我們如何教經濟學： 以翻譯《大家的經濟學》所作的抉擇及翻譯理論實踐為例

全文： http://www.taiwantati.org/?p=4292

我們如何教經濟學：
以翻譯《大家的經濟學》所作的抉擇及翻譯理論實踐為例

How We Teach Economics:

Choices Made in Translating Lessons for the Young Economist,

or A Practical Example of Translation Theory

游懿萱

Jennifer Yi-hsuan You

國立師範大學翻譯研究所博士生

PhD Student, Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University.

陳宗佑

Hasting Genan Chen

游藝文化事業有限公司執行長

Chief Executive, L’Atelier Culture and Publishing Co., Ltd.

grisgriz@gmail.com

摘要

本文作者根據其執導教科書翻譯出版計畫的實務經驗，分析經濟學（作為翻譯的實質內容及計畫之指導方針）和翻譯功能理論兩者如何共同建立翻譯計畫的戰略目標，亦即如何用經濟學教育讀者，並激勵讀者以經濟思維思考並採取行動。作者接著討論翻譯理論（如萊斯 (Reiss) 的文本類型與奈達 (Nida) 之功能對等）與經濟學理論如何協助編輯作出翻譯戰術之抉擇，包括譯註、上下文關係、句構、專有名詞等，以實現翻譯計畫之具體戰略目標，進而提升成書譯文品質。在證明了上述論題之後，本論文不僅闡明實體內容對譯者（及編輯）的幫助，更證實了翻譯理論在翻譯實務中的價值。觀諸這些因素，作者呼籲諸位譯者與學者應共同提升人類的知識，以催生更為自由與繁榮的社會。

關鍵詞：翻譯實務、經濟學、編輯於翻譯的角色、翻譯功能（目的）理論、功能對等

Abstract

Based on practical experience in directing a translation–publication project of an introductory textbook in economics, the authors analyze how economics (both as substantive content and guiding principle for action) and skopos theory in translation come together to set up the strategic objectives for the project, namely, to educate the readers with economics and to motivate them into thinking and acting economically. The authors then discuss how their tactical choices in translation (involving annotation, contextual consideration, sentence structure, and even technical terms), informed by translation theory (including Reiss’s text typology and Nida’s functional equivalence) and detailed economic theory, materialize the strategic objectives for the project and enhance the quality of translation in the final product. With these two propositions positively demonstrated, the paper not only attests that knowledge in the substantive content offers great help for the translators (and editors) in translation, but also testifies to the tremendous value of translation theory in actual practice of translation. Finally, the authors appeal for the necessary participation from fellow translators and researchers to advance human knowledge, so as to bring forth a freer and more prosperous society.

Keywords: translation in practice, economics, editor’s role in translation, skopos theory, functional equivalence.

首屆國中會考分發有感

刊於 自由貿易讀書會

什麼是自由貿易？首屆國中會考分發有感

昨天笑話講完了，今天給大家一點正經的，但希望大家覺得不會無聊。既然這個讀書會的主題叫做「自由貿易」，我們最起碼應該訓練我們對「自由」與「貿易」兩個概念的基本素養。於是，我會找一些符合時事的例子，跟大家闡述。

近日，最大的新聞就是首屆十二年國教與國中會考，但升學制度改來改去，真不知道我們教育官員比較在乎教育的主體或學生，還是他們掌握的教育體制？表面上要降低壓力，但制度設計執行完全不透明也不確定（這跟大家批評服貿黑箱不是很像嗎？），反而讓大家無所適從，壓力更大。除此以外，志願序列入計分的制度設計，更箝制了學生及其家長按其個別條件選擇的自由（Freedom to Choose）。教育部長竟還可因此好大喜功，宣稱「第一志願錄取率62.86%，前三志願錄取率83.97%」云云，殊不知他們奇怪扭曲的制度設計正是造成學生如此填寫志願的始作俑者。套一句今天常出現的句型照樣造句一番，這不是掩耳盜鈴、粉飾太平，你告訴我什麼才是掩耳盜鈴、粉飾太平？

我大膽預測，教育主管機構還得再改下去（畢竟改革是門好生意），使得未來學校體系下學生的教育與知識水準更為低落，屆時（我們）為人師表與家長者勢必得追根究柢，重新思索教育的本質是什麼，進而為學生提供實質有益的幫助。（實不相瞞，個人創立游藝文化的終極目的，就是建立一個足以替代現有學校制度的教育模式。）

因此，最後在這邊跟大家分享一則影片，跟大家闡述學校這個大家習以為常的「教育制度」其實與教育或其目的背道而馳。個人以為，教育真正的核心是自由，按各個人（才智、物質、環境等）的不同條件，讓學生發揮己長，頂多再加一些生活必須的基本知識與技能（中文聽說讀寫、算數、粗淺的經濟學、哲學、財會、食衣住行相關的技能）就足夠了。

