Chapter Three The Gentry and Technical Knowledge

第叁章 士绅与技术知识

The Chinese term for "intelligentsia," chih-shih fen-tzu, "they who know," indicates that in Chinese society there was a differentiation based on wisdom. The questions arise: What kind of wisdom was it upon which this social differentiation was based? What was the mechanism by means of which it was monopolized by one class in society? We should like to ask further: How did this class maintain its position in the traditional scheme, and what changes are taking place in it through contact with the West?

The characteristic of the members of this class has always been not only that they knew something but that they had a special kind of knowledge. What this special knowledge or wisdom was is made clear in Confucius' work. The word chih has a restricted meaning. For example, the student Fan Ch'ih asked Confucius about the meaning of the word chih. Confucius said, "He who devotes himself to securing for his subjects what it is right they should have, who, by respect for the Spirits, keeps them at a distance, may be termed wise."[1] Confucius also said: "There may well be those who can do without knowledge; but I for my part, am certainly not one of them. To hear much, to pick out what is good and follow it, to see much, and take due note of it, is the lower of the two kinds of knowledge."[2]

From these quotations it is clear that Confucius did not use the word "knowledge" to mean merely cognition but implied knowledge of the right thing. Again, when Fan Ch'ih asked what it meant to be wise, the Master said, "Know men." Fan Ch'ih did not quite understand. The Master said, "By raising the straight and putting them on top of the crooked, one can make the crooked straight."[3] Confucius described the process of knowledge as, first, perception—the gathering of information—but, following upon this, the drawing of distinctions and the making of a choice. Knowledge is more than mere gathering of information, since it involves choice, and this choice is based on the ability to distinguish the good from the bad. Knowledge in this restricted sense, and based on a standard or norm, is designated by the word "straight." When you know what is straight, you must act upon it. And by so doing you will make the crooked straight. Thus Confucius explains the word chih as wisdom or knowledge of right behavior. Those who work for the people and those who respect the spirits are the people who know what they ought to do, and they are therefore "those who know." To know in this sense is not only to be intelligent but also to be virtuous. Knowledge of this sort goes with jên[4] and courage. The wise man not only is an intellectual but also knows the Way, the norm, the things he ought to do.

汉语里的“知识分子”一词暗示，中国社会在“知识”上发生了分化。问题是，什么样的知识能成为社会分化的基础呢？社会中的某一阶级是利用何种机制来独占知识的呢？我们还能进一步问，这一阶级怎样在传统社会结构中维持他们的地位，在与西方的接触中发生了怎样的变化？

这个阶级成员的特点是他们不仅“知”，而且有一定的专门知识。这种专门知识在孔子的著作中讲述得很清楚。“知”字有严格的意义。例如孔子的学生樊迟“问知”，“子曰：‘务民之义，敬鬼神而远之，可谓知矣。’”[5]孔子还说：“盖有不知而作之者，我无是也。多闻，择其善者而从之；多见而识之；知之次也。”[6]

这里我们看到，孔子所谓的“知”，显然不单是“知道了”，而是指“懂得正确的道理”。樊迟再次“问知”，“子曰：‘知人。’樊迟未达。子曰：‘举直错诸枉，能使枉者直。’”[7]孔子说明了知识的过程：首先是闻、见，即搜集信息，接下来是择、识。由于“知”不仅仅是信息的搜集，而且包括选择，这就要以分辨是非的能力为基础。这一狭义的知基于一定的行为标准，而这标准即为“直”。知了之后，还要遵循去做，对人还要“使直”。孔子把标准行为的规范解释为知，那些对民能“务本”、对神能“敬之”的人就可以算是知了。知在这里不仅指聪明智慧，还指高尚道德，可以和“仁”[8]、“勇”并称。知者不仅是聪明人，还是明道理的人，道理就是规范。

We can differentiate knowledge into two categories: first, understanding of the nature of the physical world and, second, understanding of what constitutes right conduct. In the Confucian classics chih refers to the second type of knowledge. Confucius even believed that the man who knew the moral norms did not necessarily need to know about nature. In fact, he was himself represented as that sort of man whose "four limbs are unaccustomed to toil" who "cannot distinguish the five kinds of grains."[9] Fan Ch'ih asked the Master to teach him about farming. The Master said, "You had much better consult some old farmer." He asked to be taught about gardening. The Master said, "You had much better go to some old vegetable gardener." When Fan Ch'ih had gone out, the Master said: "Fan is no gentleman! If those above them love ritual, then among the common people none will care to be disrespectful. If those above them love right, then among the common people none will dare to be disobedient. If those above them love good faith, then among the common people none will dare to depart from the facts. If a gentleman is like that, the common people will flock to him from all sides with their babies strapped to their backs. What need has he to practice farming?"[10] This quotation explains that, to Confucius, a knowledge of nature was not so important and also shows his conception of his own social position. Men such as he are at the top; the ordinary people are at the bottom. The people must work on the land, but those at the top need only acquire and keep the respect of the people through upholding the li[11]—justice and faith. The man who knows about the norms of conduct need not work for his living.

In Mencius this social structure becomes still clearer. A man called Ch'en Hsiang spoke to Mencius about Hsü Hsing's idea that a worthy prince would till the land with the people. But Mencius did not agree with him and put forward arguments to show that a division of labor was both natural and right.

