The word ‘education’ has sometimes been used in a very broad sense to designate the totality of influences that nature or other men are able to exercise either on our intelligence or on our will. It includes, says John Stuart Mill, ‘all that we ourselves do and all that others do for us to the end of bringing us closer to the perfection of our nature. In its most widely accepted sense, it includes even indirect effects on the character and faculties of men produced by things having quite a different objective: by laws, by forms of government, the industrial arts, and even by physical phenomena, independent of human will, such as climate, soil, and locality.’ But this definition includes elements that are quite disparate, and that one cannot combine under a single heading without confusion. The influence of things on men is very different, in their processes and effects, from that which comes from men themselves; and the influence of peers on peers differs from that which adults exercise on youth. It is only the latter that concerns us here, and, therefore, it is this meaning that it is convenient to reserve for the word ‘education.’
「教育」一詞有時被以非常廣泛的意義使用，以指自然或其他人對我們的智力或意誌所能施加的全部影響。約翰·斯圖爾特·密爾說，它包括「我們自己所做的一切以及別人為我們所做的一切，目的是讓我們更接近天性的完美」。從最廣為接受的意義上講，它包括具有完全不同目標的事物對人的性格和能力產生的甚至間接的影響：法律、政府形式、工業藝術，甚至是獨立於人類意志的物理現象，如氣候、土壤和地點。但這個定義包含了相當不同的元素，如果將它們歸入一個標題下，就會造成混淆。事物對人類的影響，就其過程和效果而言，與人類自身的影響非常不同；同儕對同儕的影響與成年人對青少年的影響不同。這裡我們只關心後者，因此，為「教育」一詞保留這個意義比較方便。
But what is the specific nature of this influence? Various answers have been given to this question; they can be divided into two main types.
但這種影響的具體性質是什麼？這個問題有各種各樣的答案；它們可以分為兩種主要類型。

Following Kant, ‘the end of education is to develop, in each individual, all the perfection of which he is capable.’ But what is meant by perfection? It is, as
根據康德的說法，“教育的目的在於發展每個人所能達到的完美境界。”但完美意味著什麼？正如
has often been said, the harmonious development of all the human faculties. To carry to the highest point that can be reached all the capacities that are in us, to realize them as completely as possible, without their interfering with one another, is not this an ideal beyond which there can be no other?
人們常說，人類所有能力的和諧發展。將我們身上的所有潛能發揮到極致，讓它們盡可能地充分發揮，互相之間不互相干擾，這難道不是一個無可超越的理想嗎？

But if, to a degree, this harmonious development is indeed necessary and desirable, it is not wholly attainable; for it is in contradiction to another rule of human behavior which is no less cogent: that which has us concentrate on a specific, limited task. We cannot and we must not all be devoted to the same kind of life; we have, according to our aptitudes, different functions to fulfill, and we must adapt ourselves to what we must do. We are not all made for reflection; there is need for men of feeling and of action. Conversely, there is need of those whose job is thinking. Now, thought can develop only in detachment from action, only by turning in upon itself, only by turning its object entirely away from overt action. From this comes a first differentiation which is accompanied by a break of equilibrium. And behavior, in turn, as thought, can take a variety of different and specialized forms. Doubtless this specialization does not exclude a certain common base and, consequently, a certain balance of functions, organic and psychic alike, without which the health of the individual would be endangered, as well as social cohesion. We see, thus, that perfect harmony cannot be presented as the final end of conduct and of education.
但如果從某種程度上來說，這種和諧的發展確實是必要的和可取的，那麼它就不可能完全實現；因為它與人類行為的另一條同樣有說服力的規則相矛盾：那就是讓我們集中精力於一項特定的、有限的任務。我們不能也不應該都致力於同一種生活；根據我們的能力，我們要履行不同的職責，我們必須適應我們必須做的事情。我們並非生來就適合反思；我們需要有感情、有行動的人。相反，需要那些從事思考工作的人。現在，思想只有脫離行動才能發展，只有透過內省，只有透過將其對象完全轉離明顯的行動才能發展。由此產生了第一次微分，並伴隨平衡的打破。反過來，行為就像思想一樣，可以採取各種不同的、特殊的形式。毫無疑問，這種專業化並不排除一定的共同基礎，因此也不排除一定的有機和心理功能平衡，如果沒有這些平衡，個人的健康和社會凝聚力就會受到危害。由此可見，完美的和諧不能被視為行為和教育的最終目的。

Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, from Education and Sociology by Émile Durkheim, translated by Sherwood D. Fox. Copyright © 1956 by The Free Press. Copyright © renewed 1984 by The Free Press. All rights reserved.
經西蒙與舒斯特成人出版集團旗下自由出版社許可，轉載自埃米爾·塗爾幹所著《教育與社會學》，由舍伍德·D·福克斯譯。版權所有 © 1956 自由出版社。版權所有 © 1984 年由自由出版社更新。版權所有。