而讓每個人發揮己長，不是教育最基本的目的嗎？這不就是自由？

而讓許多人在一起，人人以自己的長處，分工合作，相互取他人之長，補個人之短，不就是貿易的基礎嗎？

（P.S. 再強調一次，今日政府與許多人講的自由貿易或相關名詞(WTO, FTA)，其實不是自由貿易，反而是管制貿易 managed trade。這不僅與自由貿易相差甚遠，還扭曲自由貿易的本意，讓這個人類文明最重要的概念蒙受太多不白之冤。之後有時間會跟大家講講兩者的重大差異。）

Challenges Facing Today’s Leaders: A Shakespearean Perspective

A Talk Delivered at the Pre-Conference Session for the Inaugural Conference of the Asian Shakespeare Association on 15th May 2014.

1. My name is Hasting Chen. Along with my wife, who should be sitting somewhere in the audience, I started a humble publishing company. It is my tremendous honor and pleasure today to be here revisiting my love for literature, especially in the very place where I was first exposed to this wonderful subject of study. After so many years in and out of academia, though not being able to show off “Pride, pomp, and circumstance” before you, Shakespeare remains one of my favorite topics in literature. However, I need to find a way relating Shakespeare to my readers, which in economic terms serves as the emerging market of literature.

2.  In other words, I need to ask a difficult question, namely, “Why do we scholars foreign to the English soil study Shakespeare, and in the meantime ask our students to do the same?” 

3. Should there be doubt on my true intention asking the question, let me clarify myself, with Shakespeare of course, and say

“Be not offended. 

I speak not as in absolute fear of you.

I think our country sinks beneath the yoke;
It weeps, it bleeds; and each new day a gash
Is added to her wounds.” (Macbeth 4.3)

4. As the recent student protests suggest, “something is rotten in Denmark” (Hamlet). Love it or loath it, but our young men and women have genuine reasons demanding political reforms, and I am overall impressed with what they do.

5. That being said, demagoguery is always a threat in democracy. Are the student leaders or political figures “honorable men” restoring law and order to the Republic? Or are they, like Jack Cade in Henry VI, rather like “the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant.” In this turbulent time, have we proponents of literature sufficiently prepared our students (and future leaders) for the challenges they will have to face? 

6. Paul A. Cantor, in my opinion the greatest living literary critic, says “[m]ost people come to literature because they are trying to learn something about the world. They are interested in important questions of economics and politics.” 

Also, known for his Closing of American Mind, political scientist Allan Bloom further claims that “the proper functions of [Shakespeare] criticism are … to recover [his] teachings and to be the agent of his ever continuing education of the Anglo-Saxon world.”

7. To transpose such thoughts in view of the students under our care, I would thus say the task of teachers in higher education are

1. To Fashion Qualified Individual Men and Women into Ladies and Gentlemen (or Thinking Human Beings), and
2. To Foster Leaders in the Society

In other words, other than holding Victorian ideas concerning education, I believe there are political implications for what we do, and we can only neglect them at our own peril. Before an audience as distinguished as this one, I do not need to enumerate how Shakespeare may contribute to both aims in bringing forth future well-educated leaders in the society. However, in my opinion, with its disciplinary focus in this keenly competitive world, literary studies, I am afraid, has so deviated from those aims that students may not learn the things vital to their development as they should. 

8. To exemplify what I mean, let me demonstrate with Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy.

Comprising Richard II, two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V, the series of plays in a nutshell depicts the development of Hal (and later Henry V) as a young leader of a nation. One could even say they are not too different from a bildungsroman.

Just as nothing comes from nothing, a dictum we know almost too well from King Lear. To know how a character comes into being one needs to see the background he is born into. In retrospect, one can say Shakespeare uses at least a whole play just portraying such troublesome background which Hal and later Henry V must cope with and find solutions to.

9.  Richard II begins with Henry Bolingbroke, Hal’s father, who will become Henry IV before the play ends, accuses Mowbray of murdering Gloucester. Unable to calm Bolingbroke and Mowbray, King Richard agrees to have the two men challenge each other to a duel. However, even before the duel begins Richard intervenes and banishes both into exile, a clear obstruction of justice and of rule of law.

10. Similarly, last year in Taiwan a young private died from abuse in mandatory military service, resulting public concern and outrage. Although the president is no by means personally responsible for the live lost, but he, being Commander-in-Chief as well as SJD from Harvard, has apparently not done the homework when talking to the victim’s family. 

11. Politically, Richard is also a disaster. In his deathbed, John of Gaunt cautioned Richard for having “A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown, / Whose compass is no bigger than thy head.” Such criticism of nepotism is exactly the same outcry we hear for our incumbent president of this isle. 

12. In other words, rather than recruiting and retaining a group of advisors who are willing to confront the present administration or its policies, he surrounds himself with a court of adherents who care more about their own interests than about the people they actually serve.

13. More importantly, Richard is economically inept. Living beyond his means, the King, according to John of Gaunt, “[He] tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:
Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.” 