When Ch'en Hsiang saw Hsü Hsing, he was greatly pleased with him, and, abandoning entirely whatever he had learned, became his disciple. Having an interview with Mencius, he related to him with approbation the words of Hsü Hsing to the following effect: "The prince of T'ung is indeed a worthy prince. He has not yet heard, however, the real doctrines of antiquity. Now, wise and able princes should cultivate the ground equally and along with their people, and eat the fruit of their labour. They should prepare their own meals, morning and evening, while at the same time they carry on their government. But now, the prince of T'ung has his granaries, treasuries, and arsenals, which is an oppressing of the people to nourish himself. How can he be deemed a real worthy prince?"

我们可以把“知”分成两类：一是知道物质世界的特征，即自然知识；二是知道正确的行为如何构成，即规范知识。儒家作品中的“知”指的是第二类，孔子甚至认为懂得规范知识的人不必有自然知识，实际上他自己就代表了那种“四体不勤，五谷不分”[12]的人。“樊迟请学稼。子曰：‘吾不如老农。’请学为圃，曰：‘吾不如老圃。’樊迟出。子曰：‘小人哉，樊须也！上好礼，则民莫敢不敬；上好义，则民莫敢不服；上好信，则民莫敢不用情。夫如是，则四方之民襁负其子而至矣，焉用稼？’”[13]这段话说明，自然知识对于孔子是不太重要的，还表明了他对于自己社会地位的概念。像他这样的人是在上的，“民”在最下层。民必须种田，而在上的人只需高举“礼”[14]——即义、信——来获得和维持民的敬服。懂得行为规范的人不必亲自劳作。

孟子把这种社会结构说得更清楚。有一个叫陈相的人在孟子面前宣传许行的“贤者与民并耕而食”的主张，但孟子不同意，认为劳动分工既是自然的又是正确的。

“陈相见许行而大悦，尽弃其学而学焉。陈相见孟子，道许行之言曰：‘滕君则诚贤君也；虽然，未闻道也。贤者与民并耕而食，饔飧而治。今也滕有仓廪府库，则是厉民而以自养也，恶得贤?'

Mencius said, "I suppose that Hsü Hsing sows grain and eats the produce. Is it not so?" "It is so," was the answer. "I suppose also, he weaves cloth, and wears his own manufacture. Is it not so?" "No. Hsü wears clothes of haircloth." "Does he wear a cap?" "He wears a cap." "What kind of a cap?" "A plain cap." "Is it woven by himself?" "No. He gets it in exchange for grain!" "Why does Hsü cook his food in boilers and earthenware pans, and does he plough with an iron share?" "Yes." "Does he make those articles himself?" "No. He gets them in exchange for grain."

Mencius then said, "The getting of those various articles in exchange for grain is not oppressive to the potter and the founder, and the potter and the founder in their turn, in exchanging their various articles for grain, are not oppressive to the husbandman. How should such a thing be supposed? And moreover, why does not Hsü act the potter and founder, supplying himself with the articles which he uses solely from his own establishment? Why does he go confusedly dealing and exchanging with the handicraftsmen? Why does he not spare himself so much trouble?" Ch'en Hsiang replied, "The business of the handicraftsman can by no means be carried along with the business of husbandry."

Mencius resumed, "Then, is it the government of the kingdom which alone can be carried on along with the practice of husbandry? Great men have their proper business, and little men have their proper business…. Hence, there is the saying, 'Some labour with their minds, and some labour with their strength. Those who labour with their minds govern others; those who labour with their strength are governed by others. Those who are governed by others support them; those who govern others are supported by them.' This is a principle universally recognized."[15]

We may see here how a recognition of the obvious need for an economic division of labor was used to support class distinctions and to justify the privileges of the ruling class. But I quote the two passages given above in this context to show the difference in attitude under the traditional system toward knowledge of the natural world and ethical knowledge. Knowledge of the natural world was knowledge for production and belonged to farmers, craftsmen, and others who depended upon it for earning their living. Ethical knowledge, on the other hand, was an instrument in the possession of those who used their minds to rule the people. To rule others means that one is superior and should be able to be maintained by others, if not exploit them. Because such men do not deal with the material world, they form the habit of "not using their four limbs" and "not distinguishing the five grains." It is this which Confucius suggests by his question as to why he should till the land.

“孟子曰：‘许子必种粟而后食乎？’曰：‘然。’‘许子必织布而后衣乎？’曰：‘否；许子衣褐。’‘许子冠乎？’曰：‘冠。’曰：‘奚冠？’曰：‘冠素。’曰：‘自织之与？’曰：‘否；以粟易之。’曰：‘许子奚为不自织？’曰：‘害于耕。’曰：‘许子以釜甑爨，以铁耕乎？’曰：‘然。’‘自为之与？’曰：‘否；以粟易之。’

“‘以粟易械器者，不为厉陶冶；陶冶亦以其械器易粟者，岂为厉农夫哉？且许子何不为陶冶，舍皆取诸其宫中而用之？ 何为纷纷然与百工交易？何许子之不惮烦？’曰：‘百工之事固不可耕且为也。’

“然则治天下独可耕且为与？有大人之事，有小人之事。……故曰，或劳心，或劳力；劳心者治人，劳力者治于人；治于人者食人，治人者食于人，天下之通义也。”[16]

这里我们可以看到，对劳动的经济划分的必要性的认识是如何被用来支持阶级划分和为统治阶级的特权辩解的。但我引用以上两段话是要表明传统制度下对自然知识和规范知识的不同态度。自然知识是生产知识，属于农民、手工业者和其他以生产为生的人；而规范知识是劳心者统治人民的工具。统治别人意味着高于别人，可以“食于人”，如果不是剥削人的话。他们自己不参与生产，养成了“四体不勤，五谷不分”的习惯，孔子“焉用稼”的问题正式表达了这层意思。

Although Mencius laid down the distinction discussed above as a universal principle, he did not explain why those who work with the mind, those who possess ethical knowledge, should stand above the people and rule them and be entitled to be supported by them.[17]

This leads us to the question: How did the intelligentsia acquire their social position? Much of their authority was derived from the nature of the knowledge they possessed, a knowledge not, as we have seen, of practical affairs but of something other, of recognized social value.

