Unit 2 - The Fifth Freedom
Beginning with the earliest pioneers, Americans have always highly valued their freedoms, and fought hard to protect them. And yet, the author points out that there is a basic freedom which Americans are in danger of losing.
What is this endangered freedom? For what reasons could freedom-loving Americans possibly let this freedom slip away? And what-steps can they take to protect it ---- their fifth freedom?
Seymour St . John
More than three centuries ago a handful of pioneers crossed the ocean to Jamestown and Plymouth in search of freedoms they were unable to find in their own countries, the freedoms of we still cherish today: freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Today the descendants of the early settlers, and those who have joined them since, are fighting to protect these freedoms at home and throughout the world.
And yet there is a fifth freedom - basic to those four - that we are in danger of losing: the freedom to be one's best. St. Exupery describes a ragged, sensitive-faced Arab child, haunting the streets of a North African town, as a lost Mozart: he would never be trained or developed. Was he free? "No one grasped you by the shoulder while there was still time; and nought will awaken in you the sleeping poet or musician or astronomer that possibly inhabited you from the beginning." The freedom to be one's best is the chance for the development of each person to his highest power.
How is it that we in America have begun to lose this freedom, and how can we regain it for our nation's youth? I believe it has started slipping away from us because of three misunderstandings.
First, the misunderstanding of the meaning of democracy. The principal of a great Philadelphia high school is driven to cry for help in combating the notion that it is undemocratic to run a special program of studies for outstanding boys and girls. Again, when a good independent school in Memphis recently closed, some thoughtful citizens urged that it be taken over by the public school system and used for boys and girls of high ability, what it have entrance requirements and give an advanced program of studies to superior students who were interested and able to take it. The proposal was rejected because it was undemocratic! Thus, courses are geared to the middle of the class. The good student is unchallenged, bored. The loafer receives his passing grade. And the lack of an outstanding course for the outstanding student, the lack of a standard which a boy or girl must meet, passes for democracy.
The second misunderstanding concerns what makes for happiness. The aims of our present-day culture are avowedly ease and material well-being: shorter hours; a shorter week; more return for less accomplishment; more soft soap excuses and fewer honest, realistic demands. In our schools this is reflected by the vanishing hickory stick and the emerging psychiatrist. The hickory stick had its faults, and the psychiatrist has his strengths. But hickory stick had its faults, and the psychiatrist has his strengths. But the trend is clear. Tout comprendre c'est tout pardoner (To understand everything is to excuse everything). Do we really believe that our softening standards bring happiness? Is it our sound and considered judgment that the tougher subjects of the classics and mathematics should be thrown aside, as suggested by some educators, for doll-playing? Small wonder that Charles Malik, Lebanese delegate at the U.N., writes: "There is in the West " (in the United States) " a general weakening of moral fiber. (Our) leadership does not seem to be adequate to the unprecedented challenges of the age."
The last misunderstanding is in the area of values. Here are some of the most influential tenets of teacher education over the past fifty years: there is no eternal truth; there is no absolute moral law; there is no God. Yet all of history has taught us that the denial of these ultimates, the placement of man or state at the core of the universe, results in a paralyzing mass selfishness; and the first signs of it are already frighteningly evident.
Arnold Toynbee has said that all progress, all development come from challenge and a consequent response. Without challenge there is no response, no development, no freedom. So first we owe to our children the most demanding, challenging curriculum that is within their capabilities. Michelangelo did not learn to paint by spending his time doodling. Mozart was not an accomplished pianist at the age of eight as the result or spending his days in front of a television set. Like Eve Curie, like Helen Keller, they responded to the challenge of their lives by a disciplined training: and they gained a new freedom.
The second opportunity we can give our boys and girls is the right to failure. "Freedom is not only a privilege, it is a test," writes De Nouy. What kind of a test is it, what kind of freedom where no one can fail? The day is past when the United States can afford to give high school diplomas to all who sit through four years of instruction, regardless of whether any visible results can be discerned. We live in a narrowed world where we must be alert, awake to realism; and realism demands a standard which either must be met or result in failure. These are hard words, but they are brutally true. If we deprive our children of the right to fail we deprive them of their knowledge of the world as it is.
Finally, we can expose our children to the best values we have found. By relating our lives to the evidences of the ages, by judging our philosophy in the light of values that history has proven truest, perhaps we shall be able to produce that "ringing message, full of content and truth, satisfying the mind, appealing to the heart, firing the will, a message on which one can stake his whole life." This is the message that could mean joy and strength and leadership -- freedom as opposed to serfdom.