In modern economic parlance, this is deficit spending, a common fact that we citizens are forced to live with in view of our insatiable governments who just like Richard refuse to live within their means.

14. As a result, England, a land that was once known for its “Christian service and true chivalry,” now becomes a means to profit for the king, who has no idea of sanctity or respect attached to his title. Thus, Gaunt scolded the King:

Why, cousin, wert thou regent of the world,
It were a shame to let this land by lease;
But for thy world enjoying but this land,
Is it not more than shame to shame it so?
Landlord of England art thou now, not king,
Thy state of law is bondslave to the law.

Same thing could and should be said of the sale and lease (in the name of 國有資產活化) of our public properties and infrastructure, 

15. as such transaction denigrates the economic state or the moral standing of our central and local governments, but also brings them closer to powerful businesses, feeding further favoritism and widening the gap between the governments and the people they purportedly serve. Hence the student and popular revolt in March and April.

16. Most egregiously, Richard intends to seize all property of Gaunt’s and deny Bolingbroke’s right to inherit his estates, in order to fund his Irish campaign.

When he does, Richard not only undermines the very principle by which he gets to be King, (just as York says “For how art thou a king / But by fair sequence and succession?”) but also for this reason he forces his subjects and York to rebel against him. As we can see throughout the rest of Second Tetralogy, rebellion has its tremendous repercussions.

17. After detailing judicial, political, and economical failure of Richard, I am going to briefly review how Hal or Henry V rises to such occasion. Despite his many critics, Hal remains in my opinion a worthy figure to look up to, if not a subject of emulation.

For example, in solving the judicial and political problem aforementioned, Henry V not only turns away from Falstaff, who wrongly thinks “the laws of England are at my commandment,” but also reconciles with Lord Chief Justice, saying “My voice shall sound as you do prompt my ear / And I will stoop and humble my intents / To your well-practiced wise decision.” One may claim Henry V aligns himself with the establishment to secure his rule, but can anyone seriously hope Henry to rule well while hanging out with someone who have no regard for rule of law? 

18. Moreover, in order to make an informed decision, a leader has to embrace reasoned opposition and sometimes even to dispense with old friends who may just turn out to be more concerned with their own benefits.

19. Particularly germane to our time, with the loss of legal succession, every king that follows, though not democratically elected, must somehow show his worth before his subjects. This is portrayed most clearly in Act 5 Scene 2 of Richard II, when York in an epic-like metadramatic simile speaks of the people seeing Richard after newly-crowned Henry IV:

As in a theatre, the eyes of men,
After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent on him that enters next,
Thinking his prattle to be tedious;
Even so, or with much more contempt, men's eyes
Did scowl on gentle Richard. 

20. (And alas, they do on our present administration!) Rather than just showing his worth as Henry IV does by maintaining a “presence, like a robe pontifical, / Ne’er seen but wondered at”, Hal ups the ante by knowing his people and learning to speak their language firsthand, a skill he later uses in a common soldier’s clothes at the eve of the Battle. Though speaking in prose, Henry V still tells the official story as it is:

The king is not bound to answer the particular endings

of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master

of his servant, for they purpose not their death when

they purpose their services.

21. By studying this and other metadramatic scenes, one not only sees how Shakespeare furthers his own thespian agenda by staging the important historical events in his simple stage or “wooden O.” Furthermore, with such agenda one can even say (with or without some cynicism) that a leader must be an actor, as when Henry V asks his solider to become a beast when the situation requires.

In peace, there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility,

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger:

Stiffen the sinews, conjure up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage.

Philosophically, as Bertrand Russell beautifully states in his famous History of Western Philosophy, such appearance is actually real, and the dichotomy between appearance and reality (or idea) cannot have the importance attributed by Plato.

23. One may of course say Henry V’s argument and method are self-serving and uncaring, especially in view of the lust for power underlying the whole French campaign, but a leader of any group of people has to make hard decision to achieve certain aim, sometimes in spite of their well-being. Nevertheless, the leader has to take all the blame, deservingly or not, a burden Henry V realizes all too well when alone recounting his talk with his soldiers

“Upon the king! “Let us our lives, our souls,

Our debts, our careful wives,
Our children, and our sins lay on the king.”

We must bear all.”

24. We have only scratched the surface of my topic. However, I do pray you, my fellow ladies and gentlemen, realize that we are in our capacity the leaders of our society, and with this realization take up the burden having our students and fellow human beings understand the tremendous value in Shakespeare, who is after all, as Ben Jonson says, “not of an age, but for all times.” 

25. I look forward to working with you for that aim, so as to bring the Bard to all readers as well. Thank you very much.