In order to satisfy the basic needs of existence, such as food, clothing, and shelter, we must use material goods and have some real acquaintance with the world about us. We must know how to deal with material objects in the right way. For instance, the knowledge that friction will produce fire was an early-discovered principle and an important addition to civilized knowledge. But one cannot make fire simply by rubbing something together. The knowledge of how to make fire must include a knowledge of what materials to use and of how long friction of these materials must be maintained. Only under certain conditions is the principle of making fire through friction realized. A technique prescribes a definite procedure by which one reaches certain desired consequences, and a knowledge and proper use of it determine whether one achieves the desired result or not. But in human life we do not use techniques for their own sake but rather as a means toward an end. We make a fire in order to cook, to warm a house, or to worship the gods. Thus making a fire brings not only the problem of how but also of when, where, and by whom to make what kind of fire. Making a fire is not an isolated activity but part of a social institution. And social institutions always involve not only efficiency but also values. The problem is whether we ought or ought not to make the fire. This is part of what Confucius called the li. Thus the same action may be right in certain contexts and not right in others. When someone asked Confucius if Kuan Chung knew about the li, he said: "Only the ruler of a State may build a screen to mask his gate; but Kuan had such a screen. Only the ruler of a State, when meeting another ruler, may use cupmounds; but Kuan used one. If even Kuan is to be cited as a expert in ritual, who is not an expert in ritual?"[18] That which decides what we ought to do is not the technique but a norm of conduct.

In dealing with nature, it is a question of doing what is practically right. If we work according to principles inherent in nature itself, we will reach our desired end. If we do not do so, we will not succeed in making the fire burn. Thus no extra authority is needed to reinforce knowledge of the natural world. If one does not act according to social norms, the consequences may be bad for society as a whole, if not for the individual himself. To protect the common good, we need sanctions which will make the nonconformist respect the norms. In this way, we turn ought to be into dare not do so. Social sanctions require authority from society at large. But this authority cannot be given to everyone; society must delegate someone to be its agent. In China such persons have been those whom we referred to above as "the men who know."

虽然孟子把以上的社会分化说成是“天下之通义”，但他没有解释为什么那些“劳心者”、那些掌握规范知识的人可以在上、可以治人、可以食于人。[19]

这使我们不禁要问：知识分子是怎样获得他们的社会地位的？他们的地位大部分是从他们所拥有的知识的性质引出的。正如我们所看到的，这种知识不是指实际事务的知识，而是另外一种对社会价值的认识。

为满足衣食住行基本生活的需要，我们必须利用自然的物资，与所处的自然世界发生真正的联系。我们必须懂得如何用正确的方式来与物资打交道。例如，摩擦生火是人类很早懂得的原理，也是对文明知识很重要的补充，但不是随意把东西摩擦一下就可以生火的。生火知识的内容包括用什么东西、怎样摩擦、摩擦多久等，只有在一定的条件下才能实现摩擦生火的原则。技术规定了在一定程序下会得到一定的效果，而知识及其正确运用可以决定是否能达到预期的结果。但在人类生活中，我们不是为用技术而用技术，而通常是为达到某个目的。生火是为了煮饭、取暖、敬神，因此生火不仅仅是如何生火的问题，还包括生火的时间、地点、由谁来生火和生何种火。生火不是孤立的行为，而是社会制度中的一部分，而社会制度经常不仅涉及有效性，而且涉及价值观念。问题是我们是否应该生火。这是孔子所谓的“礼”的一部分。因此，同一个活动在某些情况下就可能是应当的，而在另外的情况下就可能是不应当的。有人问孔子，管仲是否懂得礼呢？他说：“邦君树塞门，管氏亦树塞门。邦君为两君之好，有反坫，管氏亦有反坫。管氏而知礼，孰不知礼？”[20]决定我们应该做什么的不是技术而是行为规范。

与自然打交道时，问题在于区分正确与否。如果我们遵循自然规则，就能达到目的；如果不遵循，就不能达到目的，就生不出火。我们不需要另外的力量来使人们遵循自然知识。一个人不遵守社会规范，即使不会危害他自己，却可能会给整个社会带来危害。为了保护大家的利益，我们必须对不守规范的人加以制裁，这样就把“应该做”转变为“不敢做”。制裁需要来自社会共同意志的权威的支持，但是权威不能给大家，只能授予若干人来做大家的代理。在中国，这种人就是前面我们提到的“知者”。

In a static society those norms of conduct which are developed through and accumulated by practical experience are usually effective directives for a successful life. Their effectiveness is their raison d’être and their justification for their support by social authority. In such a society the other side of the coin is the fact of willing conformity by the majority, because conformity to these norms of conduct gives satisfaction in daily life. Norms of conduct in a stable society are traditions handed down over the years, crystallized experience in dealing with the world. Confucius achieved his social authority not so much from his own wisdom or learning as from his profound knowledge of the traditional way. In a stable, traditionally organized society a man does not need to question, to rationalize, or to justify. What he needs to do is to find out what the custom is. When Confucius speaks of "finding out," he is not seeking to explore something new but to rediscover the past.[21] In a society in which historic traditions have the only real validity influence lies not with the innovators but with those who can guide along established paths. As apprentices learn their techniques from their masters, so the common people depend upon the students of traditional values to teach them the way in which they must go. And these teachers are those who possess social authority and prestige.

