,

如果你沒在這個新經濟中發展，

your failure is your fault.

那麼你的失敗就是你自己造成的。

That's the implication.

這就是其中的隱含之意。

It's no wonder many working people turned against meritocratic elites.

難怪許多勞動者反對功績體制下的菁英。

So what should we do?

所以我們應該怎麼做？

We need to rethink three aspects of our civic life.

我們需要重新思考 公民生活的三個層面。

The role of college,

大學所扮演的角色、

the dignity of work

工作的尊嚴，

and the meaning of success.

以及成功的意義。

We should begin by rethinking the role of universities

我們應該開始重新思考， 將大學所扮演的角色

as arbiters of opportunity.

看成是機會仲裁者。

For those of us who spend our days in the company of the credentialed,

對於那些在證書陪伴下 過日子的人來說，

it's easy to forget a simple fact:

相當容易忘記一個簡單的事實：

Most people don't have a four-year college degree.

大多數人並沒有四年的大學學位。

In fact, nearly two-thirds of Americans don't.

事實上，將近三分之二的 美國人並沒有大學學歷。

So it is folly to create an economy

因此，創造一個經濟體

that makes a university diploma a necessary condition

讓大學文憑被看作獲得有尊嚴的工作 與體面生活的必要條件，

of dignified work and a decent life.

這想法是相當愚蠢的。

Encouraging people to go to college is a good thing.

鼓勵人們去念大學是件好事。

Broadening access for those who can't afford it

為那些負擔不起的人提供更多的機會，

is even better.

這麼做會更好。

But this is not a solution to inequality.

但是這並不是解決不平等的方法。

We should focus less on arming people for meritocratic combat,

應該少放些心力去叫大家武裝自己 僅是為了功績體制下的鬥爭。

and focus more on making life better

而是放更多心力創造更好的生活，

for people who lack a diploma

為了那些沒有文憑，

but who make essential contributions to our society.

但對我們的社會做出貢獻的人。

We should renew the dignity of work

我們應該恢復工作的尊嚴，

and place it at the center of our politics.

而且把它放在我們的政治核心中。

We should remember that work is not only about making a living,

我們應該記住工作不僅是溫飽而已，

it's also about contributing to the common good

這也是在為公共利益做出貢獻，

and winning recognition for doing so.

並且因為這麼做而得到認同。

Robert F. Kennedy put it well half a century ago.

羅伯特·法蘭西斯·甘迺迪 在半世紀前說得很好：

Fellowship, community, shared patriotism.

共同參與、共同社會、 共同的愛國主義。

These essential values do not come

這些不可或缺的價值

from just buying and consuming goods together.

不僅是大家一起購買和消費產品而已。

They come from dignified employment,

它們是來自有尊嚴的工作，

at decent pay.

以及正當的收入。

The kind of employment that enables us to say,

這樣的工作讓我們可以說，

"I helped to build this country.

「我有幫忙建造這個國家。」

I am a participant in its great public ventures."

「我有參與偉大的公共事務。」

This civic sentiment

這種公民情感

is largely missing from our public life today.

卻在當今的公共生活中大量流失。

We often assume that the money people make

我們經常假設大家賺到的錢

is the measure of their contribution to the common good.

是用來衡量一個人 對公共利益做出多少貢獻的方法。

But this is a mistake.

但這是一個錯誤的想法。

Martin Luther King Jr. explained why.

馬丁·路德·金恩 解釋了為什麼這是錯誤的。

Reflecting on a strike by sanitation workers

他回想起在田納西州曼菲斯

in Memphis, Tennessee,

清潔工人所發起的罷工事件，

shortly before he was assassinated,

那就發生在他被刺殺前不久。

King said,

金恩說：

"The person who picks up our garbage is, in the final analysis,

「歸根究柢，撿垃圾的人

as significant as the physician,

和醫生一樣重要，

for if he doesn't do his job,

因為如果他不工作，

diseases are rampant.

疾病就會蔓延。

All labor has dignity."

所有工作都有其尊嚴。」

Today's pandemic makes this clear.

當今的疫情讓這個道理更清楚。

It reveals how deeply we rely

這揭示了我們有多麼依賴

on workers we often overlook.

那些經常被我們忽視的勞動者。

Delivery workers,

送貨員、

maintenance workers,

維修工人、

grocery store clerks,

雜貨店員工、

warehouse workers,

倉庫工人、

truckers,

貨車司機、

nurse assistants,

護理師助理、

childcare workers,

育兒員、

home health care providers.

居家照護業者。

These are not the best-paid or most honored workers.

這些並不是薪資最好 或是最光榮的工作者。

But now, we see them as essential workers.

但現在，我們將他們視為 不可或缺的工作者。

This is a moment for a public debate

這是一個開啟公共辯論的時刻，

about how to bring their pay and recognition

討論如何使他們的薪水 以及所獲得的認同

into better alignment with the importance of their work.

能夠與其工作的重要性保持一致。

It is also time for a moral, even spiritual, turning,

這也是一個道德與精神轉變的時刻，

questioning our meritocratic hubris.

質疑功績體制傲慢的時刻。

Do I morally deserve the talents that enable me to flourish?

我在道德上應該得到 使我蓬勃發展的才能嗎？

Is it my doing

我的成就是否源自於

that I live in a society that prizes the talents

我活在一個獎勵才華的社會中，

I happen to have?

而這個才華是我正好所擁有的？

Or is that my good luck?

還是只因為我很幸運而已？

Insisting that my success is my due

堅信成功是因為自身的緣故，

makes it hard to see myself in other people's shoes.

讓我很難設身處地感受他人的困境。

Appreciating the role of luck in life

意識到運氣在生活中扮演的角色

can prompt a certain humility.

會促使我們變得謙卑。

There but for the accident of birth, or the grace of God,

或許是出於偶然的緣故， 或者神的恩典，

or the mystery of fate,

或者命運的奧秘，

go I.

所以我才能到達某個高度。

This spirit of humility

這種謙卑的精神

is the civic virtue we need now.

是我們目前所需要的公民素養。

It's the beginning of a way back

這個契機讓我們可以

from the harsh ethic of success that drives us apart.

從分裂彼此的成功道德觀走回正軌，

It points us beyond the tyranny of merit

引領我們超越獨裁的功績體制，

to a less rancorous, more generous public life.

走向一個少點怨恨， 更加慷慨的公共生活。