良好領導者的條件

品行端正 樂觀進取

體格強健 精力充沛

思慮清晰 學識富足

果敢堅決 不失變通

忠心耿耿 敢言諫諍

察納雅言 排讒除佞

注重團隊 珍視個人

尊師重道 提攜後進

人格

品行端正：領導者須對客戶（利害關係人）、員工（機構同仁）、及股東（民眾）負責，故須秉持誠信，方能不負所托，擔當重任，並為部屬良好之學習模範。

樂觀進取：領導者必須因應預期以外的情形，故需秉持正面的態度，才能面對如此嚴峻挑戰，於重重困難與阻礙中勇往直前。

生理

體格強健：有再強悍的心智，若無健康的身體，也必然落空。領導者因此必須具備良好體能，為迎接挑戰做好準備。

精力充沛：建立良好體能的目的，即在於擁有強盛的意志，才能鼓舞他人，達成絕佳執行效率。

智識

思慮清晰：領導者的首要任務即在於思考，別無其他。有清晰的邏輯概念，才有健全的決策；若無好的決策，執行力便只是空談。

學識富足：除仰賴邏輯以外，領導者還需有良好的教育，更要願意持續吸收各種領域之知識，不僅能為其決策奠定堅實的學理基礎，也才能為他人解說決策理由及根據。

性格

果敢堅決：有了健全的決策，領導者行事自應當無所畏懼，不僅為其決策負責，也才能使部屬有信心，盡心盡力達成使命。

不失變通：除此以外，領導者應隨時觀察動態，監督決策之執行，並於實際執行時作修正，切勿因一己私利或意氣之爭，而偏離決策方針，進而傷害其意旨。

對上

忠心耿耿：領導者受客戶及全體股東（民眾）託付，自當盡心盡力，別無二心，切勿因一己之私勾結他人，反而須知上行下效之理，方能維繫組織健全。

敢言諫諍：除受人之託，忠人之事外，領導者尚需能直言諫諍，無畏強權威脅利誘，進而達成實事求是的嚴肅討論，並確實將討論結果付諸實行。

待下

察納雅言：既要他人聽取個人意見，領導者自當以身作則，接納不同意見，並於審慎考慮後採納之。

排讒除佞：領導者動見觀瞻，一舉一動均影響深遠，故應盡一切力量排拒無端誹謗，以免戕害忠良，斲傷組織健全。除此以外，領導者更須鏟除阿諛奉承之人，方能招徠賢德之士，使其願意貢獻所能，強化組織健全。

用人

注重團隊：有再好的決策，也須許多人齊心協力，才能發揮效果。領導者應體認這點，重視團隊分工合作，方能發揮最大效益。

珍視個人：除關注決策執行，領導者更必須認識到每一個人都是團體中的一份子，洞悉其長處及缺點，並以此適度調整計畫，方能使各人適得其所，進而孕育傑出人才，使決策更為完善。

承啟

尊師重道：領導者須知其權威乃是前人胼手胝足的結果，故應以崇敬的態度面對其職位，並認識自己正承接著大於個人的名器，而非掌控一件可任憑個人處置的私有財產。因此，領導者應時常回顧前人經驗，並歸納為道德訓示，時時警醒自己。

提攜後進：同時，領導者更須知自己的生命有限，而組織的永續發展必須仰賴新血的加入及良好的繼任人選與計畫。是故，領導者必須貢獻己力於培養人材，不僅需傾囊相授，激發後進無限之潛能，尚需以此引發討論，使組織能與時俱進，不致與現實脫節。

服貿與學運之我見：一個中小企業主的經濟與政治分析

昨天（3月27日）下午，個人來到青島東路，想看看最近民主狂潮與學生運動的最新情況。看見議場大門口，好奇之心更油然而生，便心血來潮，想進去一窺究竟，看看平時只能在電視上見到的議場到底長得什麼模樣，也觀察諸位學生領袖的言行舉止，與報章媒體報導是否有出入。只是不巧經門口的工作人員與員警勸阻，難得其門而入。心中雖有些失落，但轉頭一看，看到議場外圍成群的學生及民眾，坐著聆聽台上各式各樣的演講與節目，我便了然於胸，立法院雖是這次學生佔領運動的根據基地，但真正重要的不是這棟建築物，或是其中發生的事情與個人，而是現場所有形形色色的參與者。

以經濟學的觀點而言，無論他們帶著恐懼、好奇、不滿、或是鼓勵的情緒態度來到這裡，個人既然身為企業主，執掌一間小小的出版社，我真正的責任與義務其實在於了解他們的偏好與想法，並以己身所學及資本，推出出版作品，以期造成未來讀者大眾的迴響與支持，進而有所獲利，並在個人能力所及的範圍內提升員工的生活水準（細節還請參閱個人參與翻譯之《大家的經濟學》第九課企業家的角色）。更重要的是，無論他們和平理性與否，今日關切政治的學生就是明日的領袖人物、知識份子與公民群眾，我如果要造成未來讀者大眾的迴響，就必須特別關注他們。

一言以蔽之，這就是市場機制或自由市場（free market）的運作原理，也就是社會中無數的買方賣方，完全按各自的主觀偏好，以改善自身生活為目的，進行交易。而一個公司能否獲利，完全取決於能否滿足消費者的需求，而非仰仗政府公權力或相關有力人士介入。

自由貿易（free trade）的基本原則與此完全相同，只是買方賣方身處在不同的國家而已。於是，誠如奧地利經濟學大師米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）所言，自由貿易的重點在於實際去做，而不是政府之間以保障自由貿易為名簽訂條約。用白話說，自由貿易的重點在於除去限制，而非各國政府之間表面以條約互相讓利，卻間接排除與其他國家進行自由貿易，後者顯然違背自由貿易的基本精神。

然觀諸國際政治現實，簽訂貿易協定恐在所難免，台灣自然也難置身事外。即便如此，民生生計是經濟與民眾生命財產的根本，與此息息相關的服務貿易協定更是國家大事。執政者自應窮盡一切所能，主動告知民眾其利弊與應變措施，怎可於立院委員會由主席草草宣布逕送院會存查。同時，協定內容本身亦有違雙方對等互惠的原則。如此強行通過，更是形同掩耳盜鈴。只是，執政者長期漠視民意，加上百姓民生日益凋敝，民怨積累已久，再加上許多憂心忡忡的年輕人之推波助瀾下，這些因素竟因為一次平常不過的立法院議事風波一舉爆發，有如野火燎原一般，一發不可收拾，恐怕連執政者都始料未及。

於是，「怨不在大，可畏惟人，載舟覆舟，所宜深慎」：執政者切莫掉以輕心，一味沉浸於過去勝選的美好果實，倚仗公權力的正當性，而片面指責學生霸佔立院，反而必須戒慎恐懼，須知其統治基礎完全基於民心向背。民眾的選票既能使其位居高位，亦能於一夕之間顛覆其正當性。百餘年前起義推翻滿清的中國國民黨創黨元老孫中山先生，不也散佈反政府思想，幾經多次起義，才創建起中華民國？要是他生在今日，大概也會被當政者斥為聚眾滋事之暴民吧！

約莫八年前，紅衫軍倒扁的歷史殷鑑不遠，雖起因頗有差異，但當時總統陳水扁雖雖極力撇清，但無法面對廣大民意，不見同黨同志同台力挺，只能閉關於總統府與官邸內的窘境，不也與今日的馬總統有幾分相似？再想想，今日國民黨「鹿茸、香蕉、太陽餅」與昔日民進黨三寶「上杜下謝又連莊」又有何異，不是一樣為人笑柄？更甚者，昔日陳水扁高舉揭弊卻營私舞弊，而今日馬總統兼黨主席雖有清譽，號稱以台灣經濟民生為念，卻領導一群與中國關係匪淺的政治人物，不思經濟發展正途，一意與中國大陸靠攏。與此同時，竟對於中國大陸在東亞的政治與軍事野心毫無防範，難道不會使民眾有所疑懼？

紅衫軍雖無達成倒扁的目標，但之後的民進黨可謂一蹶不振，近乎退回地方政黨，而國民黨扶搖直上，間接造就了馬英九成為政治明星。風水輪流轉，此次學運後的國民黨與馬英九是否也會如此，尚不得而知。無論如何，筆者期盼朝野各黨能憑良心，推出好的候選人，八年以後不要再有一個令人民失望憤怒的國家領導人。貪腐之根未除，國家又日益衰弱。我們必須認真思考政治體制，並作出根本的改革。否則，再任憑少數政治人物催眠大眾，荼毒百姓，只怕再也沒有下次。

游藝文化事業有限公司執行長  陳宗佑  謹識

（本文言論純屬個人意見，不代表公司立場，轉載時煩請注明本文作者。）

當今台灣教育民主化的問題

在此向大家推薦，前幾年由我政大英文所的學妹趙麗婷女士所寫的大專生研究計畫報告。雖然是用英文寫作，此篇報告寫的非常好，我因此也有感而發，寫了一封信（也是用英文），在此就貼給各位參考。

此篇報告的指導教授藍亭(Timothy Lane)老師（http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/430-1.html）是一位思慮清晰的傑出哲學研究者，也對我個人接觸哲學有相當的影響，還期望能找時間向他多多請益。

報告原文

如不存在，請至國科會網站下載：
https://nscnt12.nsc.gov.tw/was2/award/AsAwardMultiQuery.aspx
（點選大專學生研究計畫後，搜尋97年度，學生姓名：趙麗婷）

以下則是我的信函內容：

Dear Ms. Chao,

I have been reading your report for NSC College Thesis Program named "Qualified Academic Competition, Achievement, and Social Equality for Higher Education in Taiwan—A Defense against democratic theory and vindication on the ideal higher education." To say the least, I am very impressed with your bold assertive (and yet confident) tone in scrutinizing some of the implausible ideas (shall we just say fallacies) in our higher education policies. Beyond that, it is indeed a very well written paper with well-reasoned arguments and analyses one after another. Moreover, you work is very relevant today. As a result, as a fellow citizen interested in education, I am moved to offer some opinions of my own. (If you do think any of these would contribute to any criticism to your work, please do not think so. I am just trying to supplement some of the points in your paper with my own experience in private sector, and my compliments for your work above are unreservedly genuine: I do enjoy reading every page of it.)