Social authority is, however, different from political power. I emphasized the fact that the Chinese gentry did not possess real political power. In fact, in China, political power has always been quite different from social authority. Political power is attained by violence and imposes the relationship of conqueror to conquered, while social authority is a rule of society over the individual which is based on consent and common understanding, Confucius' school hoped that political power and social authority might be made to coincide. When a ruler rules his country by political power alone, he will be called a despot, or pa. When political power and social authority coincide, he will be called a king, or wang. In actual fact, in the history of China, the combination has never been achieved. Confucius was revered as a "king without a throne," su wang, a man with social authority but without political power. The result of having two parallel sources of authority meant that, in Chinese society, order was established on two different levels. The daily life of the masses was regulated by social authority, while political authority was usually confined to the activity of the yamen.[22] The court, except in the case of a few tyrants, did not interfere in the going concern of society. In general, a good monarch collected a definite amount of taxes and left the people alone.

在一个静态的社会中，从实际经验里发展、积累得来的规范通常是社会共同生活有效的指导。规范对于社会生活的功效是它存在的理由，也是受到社会权威支持的理由。这种社会的另一面是大多数人民的悦服，因为服从于这些行为规范可以带来日常生活的满足。行为规范在稳定的社会中成了多年的传统和处世的经验。孔子获得其社会权威更多是因为他对传统的深刻理解而不是他自己的聪明或学识。在稳定的传统社会里，人们不必去推究“为什么”的问题，他只需找出传统的做法就可以了。孔子谈“发现”时，他不是指去探索新的东西，而是去重新发现过去。[23]在一个只有历史传统才具有真正有效性的社会中，影响不在于改革者，而在于那些沿着已有的道路指引人们的人。正像学徒向师傅学手艺一样，人们依靠知道传统价值的人来教授他们必须要走的路。这些知道传统的人具有社会的威望。

然而，社会权威和政权是不同的。我曾强调过中国的士大夫并不真正掌握政权这一事实。实际上，在中国，政权和社会权威经常是迥异的。政权通过武力获得，是征服者与被征服者的关系；社会权威则是社会对个人的控制力，基于认可和共同的理解。儒家希望政权和社会权威相合，当统治者只用政权来统治国家时，被称为霸道，二者相合时称为王道。事实上，在中国的历史中，二者从没有相合过。孔子被尊称为“素王”，一个有社会权威而没有政治权力的人。两种权力并行于天下的结果意味着，在中国历史中，秩序建立在两个不同的层次上：民众的日常生活由社会权威来规定，衙门[24]里则是政权的统治。除了少数的暴君，皇权是不干涉民众生活的。一般说来，一个好的帝王在额定的赋役之外不去干预民众。

In a simple society the norms of conduct are known to most of the people and are not specialized knowledge. Anyone may follow the norms and receive recognition. A student of Confucius’, Tzu-hsia, once said: "A man who treats his betters as betters wears an air of respect, who in serving father and mother knows how to put his whole strength, who in the service of his prince will lay down his life, who in intercourse with friends is true to his word—others may say of him that he still lacks education, but I for my part should certainly call him an educated man."[25] The reason for the lack of special qualifications for the person who knows the norms is that for most of the people ethical or normative knowledge is accessible. In a simple society this kind of knowledge is handed down orally and learned by repetition. Confucius used the word "exercise" in writing of acting upon knowledge gained by hearing rather than by the study of books. Literacy had not yet become so all-important. It is said of Confucius that, "when the Master entered the Grand Temple, he asked questions about everything there. Someone said, 'Do not tell me that this son of a villager from Tsou is expert in matters of ritual. When he went to the Grand Temple, he had asked about everything.' The Master, hearing of this said, 'Just so! Such is the ritual.' "[26] And when the disciple Tzu-kung asked, "Why was K'ung Wên-tzu called Wên ('The Cultured')?" the Master said, "Because he was diligent and so fond of learning that he was not ashamed to pick up knowledge even from his inferiors."[27]

But, when life becomes more complicated, the transmission of norms of conduct can no longer depend entirely on oral transmission. There come to be different versions, and the decision which is right requires verification through the study of documents. Confucius said, "How can we talk about the ritual of the Hsia? The State of Ch'i supplies no adequate evidence. How can we talk about the ritual of Yin? The State of Sung supplies no adequate evidence. For there is a lack both of documents and of learned men."[28] When ethical values are no longer transmitted by word of mouth but mainly through written documents, they no longer are accessible to everyone, and literacy becomes very important. Then there develops a special group of people who know how to read books—the chih-shih fen-tzu, or intelligentsia.[29]

在简单的社会里，行为规范被大多数人所认识，它并不是特殊的知识，任何人都可以遵循它和享受传统的权威。孔子的弟子子夏曰：“贤贤易色；事父母，能竭其力；事君，能致其身；与朋友交，言而有信。虽曰未学，吾必谓之学矣。”[30]懂得规范的人没有特殊资格是因为大多数人都有和这种知识接触的机会。在简单的社会里，这种知识是在世代间口口相传、人人相习的。孔子用“习”字来说明通过“闻”而不是通过书本知识来行事。那时文字并不很重要。据说孔子“入太庙，每事问”。有人就说：“孰谓鄹人之子知礼乎？入太庙，每事问。”孔子听说后就说：“是礼也。”[31]而当弟子子贡问“孔文子何以谓之‘文’也”，孔子回答说：“敏而好学，不耻下问，是以谓之‘文’也。”[32]

