斯坦福大學演講：別在不斷優秀中淪落平庸

　　There is an alternative, however, and it may be one that hasn't occurred to you. Let me try to explain it by telling you a story about one of your peers, and the alternative that hadn't occurred to her. A couple of years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at Harvard that dealt with some of these same matters, and afterward I was contacted by one of the students who had come to the event, a young woman who was writing her senior thesis about Harvard itself, how it instills in its students what she called self-efficacy, the sense that you can do anything you want. Self-efficacy, or, in more familiar terms, self-esteem. There are some kids, she said, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because it was easy." And there are other kids, the kind with self-efficacy or self-esteem, who get an A on a test and say, "I got it because I'm smart."

　　Again, there's nothing wrong with thinking that you got an A because you're smart. But what that Harvard student didn't realize—and it was really quite a shock to her when I suggested it—is that there is a third alternative. True self-esteem, I proposed, means not caring whether you get an A in the first place. True self-esteem means recognizing, despite everything that your upbringing has trained you to believe about yourself, that the grades you get—and the awards, and the test scores, and the trophies, and the acceptance letters—are not what defines who you are.

　　不過，還有另外一種情況，或許中年危機并不會發生在你身上。讓我告訴你們一個同伴的故事來解釋我的意思吧，還有一個她沒有遇到過的可能。幾年前，我在哈佛參加了一次小組討論會，談到這些問題。后來參加這次討論的一個學生給我聯系，這個哈佛學生正在寫有關哈佛的畢業論文，討論哈佛是如何給學生灌輸她所說的“自我效能”，一種相信自己能做一切的意識。自我效能或更熟悉的說法“自我尊重”。她說有些在考試中得了優秀的有些學生會說“我得優秀是因為試題很簡單。” 但另外一些學生，那種具有自我效能感或自我尊重的學生，考試得了優秀會說“我得優秀是因為我聰明。”

　　再說一遍，認為得了優秀是因為自己聰明的想法并沒有任何錯，不過，哈佛學生沒有認識到的是他們沒有第三種選擇。當我指出這一點時， 她十分震驚。我指出，真正的自尊意味著最初根本就不在乎成績是否優秀。真正的自尊意味著對此問題的足夠認識：盡管你在成長過程中的一切都在教導你要相信自 己，但你所等獲得的成績，還有那些獎勵、成績、獎品、錄取通知書等所有這一切，都不能來定義你是誰。

　　She also claimed, this young woman, that Harvard students take their sense of self-efficacy out into the world and become, as she put it, "innovative." But when I asked her what she meant by innovative, the only example she could come up with was "being CEO of a Fortune 500." That's not innovative, I told her, that's just successful, and successful according to a very narrow definition of success. True innovation means using your imagination, exercising the capacity to envision new possibilities.

　　But I'm not here to talk about technological innovation, I'm here to talk about a different kind. It's not about inventing a new machine or a new drug. It's about inventing your own life. Not following a path, but making your own path. The kind of imagination I'm talking about is moral imagination. "Moral" meaning not right or wrong, but having to do with making choices. Moral imagination means the capacity to envision new ways to live your life.

　　她還說，這個年輕的女孩子說哈佛學生把他們的自我效能帶到了世界上，如她所說的“創新”。但當我問她“創新”意味著什么時，她能夠想到的唯一例子不過是“世界大公司五百強的首席執行官”。我告訴她這不是創新，這只是成功，而且是狹義的成功而已。真正的創新意味著運用你的想象力，發揮你的潛力，創造新的可能性。

　　但這里我并不是在談論技術創新，不是發明新機器或者制造一種新藥，我談論的是另外一種創新，是創造你自己的生活。不是走現成的道路，而是創造一條屬于自己的道路。我談論的想象力是道德想象力(moral imagination：心理學專業名詞)。“道德”在這里無關對錯，而是與選擇有關。道德想象力意味著創造自己新生的能力。

　　It means not just going with the flow. It means not just "getting into" whatever school or program comes next. It means figuring out what you want for yourself, not what your parents want, or your peers want, or your school wants, or your society wants. Originating your own values. Thinking your way toward your own definition of success. Not simply accepting the life that you've been handed. Not simply accepting the choices you've been handed. When you walk into Starbucks, you're offered a choice among a latte and a macchiato and an espresso and a few other things, but you can also make another choice. You can turn around and walk out. When you walk into college, you are offered a choice among law and medicine and investment banking and consulting and a few other things, but again, you can also do something else, something that no one has thought of before.