In the page 5 of your report, you analyzed three presuppositions in current educational policies, namely that the higher educations should aim at "(1) the enhancement of the educational level for the public, (2) the equal educational opportunity to higher education for any individual, and (3) the professionalization of academia for the provision of future human resources in job market." I totally agree with your analysis, but wonder what the proper aims of higher education would be, especially in view of these fallacies and in keeping with the qualitative approach of your inquiry. If you would kindly permit some presumption on my part for the sake of brevity, I think one proper aim for higher education should be

I. To Fashion Qualified Individual Men and Women into Ladies and Gentlemen. 

Despite that such aim necessarily sounds Victorian (but we do owe our modern education system to this historical period quite a lot), this explains why liberal arts and general education, as contrasted with professional trades for apparent and immediate practical uses, should be the foci in higher education. Of course, these indispensable parts in higher education are not the aims of higher education in themselves. They are vital means to achieve ends, namely to fashion young men and women into ladies and gentlemen.

Also, in order to do so, it is important that higher education enrolls emotionally mature and responsible persons, so that they are capable of engaging in real (sometimes even heated and controversial) debates as rational and respectful individuals, not swerved by public opinion or passion. Only with such right intention, these people would become ladies and gentlemen by learning liberal arts. By reading works of literature they learn to sympathize with motives, passions, illusions and imagination of fellow human beings but are not swayed by them; by reading historians they learn to perceive the cause of human events and the formation of the human civilizations, but they will also know that they are equally liable to the follies, errors and wrongdoings committed in the past; by reading philosophy they learn to appreciate other's thoughts and to think clearly of whatever basic questions put forward before them, but they are not dependent on philosophers to express their thoughts.

To be sure, my emphasis on the liberal arts is by no means to preclude other subjects of study (or majors) in our universities. They too have a lot to say in the formation of any proper lady and gentleman. For the right mind, natural sciences teach one to scrutinize closely and diligently on the material or phenomenal world. Social sciences (such as economics, illustrated below), by contrast, lead one to look into the noumenal world (or colloquially, hearts and minds of fellow human beings) in a systematic manner. (I trust much of the same can be said of other "useful" subjects, only that I may need time to familiarize myself with these to speak for them.)

To sum up all these claims concerning subjects of study in academia, it is the responsibility of higher education to have qualified men and women not only know the general knowledge of those subjects (rather than particular or "useful" applications of those), but also see farther than what is immediately and manifest before them. In other words, once these qualified men and women graduate, they must demonstrate basic skills for acquiring and discovering new knowledge on their own, namely, ability to do research, and those who are willing and proficient on such skills are prepared for pursuing graduate studies in any of these subjects of study; eventually they will be able to instruct later students to acquire these abilities.

The other aim for the higher education, in my opinion, should be,

II. To Foster Leaders in the Society (or more colloquially in Chinese, 社會的棟樑)

Of course, this directly follows from your argument against egalitarian distribution of higher education regardless of merits in individuals. Not any kinds of material can be made to sufficiently support structures; by analogy, not every single man and woman needs to go on colleges just to get a job. (Alas, with the effectual decimation in our vocational education, this is less and less true every day, and such is a tremendous waste of precious time and energy for our young men and women!) You have incisively argued for this point, so I won't belabor any further.

However, what do we want from these selected few who receive higher education? My suggestion is that they are to become leaders of the society. To clarify, I am not saying that as taxpayers, parents, friends, educators, or even policymakers we demand them (as if to be molded) to lead over others in society, because such leaders are required in almost every single aspect of society, from assembly lines of every factory to opinion leaders in legislatures, from any manager of a small company to the president of an entire nation, just as there are all kinds of beams and pillars for buildings and structures of various kinds. These leaders are not only there to achieve and decide what is to be done; utilizing skills such as "communication, interaction, basic logical/mathematical reasoning, and abstract perception/appreciation" (your paper pp. 3-4), they are also to coordinate the actions of fellow men and women and to inspire them to accomplish the task.

Note that none of these abilities are concerned with any specific trades to be acquired by vocational education. They are not even directly related to liberal arts or any sciences, or even any particular subject of study. On the contrary, they are exercised by ladies and gentlemen cultivated in these. It is true that most of these abilities are not very conducive in helping one getting one particular job or position, but without these we cannot even hope tasks be performed properly, efficiently, and purposefully. (In other words, without such abilities, we then know neither the big picture for which this particular task is a part, nor if the particular task would actually contribute to our benefit or utility).

