バートランドラッセル「革新派と体制派」

* 原著: Education and the Social Order, chapt. 1
* 出典：牧野力(編)『ラッセル思想辞典』

---

（牧野氏による要旨訳に少し手を入れたものです。時間の関係で要旨訳と原文とは必ずしも対応していません。あしからず。）

ラッセル関係電子書籍一覧

　けれども、革新を主張する人は、現状維持を唱える人よりも，優れた教育を（子供に）与えそうないくつかの点がある。 （人間も動物であり）人間の、動物的習性はそれだけで － ちょうど馬は動物的習性からいつも曲がっている道を曲がるように（turn down a road） － 人間に昔ながらのやり方を好ませるのに十分である（保守主義の場合はより高度な精神機能／精神的変化を要求されない＝必要とされない）。
（訳注：道を下る場合は "go down"／'turn down": 参考ページ
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/can-i-say-turn-down-a-road.3481033/
I only know one situation where "turn down a road" can be used. __ If you are travelling on one road, and you reach the intersection of another road, you can "turn down the new road". That means you turn at the intersection and now are travelling on the new road.）
革新派には現在と異なる内容を感得できるための想像力が必要であり、価値評価の観点から現在を批判できる判断力もまた備えていなければならない。現状維持に敬意を払う教育よりも、現状を改善しようとする教育の方が、知性や同情を働かせることができる。現状打破の心情は、現在の不幸に同情するか,幸福に嫉妬するか,が出発点となるから、体制派に似た限界も（革新派に）生れる可能性がある。（即ち、）革命家には、復讐に走り、偏狭な正統派意識から反対派の処罰に狂う危険性もあることに注目したい。
(There are, however, certain respects in which the advocate of change is likely to give better education than the advocate of the status quo. Animal habit is sufficient by itself to make a man like the old ways, just as it makes a horse like to turn down a road which it usually turns down. (None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism.)
The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists. He must also have some power of judging the present from the standpoint of values, and, since he cannot well be unaware that the status quo has its advocates, he must realize that there are at least two views which are possible for a sane human being. Moreover, he is not obliged to close his sympathies against the victims of existing cruelties, or to invent elaborate reasons to prove that easily preventable sufferings ought not to be prevented. Both intelligence and sympathy, therefore, tend to be less repressed by an education hostile to the status quo than by one which is friendly to it. )
To this, however, there are certain limitations. Hostility to the status quo may be derived from either of two sources : it may spring from sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate. If It springs from the latter, it involves just as much limitation of sympathy as is involved in conservatism. Many revolutionaries in their day-dreams are not so much concerned with the happiness that is to come to the common people as with the vengeance that they will be able to wreak upon the insolent holders of power from whom they are suffering in the present. On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organize themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary.