バートランド・ラッセル「人間にレッテルを貼ることについて」(1932年８月10日執筆)(松下彰良 訳) |
* 原著：On labelling people, by Bertrand Russell * Source: Mortals and Others, v.1, 1975 | |||||
|
* 改訳及びHTML修正をしました。(2011.11.22) （2003.11.03,松下）
しかしこの種の分類をする側と分類される側の感情の間には,根本的反目（対立）がある。自分が特定の１つの形容詞で要約された人は,人は誰でも自分の人格を非常に単純だときめつけられれば思わず憤慨してしまう。（たとえば）感情をおおげさに表すホステス役の女性が私に向い,「ああ,ラッセルさん,あなたは大変本がお好きですね」と言えば,私はジョンソン博士のやり方を見習い,「いえ奥さん,もっとお金がもうかる時間の充足方法を利用できるのであれば,私は本なんか読みませんよ」と応えたい。我々は,自分自身については安易に分類されえない人間だと思っている。一部の哲学者,たとえばベルグソンは,人間のこの感情に訴えかけて,人間個々人における興味深い要素全ては'言葉による分析'を受付けないものであるという見解を支持する'理論的理由'を唱道した。この種の哲学者は大変人気がある。
|
While it is undoubtedly our duty to love our neighbours, it is a duty not always easily performed, and some neighbours, it must be admitted, do nothing to make it less difficult. There are many ways in which they may be irritating, but one of the worst (to my way of thinking) is that of classifying everybody with some obvious label. People who have this unfortunate habit think that they have complete knowledge of a man or woman when they have pinned on the tag that they consider appropriate. This is, I think, a predominantly feminine vice and belongs more particularly to women who entertain a great deal. The art of being a hostess must be a difficult one, seeing how many women fail at it. 'Oh Mr So-&-So,' says the hostess, 'you are so artistic, I am sure you will enjoy meeting Miss Such-&-Such, who paints such charming pictures.' Mr So-&-So is (we will suppose) a celebrated art critic of the most refined and exquisite taste, while Miss Such-&-Such paints simple sentimental water colours. Only the force of civilised taboos prevents their conversation from becoming a snarling expression of their mutual hatred. Another person is labelled 'musical', another 'literary', another 'fond of dogs', and so on, and each is expected to be delighted to meet anybody else with the same label. There is, however, a fundamental opposition between the emotions of the person classified and those of the person who does the classifying. When one finds oneself summed up in an adjective, one automatically resents the idea that one's personality has so little complexity. When the gushing hostess says to me 'Oh Mr Russell, I know you are so fond of books,' I wish I could reply, with the manner of Dr Johnson, 'Madam. I never read a book when some less unprofitable manner of disposing of my time is available.' We all feel ourselves above classification. Some philosophers - Bergson, for example - have appealed to this feeling and have advanced theoretical reasons for the view that what is interesting in each of us is something that eludes verbal analysis. Philosophers who do this are very popular. When people read the works of writers who exalt Man, they apply what is said to themselves and are accordingly pleased. If, instead, of thinking only of themselves, they were to remember that 'Man' includes Mr Brown and Mrs Jones and all the other tiresome neighbours, they would find themselves compelled either to change their view of Man, or to become more respectful in their thoughts about their acquaintances. This matter of classifying is a case in point. To suppose that a person can be adequately described by an epithet, such as 'romantic' or 'modern-minded' or 'scientific', is to suppose something disrespectful. The idea that, although oneself is full of mysterious and impenetrable depths, other people are quite easy to understand, is part of the belief in one's own superiority which most people carry about with them in spite of its statistical improbability. Like all contemptuous opinions, it makes the world seem less interesting than it really is. To understand another human being is not easy and is never achieved by those who do not know that it is difficult. But what is of most value in the study of history, in friendship, and in love is the gradual and tentative approximation to the understanding of personalities unlike one's own. This is not to be achieved by putting people in categories, nor yet by the faculty of intuition in which many people put their trust. A combination of the two is necessary but is not alone sufficient. What is most necessary of all is to avoid the cocksureness that springs from an unfounded contempt. |
| ★10月(前月)の言葉 | ★格言集へ |
