现代大学英语精读6 The One against Many

Every country, of course, has its distinctive development problems and must solve them according

to its own traditions, capacities, and values. The American experience was unique in a number of

ways. The country was blessed by notable advantages

—

above all, by the fact that population and

resources

was

obviously

not

the

only

factor

in

American

development.

Had

that

been

so,

the

Indians,

for

whom

the

ratio

was

even

more

favorable,

would

have

developed

the

country

long

before the first settlers arrived from over the seas. What mattered equally was the spirit in which

these settlers approached the economic and social challenges offered by the environment. Several

elements seemed fundamental to the philosophy which facilitated the rapid social and economic

development of the American continent.

One

factor

was

the

deep

faith

in

education.

The

belief

that

investment

in

people

is

the

most

essential way for a society to devote its resources existed from the earliest days of the American

colonies. It arose originally from a philosophical rather than an economic commitment

—

from a

faith in the dignity of man and from the resulting belief that it is the responsibility of society to

offer man the opportunity to develop his highest potentialities. But, at the same time, it also helped

produce the conditions essential to successful modernization.

Modern

industrial

society

must

be

above

all

a

literate

society.

Economic

historians

attribute

two-third

of

the

growth

in

American

output

over

the

centuries

of

American

development

to

increases on productivity. And increases in productivity, of course, come directly from the size of

national

investment

in

education

and

in

research.

J.

K.

Galbraith

had

rightly

observed

that

“a

dollar or a rupee invested in the intellectual improvement of human beings will regularly bring a

greater increase in national income than a dollar or a rupee devoted to railways, dams, machine

tools,

or

other

tangible

capital

goods.”

These

words

accurately

report

the

American

national

experience.

Another

factor

in

the

process

of

American

development

has

been

the

commitment

to

self-government and representative institutions. We have found no better way than democracy to

fulfill

man’s

talents

and

release

his

energies.

A

related

factor

had

been

the

conviction

of

th

e

importance

of

personal

freedom

and

personal

initiative

—

the

feeling

that

the

individual

is

the

source of creativity. Another has been the understanding of the role of cooperative activity, public

as well as voluntary.

But

fundamental

to

all

of

these,

and

perhaps

the

single

most

important

explanation

of

the

comparative

speed

of

American

development,

had

been

the

national

rejection

of

dogmatic

preconceptions

about

the

nature

of

the

social

and

economic

order.

America

has

had

the

good

fortune not to be an ideological society.

By ideology I mean a body of systematic and rigid dogma by which people seek to understand the

world

—

and

to

preserve

or

transform

in.

the

conflict

between

ideology

and

empiricism

has,

of

course, been old in human history. In the record of

this

conflict,

ideology

has

attracted

some

of

the

strongest

intelligences

mankind

has

produced

—those whom Sir Isaiah Berlin, termed the “hedgehogs”, who knows one big thing, as

against the “foxes”, who know many small things.

Nor

can

one

suggest

that

Americans

have

been

consistently

immune

to

the

ideological

temptation

—

to the temptation, that is, to define national goals in an ordered, comprehensive, and

permanent

way.

After

all,

the

American

mind

was

conditioned

by

one

of

the

noblest

and

most

formidable structures of analysis ever devised, Calvinist theology, and any intellect so shaped was

bound

to

have

certain

vulnerability

to

secular

ideology

ever

after.

There

have

been

hedgehogs

throughout American history who have attempted to endow America with an all-inclusive creed, to

translate Americanism into a set of binding propositions, and to construe the national tradition in

terms of one or another ultimate law.

Yet

most

of

the

time

Americans

have

foxily

mistrusted

abstract

rationalism

and

rigid

a

priori

doctrine. Our national faith has been not in propositions but in processes. In its finest hours, the

Unite States has, so to speak, risen above ideology. It has not permitted dogma to falsify reality,

imprison experience, or narrow the spectrum of choice. This skepticism about ideology has been a

primary source of the social inventiveness which has marked so much of development. The most

vital American social thought has been empirical, practical, pragmatic. America, in consequence,

has been at its most characteristic a nation of innovation and experiment.

Pragmatism

is

no

more

wholly

devoid

of

abstractions

than

ideology

is

wholly

devoid

of

experience. The dividing line comes when abstractions and experience collide and one must give

way

to

the

other.

At

this

point

the

pragmatist

rejects

abstractions

and,

the

ideologist

rejects

experience. The early history of the republic illustrates the difference. The American Revolution

was

a

pragmatic

effort

conducted

in

terms

of

certain

general

values.

The

colonists

fought

for

independence

in

terms

of

British

ideals

of

civil

freedom

and

representative

government;

they

rebelled against British rule essentially for British reasons. The ideals of American independence

found

expression

in

the

classical

documents

which

accompanied

the

birth

of

the

nation:

the

Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

But it is important here to insist on the distinction between ideals and ideology. Ideals refer to the

long-run goals of a nation and the spirit in which these goals are pursued. Ideology is something

different, more systematic, more detailed, more comprehensive, more dogmatic. The case of one

of

the

Founding

Fathers,

Thomas

Jefferson,

emphasizes

the

distinction.

Jefferson

was

an

expounder both of ideals and of ideology. As an expounder of ideals, he remains a vivid and fertile

figure

—

alive, not only for Americans but, I believe, for all those interested in human dignity and

human

liberty.

As

an

ideologist,

however,

Jefferson

is

today

remote

—

a

figure

not

of

present

concern but of historical curiosity. As an ideologist, he believe, for example, that agriculture was

the

only

basis

of

a

good

society;

that

the

small

freehold

system

was

the

only

foundation

for

freedom; that the honest and virtuous cultivator was the only reliable citizen for a democratic state;

that an economy based on agriculture was self-regulating and, therefore, required a minimum of

government; that that government was best which governed least; and that the great enemies of a

free state

were, on the one hand, urbanization, industry, banking, a landless working class, and on the other

hand,

a

strong

national

government

with

power

to

give

direction

to

national

development.

This

was Jefferson’s ideology, and had the United States responded to it,

we would be today a feeble

and impotent nation. By responding to Jefferson’s ideals rather than to his ideology, the United

States has become a strong modern state.

Fortunately,

Jefferson

himself

preferred

his

ideals

to

his

ideology.

In

case

of

conflict

he

chose