但是，当生活变得更复杂时，行为规范就不能再完全依靠口口相传了，规范发生了派别的出入，正确的决定要通过对文献的研究而得到证实。子曰：“夏礼，吾能言之，杞不足征也；殷礼，吾能言之，宋不足征也。文献不足故也。足，则吾能征之矣。”[33]当社会价值不再以口口相传而是通过文献时，就不是每个人都可以得到的，文字也就变得很重要，这样就有了能够识字读书的特殊人物，称之为“知识分子”。[34]

At the folk level in traditional China there has always been an oral literature.[35] Classical literature, the only literature officially recognized, which developed from the writing-down of sacred rituals and songs, systems of divination, dynastic histories and genealogies, remained always something apart from the common man. Official historical records of the teachings of the sages may serve to instruct but are of little practical value to the struggling farmer. Not only is the content of what was written difficult to grasp, but the (classical) written language itself is quite distinct from common speech. And since the very structure of the written language differs from spoken, even a literate man who can speak well will not necessarily be a good writer. Literary composition cannot be picked up but requires great application. The pictorial characters are hard to learn, and, if one does not use them constantly, one forgets them. In an economy of scarcity very few can enjoy sufficient leisure to learn.[36] Agriculture is the main occupation of China. Farmers engaged in the work of the fields expend their energies in long hours of grinding labor and enjoy small incomes. Such men cannot hope for long periods of leisure. As I described the situation in Earthbound China, production and leisure are mutually exclusive; unless one can be supported by others who produce, one cannot leave manual labor. Thus those who have leisure must be big landholders, so big that they can live entirely on their rents. In this way the class of people who are trained in an understanding of values is limited to an economic group who do not represent the interests of the common people.

Mencius said that those who use their minds should be supported by those who use their labor. It appears to me true that only those who are supported by someone else can enjoy literary work. But this does not mean that all those who are supported by others and do not work with their hands necessarily are capable or willing to work with their minds. Those who are privileged to be supported by others have no need to learn technical knowledge, but they also need not learn norms of conduct; they may merely live parasitically. However, in this case, their privileged position may not be secure. Privilege must be supported by some force, either by political power maintained by physical force or by social authority. The class of people who enter officialdom not only can afford to become educated but must do so in order to acquire prestige.

传统中国的乡土社会常常是有语无文的。[37]从神礼、神歌、占卜、朝代史和家谱等的记载发展起来的经典文学是唯一得到官方认可的文献，常常远离普通人民。官家史书记载的圣人之言也许可以引导人们怎样做人，但通常对于贫苦的农民没有实际意义。不仅是所写的内容难以理解，典籍所用文字也与普通口语的说法明显不同。由于文言文的句法与白话不同，即使一个口才很好的文人也不一定会作好文。写文章不是能轻易学会的，需要格外努力。象形字很难学会，如果不经常用，又会忘掉。在匮乏经济时期，很少人有足够的闲暇来学习。[38]中国以农业为主，农民在田地里长时间劳作，只能获得很少的收入，这些人不可能有长期的闲暇时间。正如我在《被土地束缚的中国》中描写的：生产和闲暇互相排斥；除非一个人能得到生产者的供养，否则他不能脱离劳作。因此，那些有闲暇的人一定是大地主，大到能靠收租为生。因此受教育的人局限在一个经济群体中，他们不代表普通人民的利益。

孟子说“劳心者食于人”，只有靠别人来供养的人才能读书写文。但这并不是说不劳力者一定能够或愿意劳心，那些靠着特权享受别人供养的人不但不必去学习技术知识，也不必学习社会规范，他们可以只过着寄生的生活。然而，在这种情况下，他们的特权也许不安全，特权必须要靠力量——暴力政权或社会权威——来支持。官僚阶层不仅有条件读书，而且为获得特权也有读书的需要。

The prestige of literacy combined with the power of political authority to support a privileged class distinguished from the laboring class by their higher economic position, their greater opportunity for education, and resultant greater social authority, and, last but not least, their separation from all practical technical knowledge.

As I have shown above, technical knowledge should be related to ethical values. But, once the knowledge of values became so closely linked with literacy that it became the monopoly of one class, it became separated from technology. And, once this link was broken, technological development was arrested. I have said that knowledge of the natural world must be incorporated into a social institution to become "useful," that is, a technique which improves the life of the people. If, however, the governing class, who are responsible for the life of the people, completely lack technical knowledge, they will not be able to order human affairs by technical means. For example, if those who "do not move their four limbs and who cannot distinguish the five grains" have the power of deciding techniques of land cultivation, they will not be willing or able to improve production by introducing improved techniques which may disturb existing traditional ways. Progress in modern techniques comes only when the producers themselves have the power to decide. Once this power is separated from the real producer, technical improvements will cease.