　　Let me give you another counterexample. I wrote an essay a couple of years ago that touched on some of these same points. I said, among other things, that kids at places like Yale or Stanford tend to play it safe and go for the conventional rewards. And one of the most common criticisms I got went like this: What about Teach for America? Lots of kids from elite colleges go and do TFA after they graduate, so therefore I was wrong. TFA, TFA—I heard that over and over again. And Teach for America is undoubtedly a very good thing. But to cite TFA in response to my argument is precisely to miss the point, and to miss it in a way that actually confirms what I'm saying. The problem with TFA—or rather, the problem with the way that TFA has become incorporated into the system—is that it's just become another thing to get into.

　　它意味著不隨波逐流，不是下一步要“進入”什么名牌大學或研究生院。而是要弄清楚自己到底想要什么，而不是父母、同伴、 學校、或社會想要什么。即確認你自己的價值觀，思考邁向自己所定義的成功的道路，而不僅僅是接受別人給你的生活，不僅僅是接受別人給你的選擇。當今走進星巴克咖啡館，服務員可能讓你在牛奶咖啡、加糖咖啡、特制咖啡等幾樣東西之間做出選擇。但你可以做出另外的選擇，你可以轉身走出去。當你進入大學，人家給你眾多選擇，或法律或醫學或投資銀行和咨詢以及其他，但你同樣也可以做其他事，做從前根本沒有人想過的事。

　　讓我再舉一個反面的例子。幾年前我寫過一篇涉及同類問題的文章。我說，那些在耶魯和斯坦福這類名校的孩子往往比較謹慎，去追求一些穩妥的獎勵。我得到的最常見的批評是：教育項目“為美國而教”如何?從名校出來的很多學生畢業后很多參與這個教育項目，因此我的觀點是錯誤的。我一再聽到TFA這個術語。“為美國而教”當然是好東西，但引用這個項目來反駁我的觀點恰恰是不得要領，實際上正好證明了我想說的東西。“為美國而教”的問題 或者“為美國而教”已經成為體系一部分的問題，是它已經成為另外一個需要“進入”的門檻。

　　In terms of its content, Teach for America is completely different from Goldman Sachs or McKinsey or Harvard Medical School or Berkeley Law, but in terms of its place within the structure of elite expectations, of elite choices, it is exactly the same. It's prestigious, it's hard to get into, it's something that you and your parents can brag about, it looks good on your résumé, and most important, it represents a clearly marked path. You don't have to make it up yourself, you don't have to do anything but apply and do the work—just like college or law school or McKinsey or whatever. It's the Stanford or Harvard of social engagement. It's another hurdle, another badge. It requires aptitude and diligence, but it does not require a single ounce of moral imagination.

　　Moral imagination is hard, and it's hard in a completely different way than the hard things you're used to doing. And not only that, it's not enough. If you're going to invent your own life, if you're going to be truly autonomous, you also need courage: moral courage. The courage to act on your values in the face of what everyone's going to say and do to try to make you change your mind. Because they're not going to like it. Morally courageous individuals tend to make the people around them very uncomfortable. They don't fit in with everybody else's ideas about the way the world is supposed to work, and still worse, they make them feel insecure about the choices that they themselves have made—or failed to make. People don't mind being in prison as long as no one else is free. But stage a jailbreak, and everybody else freaks out.