Still less satisfactory is the utilitarian definition, according to which the objective of education would be to ‘make the individual an instrument of happiness for himself and for his fellows’ (James Mill); for happiness is an essentially subjective thing that each person appreciates in his own way. Such a formula, then, leaves the end of education undetermined and, therefore, education itself, since it is left to individual fancy. Spencer, to be sure, tried to define happiness objectively. For him, the conditions of happiness are those of life. Complete happiness is the complete life. But what is meant by life? If it is a matter of physical existence alone, one may well say: that without which it would be impossible; it implies, in effect, a certain equilibrium between the organism and its environment, and, since the two terms in relation are definable data, it must be the same with their relation. But one can express, in this way, only the most immediate vital necessities. Now, for man, and above all for the man of today, such a life is not life. We ask more of life than normal enough functioning of our organs. A cultivated mind prefers not to live rather than give up the joys of the intellect. Even from the material point of view alone, everything over and above what is strictly necessary cannot be exactly determined. The ‘standard of life,’ as the English say, the minimum below which it does not seem to us that we can consent to descend, varies infinitely according to conditions, milieux, and the times. What we found sufficient yesterday, today seems to us to be beneath the dignity of man, as we define it now, and everything leads us to believe that our needs in this connection grow increasingly.
更不能令人滿意的是功利主義的定義，根據該定義，教育的目的是「使個人成為自己和同伴幸福的工具」（詹姆斯·密爾）；因為幸福本質上是一種主觀的東西，每個人都有自己的欣賞方式。因此，這樣的公式使得教育的目的尚未確定，因此，教育本身也未確定，因為它取決於個人的想像。誠然，斯賓塞試圖客觀地定義幸福。對他來說，幸福的條件就是生活的條件。圓滿的幸福才是圓滿的人生。但生命的意義是什麼？如果僅僅涉及物理存在的問題，那麼人們可以說：沒有它，一切都是不可能的；它實際上意味著有機體與其環境之間的某種平衡，並且由於兩個相關術語是可定義的數據，因此它們的關係也必須相同。但透過這種方式，人們只能表達最直接的生存必需品。現在，對於人類，尤其是對於當今的人類來說，這樣的生活不是生活。我們對生命的要求遠高於器官正常運作的要求。有教養的人寧願不活，也不願放棄智力的樂趣。即使僅從物質角度來看，超出嚴格必要範圍的一切事物也不可能被精確地確定。正如英國人所說，「生活標準」是指我們不願低於的最低標準，它會隨著條件、環境和時代的不同而無限變化。昨天我們認為足夠的東西，今天在我們看來卻有損於我們現在所定義的人的尊嚴，而且一切都讓我們相信，我們在這方面的需求與日俱增。
We come here to the general criticism that all these definitions face. They assume that there is an ideal, perfect education, which applies to all men indiscriminately; and it is this education, universal and unique, that the theorist tries to define. But first, if history is taken into consideration, one finds in it nothing to confirm such an hypothesis. Education has varied infinitely in time and place. In the cities of Greece and Rome, education trained the individual to subordinate himself blindly to the collectivity, to become the creature of society. Today, it tries to make of the individual an autonomous personality. In Athens, they sought to form cultivated souls, informed, subtle, full of measure and harmony, capable of enjoying beauty and the
我們來談談所有這些定義所面臨的普遍批評。他們認為有一種理想的、完美的教育，它適用於所有人，不加區別；理論家試圖定義的正是這種普遍而獨特的教育。但首先，如果考慮歷史，就不會發現任何證據可以證實這樣的假設。教育隨著時間和地點的不同而改變。在希臘和羅馬的城市中，教育訓練個人盲目地服從集體，成為社會的產物。今天，它試圖使個人擁有自主的個性。在雅典，他們尋求培養有教養的靈魂，有學識，有洞察力，有分寸，有和諧，能夠享受美和
