American society--All for one?

Robert Putnam and Michael Sandel diagnose America

Mr Sandel’s focus is tighter. His target is meritocratic society and the ideal it aims to realise, equality of opportunity. For true?egalitarians, who want fairer outcomes, a uniform starting line has always seemed a fudge. To some rugged?conservatives, promising equal opportunity is necessary lip-service?to?unmeetable?popular demands. Mr Sandel, a political philosopher, ends up on the fence. He is not an out-and-out?egalitarian, but nor does he dismiss hopes for some degree of genuine civic equality.

Egalitarian??adj. /i?ɡ?l??te?ri?n/?主張人人平等的；平等主義的

fudge /f?d?/ ?1.法奇軟糖，乳脂軟糖（用糖、黃油和牛奶制成）；2.?a fudge?敷衍，裝模作樣（沒有真正解決問題）動(dòng)詞：~ (on) sth 含糊其辭；回避??Politicians are often very clever at fudging the issue . 從政者都常常巧妙地回避問題。

Rugged??adj. /?r?ɡ?d/ ?1.(地形) 崎嶇的；凹凸不平的；多巖石的??rugged cliffs 巖石突兀的懸崖絕壁；2.(男人的臉 ) 強(qiáng)健而富有魅力的；粗獷的?3.(人) 堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的；堅(jiān)毅的??a rugged individualist 堅(jiān)定的個(gè)人主義者?4.(設(shè)備、衣服等 ) 結(jié)實(shí)的；耐用的

lip-service?空口的應(yīng)酬話；口惠? ? ? ?Unmeetable??adj. 難以達(dá)到的，無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的

out-and-out ?/?a?t ?n ?a?t/ 十足的；完全的；徹頭徹尾的?? What she said was an out-and-out lie. 她說的是個(gè)彌天大謊。

on the fence?保持中立；抱觀望態(tài)度

He recognises that gauges of performance and success often measure the wrong things or measure the right things badly. His critique of over-reliance?on paper credentials in hiring and university placements is telling. (Similar flaws of ranking mania?in medicine, policing, schooling and the armed forces were expertly exposed in Jerry Muller ‘s?”?The?Tyranny of Metrics”.) Mr Sandel’s larger concern, however, is not whether achievement is properly calibrated but whether its rewards are rightly merited.?As he says, that ethical question runs back to theological disputes about the arbitrariness or earnability?of God’s grace. These days, free-marketeers and?redistributionists tussle over whether and how to offset the lottery of talent and energy that underlies supposedly merited rewards.

critique ?/kr??ti?k/ n. 批評(píng)；評(píng)論文章?vt. 批判；評(píng)論

over-reliance??/??v?r??la??ns/過度信賴? ? ? ? ??paper credential：紙質(zhì)憑證

Tyranny ?n. /?t?r?ni/ ?

1.暴虐；專橫；苛政；專政??The children had no protection against the tyranny of their father. 孩子們無法抵御其父的虐待。?the tyrannies of Nazi rule 納粹統(tǒng)治的暴行 2.暴君統(tǒng)治；暴君統(tǒng)治的國家

Mania ?/?me?ni?/ ?1.~ (for sth/for doing sth)（通常指許多人共有的）強(qiáng)烈的欲望，狂熱，極大的熱情??He had a mania for fast cars. 他是個(gè)飛車狂。2. 躁狂癥

Flaw??n. /fl??/ ?1.~ (in sth) 錯(cuò)誤；缺點(diǎn)???The argument is full of fundamental flaws. 這段論述充滿根本性的錯(cuò)誤。2.~ (in sth)??裂痕；裂隙；瑕疵?3.~ (in sb/sth)（性格上的）弱點(diǎn)，缺點(diǎn)??There is always a flaw in the character of a tragic hero. 悲劇主角總有性格上的缺點(diǎn)。

calibrate v. ??/?k?l?bre?t/ ?標(biāo)定，校準(zhǔn)（刻度，以使測量準(zhǔn)確）

theological /?θi???l?d??kl/ adj. 神學(xué)的，神學(xué)上的

arbitrariness /?ɑ?b?tr?rin?s; ?ɑ?b?trin?s/ ?n. 任意，恣意；專斷；霸道

redistributionist? 財(cái)富重分論者，福利國家鼓吹者

tussle ?/?t?sl/ 名詞：?~ (for/over sth) 扭打，爭斗，爭執(zhí)（尤指為了爭得物品）?He was injured during a tussle for the ball. 他在爭球時(shí)受了傷。動(dòng)詞：?扭打，爭斗（尤指為了爭奪物品）??The children were tussling with one another for the ball. 孩子們在你搶我奪地爭球。

Like Mr Putnam’s, the solutions Mr Sandel suggests call for profound changes in?prevailing?attitudes: acknowledgment of luck in the?share-out?of rewards, recognition that all work has dignity, new commitment to the public good, and readiness to argue such matters out in a healthier, more deliberative democracy. A sceptic may share the pair’s concerns about American society yet wonder if, in such a?vigorously?competitive, capitalist place, those profound changes in thinking are probable.And whether, given how long the arguments over unmerited disadvantage have lasted, they are likely to end soon.