As a result, although these well-educated individuals are not known for possessing any particular trade immediately useful in the job market, they have tremendous responsibility, and much indeed is at stake at their hands. Moreover, with their identity as ladies and gentlemen, they are worthy of exemplar for anyone around them to aspire and emulate. Of course, all these may not be said of any young man and woman right after commencement, but with right mind and acquired knowledge, by gathering more experience and earning trust from others, they will command greater and greater authority over time. Henceforth, there is great (if not greater) use for higher education beyond producing professors and teachers for its own use, only that such use is less apparent, less certain, and less immediate, requiring one to put his own efforts in figuring out the actual use.

And this is why higher education needs meritorious and competent people as students, because any graduates short of those standards would not only constitute waste and abandonment for those individuals, but also do a great harm to the society by fooling everyone (including themselves) into thinking that they meet the basic requirements pertaining to a college graduate. It has deleterious consequences, because they will become substandard leaders of the society who are either incompetent or even overreaching themselves into harming themselves and even other under their lead. Chances are that the society will weed those people out from positions of importance worthy of a college graduate; then they are forced to staring disaster in the face, thinking of their wasted college years (and mounting financial obligations if they should have taken on student loan). However, some of those substandard people are retained in these positions (partly due to nepotism, as opposed to meritocracy), they are liable to corrupt people under their command and influence, and believe it or not, entire countries (and even the whole world) can be corrupted by them. Grave is the danger of misplaced education indeed!


To give more practical support for such theory concerning the aim of higher education (namely, to produce leaders in the society), let me demonstrate my thoughts with reference to economics. People are accustomed to talking and thinking about market (or job) demand and utility of higher education, and your paper has covered such thinking in a reasonably comprehensive manner. I wholly agree with your analysis, not only because economics may not be best tool to describe every single facet of higher education, but also because much of the mainstream economics (as it is prevalent today) is miserably short of sound philosophical foundations. However, as will be suggested by my following analysis, I believe we can still look for sound economic thoughts with some historical and philosophical insight, and these thoughts may help us in correcting those widely held misconceptions.

Let us start with utility. In my opinion, the root of the problem is "for whom" such utility represents, especially when we know people have different set of subjective values and they have wildly different preferences for goods and services. Henceforth, to define things like "social utility" and to make function out of it is an impossible, implausible, and ludicrous notion in itself, because you cannot even begin by adding utility for two persons; you can only presume (and this is presumptuous indeed) that such and such contributed what to the utility of the society; in other words, it is nothing short to impose someone's arbitrary preferences over others without claiming to do so. This is, in a word, disingenuous.

(I of course did not invent such thoughts myself, and I have no intention to keep them as mine. I dropped all proper names and references only to show clearly they are logically sound. If you want to know more of the economics I am using (namely Austrian economics, based on axioms and logic concerning human action (or in a word, praxeology), in a way similar to geometry), let me suggest to you some great material for such thought, including

1. Lessons for the Young Economist by Robert P. Murphy, Lessons 2 to 3. (English, see http://mises.org/document/5706/Lessons-for-the-Young-Economist. This is such a great and accessible book that I decided to spend time and money translating the book into Chinese and publishing it, see http://lateliertw.blogspot.tw  )
2. "『奧地利經濟學派』與『主流經濟學』之別" by Walter Block    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjaGikRhtaI )

The other one is market demand. The key is to distinguish demand from want. When going abroad, we all would love to have a private jet at our disposal rather than being cramped into a modest economy seat in a commercial aircraft (as long as we are not asked to foot the bill!).  It certainly is quite a want in many people's hearts for private jets, but there is hardly a demand from the vast majority of those people for private jets, because we do not have the capabilities to acquire or maintain them. In plain English, they are too expensive for us. Exactly the same thing could be said of cell phones and computers quite some decades ago. They were appealing concepts, but only just so. What makes them possible and so prevalent in our modern society is that we have so much greater productivity that supply for such gadgets today is possible and even abundant (at least vastly so in comparison). It is the supply of those things (in economic terms, greater quantity at lower price; supply and demand actually denote relationship between quantity and price) that actually makes the demand, i.e. our capability to satisfy wants by buying them, possible. This result is called Say's Law, and it is arguably one of the most important and most discussed results in economics. In other words, supply comes first, and demand is enabled.