joys of pure speculation; in Rome, they wanted above all for children to become men of action, devoted to military glory, indifferent to letters and the arts. In the Middle Ages, education was above all Christian; in the Renaissance, it assumes a more lay and literary character; today science tends to assume the place in education formerly occupied by the arts. Can it be said, then, that the fact is not the ideal; that if education has varied, it is because men have mistaken what it should be? But if Roman education had been infused with an individualism comparable to ours, the Roman city would not have been able to maintain itself; Latin civilization would not have developed, nor, furthermore, our modern civilization, which is in part descended from it. The Christian societies of the Middle Ages would not have been able to survive if they had given to free inquiry the place that we give it today. There are, then, ineluctable necessities which it is impossible to disregard. Of what use is it to imagine a kind of education that would be fatal for the society that put it into practice?
純粹推測的樂趣；在羅馬，他們最希望的是讓孩子成為有行動力的人，致力於軍事榮耀，對文學和藝術不感興趣。在中世紀，教育首先是基督教的；在文藝復興時期，它具有了更世俗和文學的特徵；當今，科學正逐漸取代藝術在教育中的地位。那麼，是否可以說事實並非理想？如果教育發生了變化，那是因為人們誤解了教育應有的樣子？但如果羅馬教育中註入了與我們類似的個人主義，羅馬城就無法維持下去；拉丁文明不會發展，部分源自拉丁文明的現代文明也不會發展。如果中世紀的基督教社會給予自由探究我們今天所賦予的地位，那麼它們將無法生存下去。因此，存在著不可避免的、不可能被忽視的必要性。想像一種對實施它的社會來說是致命的教育有什麼用呢？
This assumption, so doubtful, in itself rests on a more general mistake. If one begins by asking, thus, what an ideal education must be, abstracted from conditions of time and place, it is to admit implicitly that a system of education has no reality in itself. One does not see in education a collection of practices and institutions that have been organized slowly in the course of time, which are comparable with all the other social institutions and which express them, and which, therefore, can no more be changed at will than the structure of the society itself. But it seems that this would be a pure system of a priori concepts; under this heading it appears to be a logical construct. One imagines that men of each age organize it voluntarily to realize a determined end; that, if this organization is not everywhere the same, it is because mistakes have been made concerning either the end that it is to pursue or the means of attaining it. From this point of view, educational systems of the past appear as so many errors, total or partial. No attention need be paid to them, therefore; we do not have to associate ourselves with the faulty observation or logic of our predecessors; but we can and must pose the question without concerning ourselves with solutions that have been given, that is to say, leaving
這種非常值得懷疑的假設本身就是基於一個更普遍的錯誤。因此，如果我們先問，脫離時間和地點的條件，理想的教育應該是什麼樣子，那就等於承認教育體系本身並不現實。在教育中，我們看不到隨著時間的推移而慢慢組織起來的一系列實踐和製度，這些制度與所有其他社會制度相媲美並體現了這些制度，因此，它們就像社會結構本身一樣，不能隨意改變。但這似乎是一個純粹的先驗概念系統；在這個標題下，它似乎是一個合乎邏輯的構造。人們可以想像，各個時代的人們都會自願組織起來，以實現一個既定的目標；如果這個組織並非處處相同，那是因為它在追求的目標或實現目標的手段上犯了錯誤。從這個角度來看，過去的教育體系存在著許多錯誤，無論是全部的還是部分的。因此，無需關注它們；我們不必與前人的錯誤觀察或邏輯連結；但我們可以而且必須提出問題，而不去關心已經給出的解決方案，也就是說，
aside everything that has been, we have only to ask ourselves what should be. The lessons of history can, moreover, serve to prevent us from repeating the errors that have been committed.
拋開已經發生的一切，我們只需問自己應該發生什麼事。此外，歷史的教訓可以防止我們重複曾經犯過的錯誤。