In Chinese traditional society the intelligentsia have been a class without technical knowledge. They monopolized authority based on the wisdom of the past, spent time on literature, and tried to express themselves through art. Chinese literary language is very inapt to express scientific or technical knowledge. This indicates that, in the traditional scheme, the vested interests had no wish to improve production but thought only of consolidating privilege. Their main task was the perpetuating of established norms in order to set up a guide for conventional behavior. A man who sees the world only through human relations is inclined to be conservative, because in human relations the end is always mutual adjustment. And an adjusted equilibrium can only be founded on a stable and unchanging relation between man and nature. On the other hand, from the purely technical point of view, there are hardly any limits to man's control of nature. In emphasizing technical progress, one plunges into a struggle in which man's control over nature becomes ever changing, ever more efficient. Yet these technical changes may lead to conflict between man and man. The Chinese intelligentsia viewed the world humanistically. Lacking technical knowledge, they could not appreciate technical progress. And they saw no reason to wish to change man's relations to man.

靠知识的特权和政治权力共同支持的特权阶层，以他们较高的经济地位、更多的教育机会和由此而得到的更大的社会权威以及与一切实用技术知识的分离而区别于劳动阶层。

如我在上面所说的，技术知识应该和规范知识相关联。但是当规范知识和文字一旦结合而成了某一阶层的独占品时，它就和技术知识分离了，这样一分离，技术也就停顿了。我已说过自然知识一定要通过社会才能被应用而成为有用的技术，改善人民的生活。如果对人民生活负责的统治阶级完全缺乏技术知识，他们就不能通过技术手段来管理人民。比如说，那些“四体不勤、五谷不分”的人如果有着决定怎样应用耕种技术的权力的话，他们将不愿或不能通过引进更好的技术以改善生产，因为这可能扰乱既有的传统方法。现代技术的进步是生产者取得了决定社会规范的权力之后的事。一旦这权力脱离了真正的生产者，技术的进步也立刻停顿。

在中国传统社会，知识阶级是一个没有技术知识的阶级，他们独占以历史的智慧为基础的权威，在文字上下工夫，在艺技上求表现。中国文字非常不适合表达科学或技术知识。这表明在传统社会结构中，既得利益的阶级的兴趣不在提高生产，而在于巩固既得的特权。他们主要的任务是为建立传统行为的指导而维持已有的规范。一个眼里只有人与人关系的人不免是保守的，因为人与人的关系的最终结果常常是互相协调。调整的均衡只能建立在人与自然稳定不变的关系基础上。另一方面，单从技术的角度出发，人类对自然的控制几乎没有限制。在强调技术进步的同时，人对自然的控制也随之不断改变，变得更为有效。然而技术的变化也许会导致人与人之间的冲突。中国的知识分子从人和人的关系看待世界，由于缺乏技术知识，他们就不会赞赏技术进步，看不出任何意图改变人与人关系的理由来。

---

[1] Arthur Waley, The Analects of Confucius (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1938), Book VI, No. 20, p. 120.

[2] Ibid., Book VII, No. 27, pp. 128–129.

[3] Ibid., Book XII, No. 22, p. 169.

[4] Referring to jên, "man," and continuing to show its relation to jên, "goodness," Waley says: "This word, in the earliest Chinese, means freemen, men of the tribe, as opposed to min, 'subjects,' 'the common people.' The same word, written with a slight modification, means 'good' in the most general sense of the word, that is to say, 'possessing the qualities of one's tribe.’... Finally, when the old distinction between jên and min, freemen and subjects, was forgotten, the jên became a word for human beings, the adjective jên came to be understood in the sense 'human' as opposed to 'animal,' and to be applied to conduct worthy of a man, as distinct from the behaviour of mere beasts.

"Of this last sense (human, not brutal) there is not a trace in the Analects. ... Jên, in the Analects, means 'good' in an extremely wide and general sense.... It is a sublime moral attitude, a transcendental perfection attained to by legendary heroes such as Po I, but not by any living or historic person. It appears indeed that jên is a mystic entity not merely analogous to but in certain sayings practically identical with the Tao of the Quietists. Like Tao, it is contrasted with 'knowledge.' Knowledge is active and frets itself away. Goodness is passive and therefore eternal as the hills. Confucius can point the Way to Goodness, can tell 'the workman how to sharpen his tools,' can speak of things 'that are near to Goodness.' But it is only once, in a chapter showing every sign of lateness, that anything approaching a definition of Goodness is given" (ibid., Introduction, pp. 27–29).

[5] 《论语》英文版，阿瑟·韦利译，伦敦：乔治·艾伦与昂温出版公司，1938年，第6篇，第20章，第120页。

[6] 同上书，第7篇，第27章，第128—129页。

[7] 同上书，第12篇，第22章，第169页。

[8] 指“人”，韦利继续说明其与“仁”的关系：“这个字在中国古文字中意思是指自由人、部落里的人，与‘民’、‘平民’相对。在写法上略有些改变的同样一个字（仁），意思是最广义的‘善’，即是说‘具有其所属部落的属性特征’……当‘人’与‘民’之间这种古老的区分最终被遗忘之后，‘人’这个字就用来指人类，形容词意义上的‘人’这个字是从与动物相对立的‘人类’这个意义上来理解的，并被用以指涉符合人的德性的行为，与单纯的兽类行为区分开来。

“对于后面的这个含义（即人性而非兽性），在《论语》中无法找到任何出处。……在《论语》一书中，‘仁’意味着极为广义上的和普遍意义上的‘善’。……这是一种崇高的道德态度，这是由像伯夷这样的传奇式英雄而不是由活着的或历史上的人物所达到的一种超越的完美。‘仁’似乎确实是一种神秘的存在，它不仅类似于，而且在某些表述中几乎等同于寂静主义者所持守的‘道’。与‘道’一样，它是与‘知识’相对立的。知识是积极的，因而逐渐消磨。善则是被动的，有如高山一样恒久。孔子能够指出达到善的道路，能够告诉‘工’如何‘利其器’，能够告诫弟子‘亲仁’。但是《论语》中仅有一次在明显比较后期的一章中近乎给出了‘善’的定义。”同上书，导论部分，第27—29页。

[9] Analects of Confucius, free translation by Fei. "The five grains are paddy, millet, panicled millet, wheat, and pulse" (James Legge, The Works of Mencius in The Chinese Classics [2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895], II, 251 n.).

