Mhm.

嗯。

Over the years I've started to notice something interesting.

多年來，我開始注意到一些有趣的事情。

It turns out that several well established series in the social sciences, from psychology, sociology and anthropology to organizational studies political science and policy making well they share similar ways of thinking about basic human needs and social forces.

事實證明，社會科學中幾個成熟的系列，從心理學、社會學和人類學到組織研究政治科學和政策制定，以及它們對人類基本需求和社會力量的思考方式是相似的。

In essence, these approaches identify core aspects of what motivates us and these motivations are then reflected in the ways we go about organizational and social change and even in our political attitudes.

從本質上講，這些方法確定了激勵我們的核心內容，這些動機隨後反映在我們進行組織和社會變革的方式中，甚至反映在我們的政治態度中。

But perhaps more than anything, these core motivations underlie the way we act together and the way we think about acting together.

但也許更重要的是，這些核心動機是我們共同行動的方式和我們思考共同行動的方式的基礎。

So for that reason I call them forms of coordination.

所以出於這個原因，我把它們稱為協調的形式。

The first of these forms is based on authority.

這些形式中的第一個是基於權威的。

It's essentially about doing what we're told to do and it's connected to ideas such as leadership, hierarchy, strategy, expertise.

它本質上是關於做我們被告知要做的事情，它與領導力、等級制度、戰略、專業知識等想法有關。

The second is based on values and belonging, doing what we think we ought to do.

第二種是基於價值觀和歸屬感，做我們認為應該做的事。

Mhm.

嗯。

Given the kind of person we think we are and it's linked to ideas like solidarity, social responsibility, the collective, the tribe.

鑑於我們認為自己是什麼樣的人，而且它與團結、社會責任、集體、部落等觀念有關。

And then finally there's the form based on who we are, as unique individuals doing what we want to do for ourselves, connected to ideas like autonomy, freedom, entrepreneurship, ambition, creativity.

最後是基於我們是誰的形式，作為獨特的個體，做我們自己想做的事，與自主、自由、創業、雄心、創造力等想法相關。

Now, many theories, for example, self determination theory from psychology or the competing values framework from organizational studies or the idea of public value in policy making well, they broadly recognized the need to balance and channel these different motivations and the views and methods of change that flow from them.

現在，許多理論，例如，來自心理學的自我決定理論或來自組織研究的競爭價值框架或政策制定中的公共價值理念，以及，他們廣泛認識到需要平衡和引導這些不同的動機以及由此產生的觀點和變革方法。

But there are two things which tend to often to be left out first that achieving and sustaining balance between those motivations and the forms of change that come with them.

但有兩件事往往被忽略了，首先是在這些動機和隨之而來的變革形式之間實現和維持平衡。

It's inherently difficult.

這本來就很難。

This is partly because each of the forms of coordination has aspects which are compatible with the other forms but also less benign expressions which are not so individualism, for example, can be about autonomy.

這部分是因為每一種協調形式都有與其他形式兼容的方面，但也有不那麼良性的表達，例如，個人主義可以是關於自治的。

Self expression, creativity, but it could also be about selfishness.

自我表達，創造力，但也可能是關於自私的。

Atom is um mindless competition and difficulty also arises because the forms often compete as accounts of why we have social problems and how we have to solve those problems.

阿託姆是嗯無意識的競爭，困難也出現了，因為這些形式經常作為我們為什麼有社會問題以及我們必須如何解決這些問題的敘述來競爭。

Indeed each form gained some of its legitimacy from its critique of the others.

事實上，每一種形式都從其對其他形式的批判中獲得了一些正當性。

So, for example, the advocates of value based collectivist solutions will often bolster their case by questioning hierarchical control or the irresponsibility of individualism.

是以，例如，基於價值的集體主義解決方案的倡導者往往會通過質疑等級控制或個人主義的不負責任來支持他們的觀點。

And finally, even when societies or organizations do achieve some kind of balance of ways of acting and thinking well, the problem is we live in a changing world and change is likely to upset that balance.

最後，即使社會或組織確實在行動和思維方式上取得了某種平衡，問題是我們生活在一個不斷變化的世界，變化很可能會打破這種平衡。

There's also something else that often gets messed out and that's the importance of 1/4 rather different perspective fatalism fatalism is an inherent part of the human condition, probably linked to our awareness of our own mortality, but it's also often simply the most accurate assessment of how likely positive changes to occur in any given social context.

還有一些東西經常被搞亂，那就是1/4個相當不同的觀點的重要性 宿命論 宿命論是人類條件的固有部分，可能與我們對自己的死亡的認識有關，但它也經常只是對任何特定社會背景下發生積極變化的可能性的最準確評估。

Now, given how often versions of this framework, combining ideas of authority, of values and belonging and of individual aspiration, given how often this framework emerges from conceptual and empirical inquiry across a range of disciplines?

現在，考慮到這個框架的版本，結合權威、價值和歸屬以及個人願望的想法，考慮到這個框架經常從一系列學科的概念和經驗調查中出現？

Well, there's a big question, why is it not more widely accepted, understood and applied?

那麼，有一個大問題，為什麼它沒有被更廣泛地接受、理解和應用？

I think one answer is that social science disciplines tend to offer very different accounts of human nature and of society reflecting their traditions and ideological predispositions.

我認為一個答案是，社會科學學科往往對人性和社會提供非常不同的描述，反映了它們的傳統和意識形態傾向。

Sociologists are generally more left wing than economists.

社會學家一般比經濟學家更左翼。

Social psychologists focus on individual motivation, anthropologists think the group is what matters.

社會心理學家專注於個人動機，人類學家認為群體才是最重要的。

And these different academic world views may also be a reason why the natural sciences, which agree about much more, have been able to advance and win so much more public trust than the social sciences.

而這些不同的學術世界觀也可能是自然科學的一個原因，因為自然科學在更多的方面達成了一致，所以能夠比社會科學取得進展並贏得更多的公眾信任。

Now, what I call coordination theory and the series are similar to it.

現在，我所說的協調理論和系列與之相似。

Well, they don't offer a slam dunk way of reaching an agreed diagnosis about social or organizational problems.

好吧，它們並沒有提供一個對社會或組織問題達成一致診斷的大滿貫方式。

They don't provide a single prescription about how to achieve progress, but what they do offer, I think is a it's a kind of shared base camp for social scientists to develop richer accounts of the social worlds.

他們沒有提供一個關於如何實現進步的單一處方，但他們所提供的，我認為是一種共同的大本營，供社會科學家發展對社會世界更豐富的描述。

We all live in bringing together the insights offered by different disciplines in a way that makes them more accessible and more useful to a much wider public.

我們都生活在將不同學科提供的見解彙集在一起的過程中，使它們對更多的公眾來說更容易理解和更有用。

Let's face it, we can't afford not to bring the best understanding of who we are as humans, to the increasingly complex challenges facing pretty much every community, organization and nation in the world today.

讓我們面對現實吧，我們不能不把對我們作為人類的最佳理解帶到今天世界上幾乎每個社區、組織和國家所面臨的日益複雜的挑戰中去。

If social science, with its inherent commitment to human welfare, is not to be entirely sidelined by the juggernaut of Science and technology, well, its proponents need to start emphasizing what they do agree about more often than what they don't.

如果社會科學以其固有的對人類福祉的承諾，不至於完全被科學和技術的巨無霸所排擠，那麼，其支持者需要開始強調他們確實同意的東西，而不是他們不同意的東西。

After all, if we could agree a bit more about what makes people and what makes society is tick, we might be more able to build a bridge to the future.

畢竟，如果我們能在什麼是人和什麼是社會的問題上達成更多共識，我們可能更有能力建立一座通往未來的橋樑。