In fact, however, each society, considered at a given stage of development, has a system of education which exercises an irresistible influence on individuals. It is idle to think that we can rear our children as we wish. There are customs to which we are bound to conform; if we flout them too severely, they take their vengeance on our children. The children, when they are adults, are unable to live with their peers, with whom they are not in accord. Whether they had been raised in accordance with ideas that were either obsolete or premature does not matter; in the one case as in the other, they are not of their time and, therefore, they are outside the conditions of normal life. There is, then, in each period, a prevailing type of education from which we cannot deviate without encountering that lively resistance which restrains the fancies of dissent.
但事實上，每個社會在特定的發展階段，都有一套對個人產生不可抗拒影響的教育體系。認為我們可以按照自己的意願養育孩子是毫無意義的。有些習俗我們必須遵守；如果我們過於嚴重地藐視他們，他們就會對我們的孩子進行報復。這些孩子成年後無法與自己不合群的同儕一起生活。無論他們是否是在過時或不成熟的觀念下長大的，都無關緊要；無論在哪種情況下，他們都不是他們的時代的人，因此，他們不符合正常生活的條件。因此，在每個時期都存在著一種主導的教育類型，如果我們偏離這種教育類型，就會遭遇強烈的抵制，從而抑制異議的產生。

Now, it is not we as individuals who have created the customs and ideas that determine this type. They are the product of a common life, and they express its needs. They are, moreover, in large part the work of preceding generations. The entire human past has contributed to the formation of this totality of maxims that guide education today; our entire history has left its traces in it, and even the history of the peoples who have come before. It is thus that the higher organisms carry in themselves the reflection of the whole biological evolution of which they are the end product. Historical investigation of the formation and development of systems of education reveals that they depend upon religion, political organization, the degree of development of science, the state of industry, etc. If they are considered apart from all these historic causes, they become incomprehensible. Thus, how can the individual pretend to reconstruct, through his own private reflection, what is not a work of individual thought? He is not confronted with a tabula rasa on which he can write what he wants, but with existing realities which he cannot create, or destroy, or transform, at will. He can act on them only to the extent that he has learned to understand them, to know their nature and the conditions on which they depend; and he can understand them only if he studies them, only if
現在，並不是我們個人創造了決定這種類型的風俗和觀念。它們是共同生活的產物，並表達了共同生活的需求。此外，它們很大一部分是前幾代人的成果。整個人類的過去都為指導當今教育的這套格言的形成做出了貢獻；我們的整個歷史，甚至前人的歷史都留下了痕跡。因此，高等生物本身體現了整個生物演化的過程，而它們正是整個生物演化的最終產物。對教育體系的形成和發展的歷史考察表明，它們取決於宗教、政治組織、科學發展程度、工業狀況等。因此，個人怎麼能假裝透過他自己的私人反思來重建那些不是個人思想的作品呢？他所面對的並不是一塊可以隨心所欲書寫的白板，而是現有的現實，他無法隨意創造、毀滅或改變。他只有在學會理解這些事物、了解它們的性質及其所依賴的條件的範圍內才能對它們採取行動；他只有研究它們才能理解它們，只有
he starts by observing them, as the physicist observes inanimate matter and the biologist, living bodies.
他首先觀察它們，就像物理學家觀察無生命物質、生物學家觀察生物體一樣。

Besides, how else to proceed? When one wants to determine by dialectics alone what education should be, it is necessary to begin by asking what objectives it must have. But what is it that allows us to say that education has certain ends rather than others? We do not know a priori what is the function of respiration or of circulation in a living being. By what right would we be more well informed concerning the educational function? It will be said in reply that from all the evidence, its object is the training of children. But this is posing the problem in slightly different terms; it does not resolve it. It would be necessary to say of what this training consists, what its direction is, what human needs it satisfies. Now, one can answer these questions only by beginning with observation of what it has consisted of, what needs it has satisfied in the past. Thus, it appears that to establish the preliminary notion of education, to determine what is so called, historical observation is indispensable.
除此之外，還能怎麼辦呢？當人們想僅僅透過辯證法來確定教育應該是什麼時，首先要問的是教育必須有什麼目標。但是，什麼使得我們可以說教育有某些目的而非其他目的呢？我們無法先驗地知道生物體的呼吸或循環功能是什麼。我們有什麼權利更清楚地了解教育功能？回答者會說，從所有證據來看，其目的是為了訓練兒童。但這是以稍微不同的方式提出問題的；它不能解決問題。有必要說一下這種訓練包含什麼，它的方向是什麼，它滿足了人類的哪些需求。現在，人們只有先觀察它由什麼組成，以及它過去滿足了哪些需求，才能回答這些問題。由此看來，要建立初步的教育觀念，要確定所謂的歷史觀察，是不可或缺的。

To define education we must, then, consider educational systems, present and past, put them together, and abstract the characteristics which are common to them. These characteristics will constitute the definition that we seek.
為了定義教育，我們必須考慮現在和過去的教育體系，將它們放在一起，並抽像出它們的共同特徵。這些特徵將構成我們所尋求的定義。

We have already determined, along the way, two elements. In order that there be education, there must be a generation of adults and one of youth, in interaction, and an influence exercised by the first on the second. It remains for us to define the nature of this influence.
在這個過程中，我們已經確定了兩個要素。為了進行教育，必須有一代成年人和一代年輕人的互動，第一代對第二代產生影響。我們還需要定義這種影響的性質。

There is, so to speak, no society in which the system of education does not present a twofold aspect: it is at the same time one and manifold.
可以這麼說，沒有一個社會的教育體係不呈現雙重面貌：它既是單一的，又是多元的。

It is manifold. Indeed, in one sense, it can be said that there are as many different kinds of education as there are different milieux in a given society. Is such a society formed of castes? Education varies from one caste to another; that of the patricians was not that of the plebeians; that of the Brahman was not that of the Sudra. Similarly, in the Middle Ages, what a difference between the culture that the young page
它是多方面的。事實上，從某種意義上來說，我們可以說，一個社會中有多少種不同的環境，就有多少種不同的教育。這樣的社會是由種姓組成的嗎？不同種姓的教育程度存在差異；貴族的道德觀不同於平民的道德觀。婆羅門的道德觀與首陀羅的道德觀不同。同樣，在中世紀，年輕侍從的文化與