[10] Waley, Analects, Book XIII, No. 4, p. 172. See Legge's version of the Confucian analects for a somewhat different translation. Although somewhat less literal than Legge, Waley's text of the Analects has been employed as being closer to Fei's usage. For example, Fei uses the term "gentleman," as does Waley, rather than "superior man," "man of the higher type," "wise man," as do Legge and Soothill.

[11] Li: "Ceremonials, customary morality, mores, rites, rules of good manners, proper conduct, propriety" (Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, trans. Derk Bodde [Peiping: H. Vetch, 1937], I, 439).

[12] 见《论语》，费孝通自译。“五谷是指稻、黍、稷、麦、菽也。”引自《中国典籍》第2卷《孟子选集》，理雅各编译，第2版，牛津：克拉伦登出版社，1895年，第251页注释。

[13] 引自《论语》英文版，韦利译，第13篇，第4章，第172页。另可参见理雅各对儒家语录的翻译，译法稍有不同。尽管不如理雅各在字面上忠于原文，但是韦利的《论语》译本更近于费孝通所使用的含义。比如，对“君子”的译法，费孝通和韦利一样译为gentleman，而不是像理雅各和苏慧廉那样译成superior man、man of the higher type和wise man。

[14] “礼”是指“庆典、习俗道德、风气、仪式、良好的行为举止和礼仪”。引自《中国哲学史》英文版，冯友兰著，德克·卜德译，北平：亨利·维奇出版公司，1937年，第1卷，第439页。

[15] Legge, op. cit., Vol. II, Book III, Part I, chap. iv, pp. 247–250.

[16] 引自《中国典籍》第2卷《孟子选集》，理雅各编译，第3篇上，第4章，第247—250页。（中文可参考《孟子译注》，杨伯峻译注，中华书局，1962年，第123—124页。——译者注）

[17] Mencius did say: "The Minister of Agriculture taught the people to sow and reap, cultivating the five kinds of grain. When the five kinds of grain were brought to maturity, the people all obtained a subsistence. But men possess a moral nature; and if they were well-fed, warmly clad, and comfortably lodged, without being at the same time taught, they become almost like the beasts. This was a subject of anxious solicitude to the sage Shun, and he appointed Hsieh to be the Minister of Instruction, to teach the relations of humanity:—how, between father and son, there should be affection; between sovereign and minister, righteousness; between husband and wife, attention to their separate functions; between old and young, a proper order; and between friends, fidelity. The highly meritorious sovereign said to him, 'Encourage them; lead them on; rectify them; straighten them; help them; give them wings:—thus causing them to become possessors of themselves. Then follow this up by stimulating them, and conferring benefits on them.' When the sages were exercising their solicitude for the people in this way, had they leisure to cultivate the ground?" (ibid., Book III, Part I, chap. iv, pp. 251–252).

[18] Waley, Analects, Book III, No. 22, pp. 99–100.

[19] 孟子的确说：“后稷教民稼穑，树艺五谷；五谷熟而民人育。人之有道也，饱食、暖衣、逸居而无教，则近于禽兽。圣人有忧之，使契为司徒，教以人伦，——父子有亲，君臣有义，夫妇有别，长幼有序，朋友有信。放动曰：‘劳之来之，匡之直之，辅之翼之，使自得之，又从而振德之。’圣人之忧民如此，而暇耕乎？”引自理雅各编译《孟子选集》，第3篇上，第4章，第251—252页。（中文可参考《孟子译注》，杨伯峻译注，中华书局，1962年，第125页。——译者注）

[20] 引自《论语》英文版，韦利译，第3篇，第22章，第99—100页。

[21] "The Master said, 'I for my part am not one of those who have innate knowledge. I am simply one who loves the past and who is diligent in investigating it' " (ibid., Book VII, No. 19, p. 127).

[22] Yamen: The habitat of or the official and private residence of a mandarin, i.e., the bureaucracy itself.

[23] 子曰：“我非生而知之者，好古，敏以求之者也。”同上书，第7篇，第19章，第127页。（参见《孟子正义》，刘宝楠著，中华书局，第271页。——译者注）

[24] “衙门”：官员办公和居住的处所，即指官府。

[25] Wiley, Analects, Book I, No. 7, pp. 84–85.

[26] Ibid., Book III, No. 15, pp. 97–98.

[27] Ibid., Book V, No. 14, p. 110.

[28] Ibid., Book III, No. 9, p. 96.

[29] Giles wrote of the China of 1911: "The Chinese, recognizing the extraordinary results which have been brought about, silently and invisibly, by the operation of written symbols, have gradually come to invest these symbols with a spirituality arousing a feeling somewhat akin to worship. A piece of paper on which a single word has once been written or printed, becomes something other than paper with a black mark on it. It may not be lightly tossed about, still less trampled under foot; it should be reverently destroyed by fire, here again used as a medium of transmission to the great Beyond; and thus its spiritual essence will return to those from whom it originally came. In the streets of a Chinese city, and occasionally along a frequented highway, may be seen small ornamental structures into which odd bits of paper may be thrown and burnt, thus preventing a desecration so painful to the Chinese mind; and it has often been urged against foreigners that because they are so careless as to what becomes of their written and printed paper, the matter contained in foreign documents and books must obviously be of no great value" (H. A. Giles, The Civilization of China [New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1911], pp. 231–232).

