英文自修148：权威与个体4 （BBC瑞斯讲座1948）
本系列内容英文原文取自BBC Reith Lectures节目网站，朋友们也可以到下列地址用相应提取码下载节目录音收听：http://yunpan.cn/cseZY2r75xQLX 提取码 571d
转载、翻译：武太白
------------------------
本篇是罗素为BBC瑞斯讲座（Reith Lectures）所作的1948年演讲《权威与个体》第1讲“社会凝聚力与人类天性”第四部分。
------------------------
Social cohesion, which started with loyalty to a group reinforced by the fear of enemies, grew by processes partly natural and partly deliberate until it reached the vast conglomerations that we now know as nations. To these processes various forces contributed. At a very early stage loyalty to a group must have been reinforced by loyalty to a leader. In a large tribe the chief or king may be known to everybody even when private individuals are often strangers to each other. In this way, personal as opposed to tribal loyalty makes possible an increase in the size of the group without doing violence to instinct. At a certain stage a further development took place. Wars, which originally were wars of extermination, gradually became--at least in part--wars of conquest; the vanquished, instead of being put to death, were made slaves and compelled to labour for their conquerors. When this happened there came to be two sorts of people within a community, namely the original members who alone were free, and were the repositories of the tribal spirit, and the subjects who obeyed from fear, not from instinctive loyalty. Nineveh and Babylon ruled over vast territories, not because their subjects had any instinctive sense of social cohesion with the dominant city, but solely because of the terror inspired by its prowess in war. From those early days down to modem times war has been the chief engine in enlarging the size of communities, and fear has increasingly replaced tribal solidarity as a source of social cohesion. This change was not confined to large communities; it occurred, for example, in Sparta, where the free citizens were a small minority, while the Helots were unmercifully suppressed. Sparta was praised throughout antiquity for its admirable social cohesion, but it was a cohesion which never attempted to embrace the whole population, except in so far as terror compelled outward loyalty.
At a certain stage in the development of civilisation, a new kind of loyalty began to be developed: a loyalty based not on territorial affinity or similarity of race, but on identity of creed. So far as the west is concerned this seems to have originated with the Orphic communities, which admitted slaves on equal terms. Apart from them religion in antiquity was so closely associated with government, that groups of co-religionists were broadly identical with the groups that had grown up on the old biological basis. But identity’ of creed has gradually become a stronger and stronger force. Its military strength was first displayed by Islam in the conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries. It supplied the moving force in the crusades and in the wars of religion. In the sixteenth century theological loyalties very often outweighed those of nationality: English Catholics sided with Spain, French Huguenots with England. In our own day two widespread creeds embrace the loyalty of a very large part of mankind. One of these, the creed of communism, has the advantage of intense fanaticism and embodiment in a sacred book. The other, less definite, is nevertheless potent --it may be called ‘the American way of life’. America, formed by immigration from many different countries, has no biological unity, but it has a unity quite as strong as that of European nations. As Abraham Lincoln said, it is ‘dedicated to a proposition’. Immigrants into America, or at any rate their children, for the most part find the American way of life preferable to that of the Old World, and believe firmly that it would be for the good of mankind if this way of life became universal. Both in America and in Russia unity of creed and national unity have coalesced, and have thereby acquired a new strength, but these rival creeds have an attraction which transcends their national boundaries.
------------------------
社会凝聚力，最开始是对团体的忠诚，因对敌人的恐惧而得到加强，在部分自然、部分蓄谋的过程中得到增长，最终形成了当今我们称为“国家”的庞大组织。不同的力量造成了这样的过程。早期对团体的忠诚必定是因对领袖的忠诚而得到增强。在大部落中，头人或王很可能认识每一个人，而下属之间可能并不认识。这种情况下，对个人而非对部落的忠诚使得团队规模的增大变得可能，而不会对本能造成悖逆。某一阶段，新的情况出现了。战争，最开始是灭族，至少部分地逐渐变成了征服；被征服的不是被处死，而是被纳为奴隶，被迫为征服者劳动。这种情况下，一个团体中就有了两种人，即最初的自由成员——部落精神之所在——和臣属，后者因恐惧而服从，并非出于忠诚的本能。尼尼微和巴比伦统治了庞大的疆域，不是因为它们的臣民对这两个统治城市有什么本能的社会凝聚力，而只是因为它们在战争中表现出的勇猛吓坏了这些臣民。从早期到现代，战争一直是国家规模扩大的主要引擎，恐惧越来越多地取代部落团结，成为社会凝聚力的来源。这种改变并不限于大型社会：例如，在斯巴达也有这样的变化，那里的自由民占少数，奴隶受到无情的压迫。斯巴达在整个古代都得到赞扬，因其社会凝聚力令人艳羡，但那是一种从未设想要拥抱全社会的凝聚力，只是以恐惧强迫出外在的忠诚罢了。
在文明发展的特定阶段，一种新型的忠诚开始出现：一种并非基于共同领地或种族，而是基于信仰身份的忠诚。就西方来说，这种情况似乎起源于奥菲社会，其承认奴隶也有平等权利。除此以外，古代宗教与政府的关系是如此紧密，以至于信奉共同宗教的人基本上与旧有的亲族关系社群没有什么不同。然而信仰身份逐渐变得越来越强大，其军事力量的首次体现就是伊斯兰教在七、八世纪进行的征服。信仰身份也是十字军东征和宗教战争的推动力量。十六世纪的宗教忠诚经常压倒国家认同：英国的天主教徒与西班牙结盟，法国的胡格诺派和英国并肩。如今，两种广泛的信仰得到人类大面积的忠诚。其中之一，共产主义信仰，其优势在于强烈的狂热，在一本神圣的书中得到体现。另外一种不那么明确，但力量不逊于此的信仰是“美国生活方式”。由许多不同国家的移民共同缔造的美国并没有亲族团结，但该国有着与欧洲国家同样强健的团结。如林肯所说，该国“忠诚于一种主张”。移民美国的人，或者至少他们的子女，总的来说觉得美国生活方式要比旧世界好，并且坚信如果这种生活方式在全球通行，那么是对人类有好处的。在美国也好，在俄罗斯也好，信仰的团结和国家团结相伴共生，并由此获得了新的力量，但这两种相互竞争的信仰具备着超越这两国边界的力量。