　　從其內容來看，“為美國而教”完全不同于高盛或者麥肯錫公司或哈佛醫學院或者伯克利法學院，但從它在未來精英體系中的地位來說，完全是一樣的。它享有盛名，很難進入，是值得你和父母夸耀的東西，如果寫在簡歷上會很好看，最重要的是，它代表了清晰標記的道路。你根本不用自己創造，什么都不用做，只需申請然后按要求做就行了，就像上大學或法學院或麥肯錫公司或別的什么。它是社會參與方面的斯坦福或哈佛，是另一個柵欄，另一枚獎章。該項目需要能力和勤奮，但不需要一丁點兒的道德想象力。

　　道德想象力是困難的，這種困難與你已經習慣的困難完全不同。不僅如此，光有道德想象力還不夠。如果你要創造自己的生活，如果你 想成為真正的獨立思想者，你還需要勇氣：道德勇氣。不管別人說什么，有按自己的價值觀行動的勇氣，不會因為別人不喜歡而試圖改變自己的想法。具有道德勇氣的個人往往讓周圍的人感到不舒服。他們和其他人對世界的看法格格不入，更糟糕的是，讓別人對自己已經做出的選擇感到不安全或無法做出選擇。只要別人也不享受自由，人們就不在乎自己被關進監獄。可一旦有人越獄，其他人都會跟著跑出去。

　　In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce has Stephen Dedalus famously say, about growing up in Ireland in the late 19th century, "When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets."

　　Today there are other nets. One of those nets is a term that I've heard again and again as I've talked with students about these things. That term is "self-indulgent." "Isn't it self-indulgent to try to live the life of the mind when there are so many other things I could be doing with my degree?" "Wouldn't it be self-indulgent to pursue painting after I graduate instead of getting a real job?"

　　在《青年藝術家的肖像》中，詹姆斯·喬伊斯讓主人公斯蒂芬·迪達勒斯就19世紀末期的愛爾蘭的成長環境說出了如下名言： “當一個人的靈魂誕生在這個國家時，有一張大網把它罩住，防止它飛翔。你跟我談論民族性、語言和宗教。我想沖出這些牢籠。”

　　今天，我們面臨的是其它的網。其中之一是我在就這些問題與學生交流時經常聽到的一個術語“自我放任”。“在攻讀學位過程中有 這么多事要做的時候，試圖按照自己的感覺生活難道不是自我放任嗎?”“畢業后不去找個真正的工作而去畫畫難道不是自我放任嗎?”

　　These are the kinds of questions that young people find themselves being asked today if they even think about doing something a little bit different. Even worse, the kinds of questions they are made to feel compelled to ask themselves. Many students have spoken to me, as they navigated their senior years, about the pressure they felt from their peers—from their peers—to justify a creative or intellectual life. You're made to feel like you're crazy: crazy to forsake the sure thing, crazy to think it could work, crazy to imagine that you even have a right to try.

　　Think of what we've come to. It is one of the great testaments to the intellectual—and moral, and spiritual—poverty of American society that it makes its most intelligent young people feel like they're being self-indulgent if they pursue their curiosity. You are all told that you're supposed to go to college, but you're also told that you're being "self-indulgent" if you actually want to get an education. Or even worse, give yourself one. As opposed to what? Going into consulting isn't self-indulgent? Going into finance isn't self-indulgent? Going into law, like most of the people who do, in order to make yourself rich, isn't self-indulgent? It's not OK to play music, or write essays, because what good does that really do anyone, but it is OK to work for a hedge fund. It's selfish to pursue your passion, unless it's also going to make you a lot of money, in which case it's not selfish at all.

　　這些是年輕人只要思考一下稍稍出格的事就不由自主地質問自己的問題。更糟糕的是，他們覺得提出這些問題是理所應當的。許多學生在畢業前夕的未來探索中跟我說，他們感受到來自同伴那里的壓力，需要為創造性的生活或思想生活辯護。好像自己已經走火入魔了似的：瘋了般地拋棄確定無疑的東西，瘋了般地認為思想生活可行，瘋了般地想象你有嘗試的權利。

　　想象我們現在面臨的局面。這是美國社會的貧困——思想、道德和精神貧困的最明顯癥狀，美國最聰明的年輕人竟然認為聽從自己的好奇心行動就是自我放任。你們得到的教導是應該上大學，但你們同時也被告知如果真的想得到教育，那就是“自我放任”。如果你自我教育的話，更糟糕。這是什么 道理?進入證券咨詢業是不是自我放任?進入金融業是不是自我放任?像許多人那樣進入律師界發財是不是自我放任?搞音樂，寫文章就不行，因為它不能給人帶來 利益。但為風險投資公司工作就可以。追求自己的理想和激情是自私的，除非它能讓你賺很多錢。那樣的話，就一點兒也不自私了。