[30] 引自《论语》英文版，韦利译，第1篇，第7章，第84—85页。

[31] 同上书，第3篇，第15章，第97—98页。（参见《孟子正义》，刘宝楠著，中华书局，第104页。——译者注）

[32] 同上书，第5篇，第14章，第110页。（参见《孟子正义》，中华书局，第188页。——译者注）

[33] 同上书，第3篇，第9章，第96页。（参见《孟子正义》，中华书局，第91—92页。——译者注）

[34] 翟理斯在谈到1911年的中国时写道：“中国人认识到了由书写符号的运用而无声无形引起的超乎寻常的后果，并逐渐赋予这些象征符号以某种灵性，由此而激发出一种近乎崇拜的情感来。在一张纸上面一旦写上或者是印上一个单字的话，那这张纸就不再是写有黑字的纸了。不能随便摇晃它，更不能踩在脚下；应该满怀敬意地焚毁，这样做还是将其当作向苍天传递消息的媒介——如此则其灵性的本质还会返回其最初由来之处。在中国城市的街道上，以及偶尔在人来人往的道路旁，会看到小小的略加装饰的建筑物，人们会将各样的小纸片投进去烧掉，以免亵渎神灵——这对于中国人来说是十分令人痛苦的事。并且这一点也常被用来反对外国人，因为他们对写下的和印刷的字纸毫不在意，记载在外国人的档案和书籍中的内容显而易见就没有什么太大价值了。”引自《中国的文明》，翟理斯著，纽约：亨利·霍尔特公司，1911年，第231—232页。

[35] "So long as men seek illusion, the story-teller will remain a feature of Chinese life, invited to wealthy homes to amuse those of the 'inner chamber,' welcome in the village tea-shops on the summer evenings where he is the peasants' living book of history, drawing his audience at fairs and wringing hard-earned coppers from the pockets of the crowds by the same device our up-to-date magazines use for serial stories, demanding a new outlay for a new installment. The story-tellers belong to an organization. Novices sometimes start their careers under an experienced teller of tales, but, usually, in the old days, they were unsuccessful students" (Juliet Bredon and Igor Mitrophanow, The Moon Year [Shanghai: Kelly & Walsh, 1927], pp. 152–153). Even fairly recently, during the war with Japan, the management of a factory in Free China hired an old-fashioned story-teller to tell stories of "The Chinese Robin Hood." This was entertaining for the less sophisticated local workers, but the nonlocal workers did not care for it (Kuo-heng Shih, China Enters the Machine Age, ed. and trans. Hsiao-tung Fei and Francis L. K. Hsu [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944], p. 110).

[36] "The 'bridge of learning' is a long one. From the primary school to the upper grades of the middle school takes nine years. And during these nine years parents must pay not only for the food but also for the other expenses of their children…. Moreover, while the children are in school, they cannot help on the family farm. This means that only the rich can afford to send their children to school. The young men of the poorer houses can have no chance to pass over this bridge; so they must find another way out. None of those from the middle, poor, and landless classes, who left the village, had had a middle-school education. Among the ten persons who went out from the rich houses of the village, seven of them had received a middle-school education" (Hsiao-tung Fei and Chih-i Chang, Earthbound China [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945], p. 274).

[37] “只要人们还追求幻想，说书人就仍是中国人生活的一个侧面，他们会被富人家请去娱乐那些所谓的‘内眷’，他们会在夏季夜晚乡间的茶馆里受到人们的欢迎，在那里他们成了农民生活的历史书。说书人在集市上吸引观众的方法与今天时兴的杂志所使用的连载故事的方法一样——人们花钱来听讲一回新故事，以此来挣观众口袋里的几个辛苦钱。说书的人都属于某个组织。有时初学者会在一位有经验的说书人的带领下学艺，但在过去，这类学生大多不会成功”（引自《中国风俗节日记》，裴丽珠、伊戈尔·米特罗法诺著，上海：别发印书局，1927年，第152—153页）。甚至到了最近的抗日战争期间，在自由中国管理工厂还会雇老式说书人来讲‘中国罗宾汉’（指《水浒》中的梁山好汉——译者注）的故事。这些故事是用来娱乐较为单纯的当地工人的，而外地工人对此并不大感兴趣（引自《中国进入机器时代》，史国衡著，费孝通和许烺光编译，剑桥：哈佛大学出版社，1944年，第110页）。

[38] “‘学习之桥’历时漫长。从小学到中学的高年级要九年的时间。在这九年当中，家长必须负担的不仅仅是他们孩子的伙食费用，还要负担其他方面的费用……更进一步说，当孩子在学校里的时候，他们不能在自家农田里帮忙。这便意味着只有富人能够负担得起送孩子上学。贫困户的男孩子就没有机会跨越这座桥梁了；因此他们要寻求其他的道路出来。出村的人中，来自中农、贫农和雇农家庭的没有一个人受过中学教育，而十位富家子弟中就有七个人受过中学的教育。”引自《被土地束缚的中国》，费孝通、张之毅著，芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1945年，第274页。