So, what does this have to do with higher education and college graduates? As I have said, in contrast to technicians trained with specific trades in vocational schools, these graduates are to be leaders to direct them and combine their diverse efforts to accomplish tasks. As far as economics is concerned, the most important category of such leaders are entrepreneurs, who

hires the technicians, i.e., people who have the ability and the skill to perform definite kinds and quantities of work. The class of technicians includes the great inventors, the champions in the field of applied science, the constructors and designers as we as the performers of the most simple tasks. The entrepreneur joins their ranks as far as he himself takes part in the technical execution of his entrepreneurial plans. The technician contributes his own toil and trouble; but it is the entrepreneur qua entrepreneur who directs his labor toward definite goals. (Ludwig von Mises Human Action 300)

From this we may envision why is higher education in general useful, if not by satisfying market demand or by training people with definite profession. It is then to produce future entrepreneurs who have the vision and competence to lead technicians to devise certain (business) plans and accomplish them. Of course it takes tremendous time and experience for one to acquire these abilities so as to take on such serious responsibility, new graduate may start his or her career under the lead of entrepreneur(s) as

[a] manager[, who] is a junior partner of the entrepreneur, as it were, no matter what the contractual and financial terms of his employment are. The only relevant thing is that his own financial interests force him to attend to the best of his abilities to the entrepreneurial functions which are assigned to him within a limited and precisely determined sphere of action. (Ibid 301)

In effect, a manager takes some part in entrepreneurial actions, as assigned and supervised by their superiors. By gaining more experience, such manager is entrusted with greater responsibilities, eventually becoming a capable entrepreneur responsible for an individual business unit, including its profit and loss (among other things).

 (For more detailed analysis of the entrepreneur or manager please refer to related pages of Human Action. This magnus opus is one important work in Austrian economics, and in my opinion, one of the best books in economic thoughts. I highly recommend it.)

According to Mises, a successful entrepreneur,

does not let himself be guided by what was and is, but arranges his affairs on the ground of his opinion about the future. He sees the past and the present as other people do; but he judges the future in a different way. In his actions he is directed by an opinion about the future which deviates from those held by the crowd. (Ibid 582)

In other words, an accomplished entrepreneur has to envision the future demand of consumers in a way no other people do and to satisfy such demand by actively supplying goods and services. This is what makes truly great businesses. For any individual to possess such uncanny capabilities he or she must be able to see beyond the present, apparent, and immediate market (demand) and foresee what others cannot. And this is exactly one essential and high purpose for higher education other than discovering knowledge and producing teachers (or just "educat[ing] officeholders" in the public sector, as claimed by Gutmann). In other words, higher education aims to produce individuals who with their invention and ideas bring forth new goods and services to satisfy demand of consumers. Such action necessarily involves risk and carries serious responsibility. It is perhaps for this reason that higher education must be reserved to only select meritorious few and not to be disseminated indiscriminately to the general public.


However, although higher education might not burden itself with the enhancement of education for the public, there is arguably a role for higher education for educating the general public, though an indirect one. From my preceding analysis of entrepreneur, well-educated individuals (college graduates, Masters and even Doctors) are certainly in an excellent position to teach their fellow men and women what they know and love. As a result, as entrepreneurs they may garner skills from other people and themselves to make their knowledge palatable to the public. (I cannot for sure determine that this is the duty of every single graduate from higher education, but at least one can fathom that this is perhaps one proper and effective way for higher education to elevate the educational level (or literacy?) for the general public, more so than just egalitarian or democratic distribution of opportunities for receiving higher education.)


I sincerely hope that, by my former example of economics, you do realize that the topic of higher education is an interdisciplinary one, and a well-rounded discussion of which necessarily requires one to have a comprehensive and holistic understanding of many subjects. (And I think, by this token, that this is perhaps one another reason why higher education should not be set to achieve professionalism.) To reach such understanding is extremely difficult indeed, and your work is admirable since it really engages with some of aspects not directly related to education, such as politics. For this I am wholly of your opinion and think that democracy is not the way forward for the development of higher education, because democracy is by definition egalitarian and not based on individual merits, and the majority rule flowing from democracy is inimical to the ideas of transcendence, tradition, and individual talent that higher education lives by.

On the contrary, free inquiry, as long as it does not interfere with others' freedom of expression, is clearly the way forward (and you are certainly right about that). However, as the recent NSC grant scandals exhibit, one problem remains: using public money for their research work, academics can neither be expected nor allowed to have a complete free rein to their research without emptying public coffers. Also, even if they have perfect integrity and the best intention in administering research, what is beneficial to them (and their research) may still be not beneficial to the public. What, then, would be the justifications for their free academic inquiries? More importantly, under the circumstances, whither higher education, and, what lies in the future for these subjects of study? Would they remain relevant for future generations?

These are serious questions indeed, but we must think about them if we want our future generations to enjoy higher education and these subjects of study, just as we were all privileged to do so. Despite these question, let me thank again for your incisive paper, which not only enlightened me to think very closely on the topic of education, but also inspired me to articulate my thoughts on the matter. I sincerely look forward to seeing your success in whatever field you choose to spend time and energy on in the future.

Respectfully,

陳宗佑
Hasting G. Chen
游藝文化事業有限公司執行長
Chief Executive, L'Atelier Culture and Publishing Co., Ltd.

今日佳句

While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.


即使禁制取代了對話，文字將永遠保有其力量。文字傳達著意義 ，並對願意瞭解之人陳明真相。

《V怪客》 V for Vendetta