　　Do you see how absurd this is? But these are the nets that are flung at you, and this is what I mean by the need for courage. And it's a never-ending process. At that Harvard event two years ago, one person said, about my assertion that college students needed to keep rethinking the decisions they've made about their lives, "We already made our decisions, back in middle school, when we decided to be the kind of high achievers who get into Harvard." And I thought, who wants to live with the decisions that they made when they were 12? Let me put that another way. Who wants to let a 12-year-old decide what they're going to do for the rest of their lives? Or a 19-year-old, for that matter?

　　All you can decide is what you think now, and you need to be prepared to keep making revisions. Because let me be clear. I'm not trying to persuade you all to become writers or musicians. Being a doctor or a lawyer, a scientist or an engineer or an economist—these are all valid and admirable choices. All I'm saying is that you need to think about it, and think about it hard. All I'm asking is that you make your choices for the right reasons. All I'm urging is that you recognize and embrace your moral freedom.

　　你看到這些觀點是多么荒謬了嗎?這就是罩在你們身上的網，就是我說的需要勇氣的意思。這是永不停息的過程。在兩年前的哈 佛事件中，有個學生談到我說的大學生需要重新思考人生決定的觀點，他說“我們已經做出了決定，我們早在中學時就已經決定成為能夠進入哈佛的高材生。”我在 想，誰會打算按照他在12歲時做出的決定生活呢?讓我換一種說法，誰愿意讓一個12歲的孩子決定他們未來一輩子要做什么呢?或者一個19歲的小毛孩兒?

　　你能做出的決定是你現在想什么，你需要準備好不斷修改自己的決定。讓我說得更明白一些。我不是在試圖說服你們都成為音樂家或者作家。成為醫生、律師、科學家、工程師或者經濟學家沒有什么不好，這些都是可靠的、可敬的選擇。我想說的是你需要思考它，認真地思考。我請求你們 做的，是根據正確的理由做出你的選擇。我在敦促你們的，是認識到你的道德自由并熱情擁抱它。

　　And most of all, don't play it safe. Resist the seductions of the cowardly values our society has come to prize so highly: comfort, convenience, security, predictability, control. These, too, are nets. Above all, resist the fear of failure. Yes, you will make mistakes. But they will be your mistakes, not someone else's. And you will survive them, and you will know yourself better for having made them, and you will be a fuller and a stronger person.

　　It's been said—and I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's an idea that's worth taking seriously—that you guys belong to a "postemotional" generation. That you prefer to avoid messy and turbulent and powerful feelings. But I say, don't shy away from the challenging parts of yourself. Don't deny the desires and curiosities, the doubts and dissatisfactions, the joy and the darkness, that might knock you off the path that you have set for yourself. College is just beginning for you, adulthood is just beginning. Open yourself to the possibilities they represent. The world is much larger than you can imagine right now. Which means, you are much larger than you can imagine.

　　最重要的是，不要太過小心翼翼。去拒絕或否定我們社會給予了過高獎賞的那些卑怯的價值觀的誘惑：舒服、方便、安全、可預測 的、可控制的。這些，同樣是羅網。最重要的是，去拒否失敗的恐懼感。是的，你會犯錯誤。可那是你的錯誤，不是別人的。你將從錯誤中緩過來，而且，正是因為 這些錯誤，你更好地認識你自己。由此，你成為更完整和強大的人。

　　人們常說你們年輕人屬于“后情感”一代，我想我未必贊同這個說法，但這個說法值得嚴肅對待。你們更愿意規避混亂、動蕩 和強烈的感情，但我想說，不要回避挑戰自我，不要否認欲望和好奇心、懷疑和不滿、快樂和陰郁，它們可能改變你預設的人生軌跡。大學剛開始，成年時代也才剛 開始。打開自己，直面各種可能性吧。這個世界的深廣遠超你現在想象的邊際。這意味著，你自身的深廣也將遠超你現在的想象。