参考译文——第五自由
从最早的拓荒者开始，美国人就一直十分珍视自由，一直为捍卫自由而奋斗。然而，本文作者指出还有一个美国人正面临着丧失危险的基本自由。
这一有丧失危险的自由是什么？为什么热爱自由的美国人会让这一自由悄悄溜走？他们能采取什么措施来捍卫这一自由——他们的第五自由？
第五自由
西摩·圣约翰
三百多年以前，少数拓荒者横渡大洋来到詹姆斯敦和普利茅斯，寻求他们在自己国内无法找到的自由，也是我们今天仍然珍视的自由：免于匮乏的自由，免于恐惧的自由，言论自由及信仰自由。今天，这些早期移民的后裔以及后来加入其行列的人们，还在美国国内和全世界为捍卫这些自由而战斗。
然而还有一个我们正面临着丧失危险的第五自由：达到自己最佳水平的自由。而这一自由正是上述四大自由的基础。法国作家圣·埃克苏佩里曾把一个衣衫褴褛但长相聪颖，常在北非某市街头游荡的阿拉伯少年描写成一个被埋没的莫扎特：他决不会受到训练或培养。这个孩子自由吗？“也许你一生下来就具有成为诗人、音乐家或天文学家的才能，但在时间还不算太晚的时候，没有人拉你一把，时机一过，就再也无法唤醒在你身上沉睡着的这些才能了。”达到自己最佳水平的自由就是让每个人把自己的能力发展到最高水平的机会。
为什么我们在美国会开始失去这一自由呢？我们怎样才能为我国的青年重新获得这一自由呢？我认为这一自由之所以开始从我们身边悄悄溜走是因为存在着以下三种误解。
第一种误解是对民主含义的误解。费城的一所名牌中学为一些出类拔萃的学生实施一份特殊的教学大纲竟被视为不民主，结果校长被迫大声疾呼，要求人们一起来与这种观念作斗争。又如，当孟菲斯的一所很好的私立学校不久前停办时，一些有识之士极力主张公立学校系统接管该校，从而培养才智高的学生；他们还主张该校要规定入学要求，为有兴趣又有接受能力的优秀学生制订高标准的教学大纲。这一提议竟遭到拒绝，理由是这样做不民主！这样一来，各门课程都去适应班上的中等水平。好学生受不到挑战，对学习感到厌倦。懒散的学生却能混得到及格的分数。没有为优秀学生开设的高水平课程，没有一个所有学生都必须达到的标准，反而被认为是民主。
第二种误解涉及什么会带来幸福的问题。我们公开宣称我们当代文化的目标是追求舒适和物质享受：每天工作的时间越来越短；每周工作的天数越来越少；成绩越来越少，报酬却要越来越多；姑息宽容的借口越来越多，正当而实际的要求越来越少。这一误解在我们学校中的反映便是教鞭的消失和精神病专家的出现。过去的教鞭自有它的缺点，现在的精神病专家自有他的优点。但趋势是明显的。理解一切即原谅一切。难道我们真的相信我们降低了标准就能带来幸福？难道像某些教育学家所建议的那样，把古典文学和数学这些难学的科目弃之一边，而代之以一些像耍玩偶一样轻松的课程，是我们经过深思熟虑的正确判断？难怪黎巴嫩驻联合国代表查尔斯·马立克写道：“在西方(在美国)道德品质正在普遍削弱。（我们的)领导面对时代提出的种种前所未有的挑战似乎显得无能为力。”
最后一种误解是在价值观方面。下面列举的是过去五十年中在师范教育方面影响最大的几项原则：没有永恒的真理；没有绝对的道德准则；没有上帝。然而全部历史告诫我们，否认这些基本原理，把个人或国家置于宇宙的中心，就会致使整个世界陷于瘫痪的、无处不有的自私自利；这方面最先表现出来的迹象已经十分明显，达到了令人吃惊的地步。
阿诺德·汤因比说过，一切进步，一切发展均来自挑战以及由此引起的反应。没有挑战就没有反应，没有发展，没有自由。所以，我们首先应该在我们孩子的能力所允许的范围内为他们开设要求最严格、最富有挑战性的课程。米开朗琪罗并不是靠心不在焉地乱涂一气学会绘画的。莫扎特八岁成为一名造诣颇深的钢琴家也并不是终日在电视机前消磨时光的结果。像伊芙·居里和海伦·凯勒一样，他们都以严格的训练对生活的挑战作出了反应，从而获得了一种新的自由。
我们可以向我们的孩子提供的第二个机会是允许他们有失败的权利。德·纽伊写道：“自由不仅是一种特权，也是一种考验。”如果没有人可以失败，那它算是什么考验，什么自由呢？美国可以向所有在高中读完四年而不管其是否取得任何明显结果的学生发放毕业文凭的日子已经一去不复返了。我们现在生活在一个变得狭窄的世界里，我们必须对现实主义保持警觉，有所认识；而现实主义要求树立一个或必须达到或导致失败的标准。这些话听起来很刺耳，但却是严峻的事实。如果我们剥夺了孩子们的失败权，我们就剥夺了他们如实认识世界的机会。
最后，我们可以让孩子们广泛接触一下我们已发现的最好的价值观。把我们的生活跟各个时代的事实联系起来，以历史所证实的最正确的价值观来评价我们的人生观，也许这样我们就能使他们得到那种“时时在耳边回响的启示，这启示内容丰富，闪烁着真理的光辉；令人心悦诚服，感人至深而又激发斗志，让人终生受用不尽”。这就是那种可以带来欢乐、力量和领导能力，也就是自由而不是被奴役的启示。
参考资料：
扫一扫
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