Profound?/pr??fa?nd/ adj. 深厚的；意義深遠(yuǎn)的；淵博的

Prevailing??adj. /pr??ve?l??/??1.普遍的；盛行的；流行的??the prevailing economic conditions 普遍的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況 2.（指風(fēng)）一地區(qū)常刮的，盛行的

share-out?分配，分?jǐn)? ? ? ? ? ? ?sceptic ?/?skept?k/慣持懷疑態(tài)度的人；懷疑論者

vigorously /?v?ɡ?r?sli/?adv. 精神旺盛地，活潑地

譯文

Mr Sandel’s focus is tighter. His target is meritocratic society and the ideal it aims to realise, equality of opportunity. For true?egalitarians, who want fairer outcomes, a uniform starting line has always seemed a?fudge. To some?rugged?conservatives, promising equal opportunity is necessary?lip-service?to?unmeetable?popular demands. Mr Sandel, a political philosopher, ends up?on the fence. He is not an?out-and-out?egalitarian, but nor does he dismiss hopes for some degree of genuine civic equality.

Sandel先生關(guān)注領(lǐng)域相對(duì)窄一些。他關(guān)注精英社會(huì)及其理想--機(jī)會(huì)公平。對(duì)于追求更公平結(jié)果的真正平均主義者來說，統(tǒng)一的起跑線就是敷衍做法。對(duì)于堅(jiān)定的保守派來說，承諾機(jī)會(huì)平等是針對(duì)無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的大眾需求必要的口頭支票。Sandel先生作為一位政治哲學(xué)家最終持觀望態(tài)度。雖然他不是徹底的平均主義者，但他也希望實(shí)現(xiàn)某種程度上的真正公民平等。

He recognises that gauges of performance and success often measure the wrong things or measure the right things badly. His?critique?of?over-reliance?on?paper credentials?in hiring and university placements is telling. (Similar?flaws?of ranking?mania?in medicine, policing, schooling and the armed forces were expertly exposed in Jerry Muller?‘s?”?The?Tyranny?of Metrics”.) Mr Sandel’s larger concern, however, is not whether achievement is properly?calibrated?but whether its rewards are rightly merited.?As he says, that ethical question runs back to?theological?disputes about the?arbitrariness?or?earnability?of God’s grace. These days, free-marketeers and?redistributionists tussle?over whether and how to offset the lottery of talent and energy that underlies supposedly merited rewards.

他意識(shí)到用績效和成就的衡量尺度衡量好壞事物結(jié)果很差。他對(duì)雇傭和大學(xué)中過度依賴紙質(zhì)憑證的批判很能說明他的觀點(diǎn)。相似的問題也體現(xiàn)在醫(yī)療、治安、教育與武裝力量的排名狂熱，被Jerry Muller?在《指標(biāo)陷阱》中一針見血地揭露。Sandel先生更關(guān)注的不是成就是否被妥善校準(zhǔn)，而是其回報(bào)是否應(yīng)得。如同他所說，這個(gè)倫理道德問題可追溯到神學(xué)關(guān)于上帝恩典的任意性或可獲利性的分歧?，F(xiàn)今，自由市場主義者與財(cái)富再分配主義者為是否及如何抵消才能與精力的天生性差異。而這種運(yùn)氣因素是應(yīng)得收益的基礎(chǔ)。

Like Mr Putnam’s, the solutions Mr Sandel suggests call for?profound?changes in?prevailing?attitudes: acknowledgment of luck in the?share-out?of rewards, recognition that all work has dignity, new commitment to the public good, and readiness to argue such matters out in a healthier, more deliberative democracy. A?sceptic?may share the pair’s concerns about American society yet wonder if, in such a?vigorously?competitive, capitalist place, those profound changes in thinking are probable.And whether, given how long the arguments over unmerited disadvantage have lasted, they are likely to end soon.

如同?Putnam一樣，?Sandel先生解決方案是當(dāng)前社會(huì)的普遍觀念需要一次深遠(yuǎn)的改變：承認(rèn)分配財(cái)富時(shí)存在運(yùn)氣，承認(rèn)所有工作都有尊嚴(yán)，對(duì)公眾利益作出新承諾，并準(zhǔn)備在一個(gè)更健康，更慎重的民主制度下討論這些問題。一位懷疑論者可能與這兩位學(xué)者一樣擔(dān)憂美國社會(huì)，也在好奇在這樣競爭激烈，資本主義發(fā)達(dá)的地方，這些深遠(yuǎn)的思想變革會(huì)發(fā)生嗎？而且，關(guān)于“不當(dāng)劣勢”已經(jīng)爭論很長時(shí)間，不知道能否很快結(jié)束。

經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人11月刊