[responsivevoice_button voice="UK English Female" buttontext="Listen to Post"]

年中無休の家庭教師 毎日学習会

慶應義塾大学SFC 総合政策学部 英語 2013年 大問二 本文対訳


■ 第1段落
1:1 The environment is arguably an invention of our imagination.
1:2 そのうえ世界についての多くの経験から私たちが知っていることは,私たちが他の人々から学ぶ物語や,因習,観念を通じて,私たちに関係している。
1:2 What we know from experience of much of the world, moreover, is related to us through stories, conventions, and ideas that we learn from other people.
1:3 Processes and transitions are captured in conceptual terms that are fundamentally symbolic and abstract.
1:4 このことは現代の都市住民にとっても,森林に暮らす農耕民と同様に当てはまる。ことによると,それ以上に当てはまるのかもしれない。
1:4 This is as true for modern urban residents as it is for forest-dwelling agriculturists, perhaps more so.
1:5 Ideas about nature inevitably reflect our social world.
1:6 これが構成主義の基本的な主張である。
1:6 This is the basic claim of constructivism.

■ 第2段落
2:1 その最も急進的な形である,「極端な」構成主義は,環境の知識の,この象徴的で観念的な特性をきわめて真剣に受け止める。
2:1 In its most radical form, “hard” constructivism[31](1. takes 2. puts 3. gets) this symbolic and ideational character of environmental knowledge extremely seriously.
2:2 ただ社会的な状況のみが世界を理解するための概念を条件づけ,決定し,そうして世界をその過程で,少なくとも実質的に創造するのだと,その考えは主張する。
2:2 It insists that it is social context alone that conditions and determines our concepts for understanding the world, and [32』(1. here 2. so 3. there) creates the world, at least effectively, in the process.
2:3 こうした立場は,物事が真なのは,社会的に権力のあるものや影響力のあるものがそれを真だと考えているからであり,テレビ上では真だから,私たちの心の中では真だからだと,示唆している。
2:3 This position suggests that things are true because they are held to be true by the socially powerful and influential, because they are true on television, and because they are true In our minds.
2:4 As philosopher of science Steve Woogar insists, “nature and reality are the by-product rather than the pre-determinants of scientific activity.”
2:5 それゆえに環境的な対立は,自然論をめぐる争いなのであり,そこでは一団体が優勢となるにしてもそれは土壌浸食とか,地球温暖化,オゾン量減少といった変化のよりよい,あるいはより正確な説明ができるからではなく,真理に関する合意を生み出す社会的な権力に接近し,その権力を動員するからなのだ。
2:5 Environmental confects are, therefore, struggles [33](1. over 2. without 3. around) ideas about nature, in which one group prevails, not because they hold a better or more accurate account of a process―soil erosion, global warming, ozone depletion―but because they access and mobilize social power to create consensus on the truth.

■ 第3段落
3:1 For most political ecologists, this approach is somewhat too sharp a double-edged sword.
3:2 それによって,どのように政治的に権力を付与された環境科学が私たちの周りの世界の環境に影響を及ぼし,それを創造してきたのかを批判的に検証できるようになり,それは重要な政治的,生態学的企てではあるのだが,その一方,この手法では,結果を説明するのに人間以外の関与要因や過程(土壌や樹木,気候といったような)に言及することはできない。
3:2 While it [34](1. defies 2 undergoes 3. allows) a critical examination of how politically empowered environmental science has influenced and created the environments of the world around us, which is an important political ecological project, this approach does not allow us to make [35](1. adaptations 2 contributions 3. references) to non-human actors and processes (like soil, trees, and climate) In explaining outcomes.
3:3 このために,極端な構成主義は多くの研究者にとって魅力に欠けるものとなる。
3:3 This makes hard constructivism unattractive to many researchers.
3:4 while producing a valuable open space for accepting and appreciating alternative constructions of the environment held by other social communities, like forest dwellers, nomadic herders, and religious philosophers, this approach makes the symbolic systems of humans [36](1. sovereign 2. go 3. carry) over all other reality, apparently disabling empirical Investigation In traditional environmental science.

■ 第4段落
4:1 その結果,大半の政治生態学者は暗黙のうちに「穏健な方の」構成主義を支持するようになるが,その思想は,私たちがもつ現実についての考えは本物であり,実世界でも力をもつけれども,それらは経験的にわかる現実の不完全,不正確で偏向し,誤った理解を反映していると考えるのである。
4:1 As a result, most political ecologists tacitly cling to a “softer” form of constructivism, which holds that our concepts of reality are real and have force in the world but that they reflect incomplete, incorrect, biased and false understandings of an empirical reality.
4:2 In other words, the objective world is real and independent of our [37] (1. sophistication 2 categorization 3. cohabitation ) but filtered through subjective conceptual systems and scientific methods that are socially conditioned.
4:3 [38](1 Within 2. Without 3. By) this approach to constructivism, there are differing emphases, which center attention either on people’s misunderstanding of objective facts or on the social biases that enter into scientific exploration.

■ 第5段落
5:1 In the first case, false and socially biased categories of the world like “race,” are important to understand and explore even while their reality―consistent, racially-differentiated genetic differences―does not objectively exist.
5:2 Since people hold them [39](1. importantly 2. experimentally 3. experientially), these concepts or social constructions make a difference In the world, often with harmful effects and therefore need to be understood.
5:3 This “social object” approach to nature is attractive for political ecologists, who are able to assume that ecological science can reveal real environmental trends, like soil erosion, while social investigation can show how ignorant people can create false pictures of the world through power-laden social processes.
5:4 このような研究手法は大半の研究者にとって満足のいくものなのだ。なぜなら,彼らは自分が科学者だと考えているからである。
5:4 This approach is satisfactory for most researchers since they consider themselves scientists.
5:5 They can insist that their way of seeing the problem, using the tools of science, helps to unmask biased and incorrect views of nature.

■ 第6段落
6:1 しかしながら,そのような研究手法が科学的な実践に寄せている信頼は大いに問題がある。
6:1 The confidence that such an approach places in scientific practice, however, is highly problematic.
6:2 As radical constructivists persuasively point out, and as [40] (1. revealing it 2. is
revealed 3. having revealed it ) in histories of science, the very categories of scientific investigation are the same order of “social object” as the false commonsensical notions of the lay population.

■ 第7段落
7:1 The history of ecology is revealing in this respect.
7:2 The dominant theories of the operation of natural systems have consistently reflected the prevailing social languages and assumptions of their times.
7:3 [41] (1. Underachieving 2. Culminating 3. Emerging) during the high Industrial age, the science of ecology came to depend heavily on metaphors and concepts from mechanical engineering, with orderly, cyclical processes structured around balance and symmetry.
7:4 それはまた哲学的なロマン主義と,全体論と相互依存に対する執着とに,強くまたいくらか矛盾をはらみながら,依存していた。それはヘンリー=デイヴィッド=ソローのようなロマン主義の作家に見られるのと同様である。
7:4 It also [42](1. laid 2 drew 3. carried) heavily, and somewhat contradictorily, upon philosophical Romanticism and the obsession with holism and interdependence, as is found in Romantic writers like Henry David Thoreau.
7:5 こうした比喩に科学は依存しているのだが,それらが近年不十分となってきたのは,いずれそれらが現実をよく反映しなくなったか,あるいは変わりゆく社会的文化的な規準に適応しなくなったかであり,今や激変状態にあるのである。
7:5 These metaphors, on which science depends, became unsatisfactory in recent years, either because they reflected reality poorly, or didn’t fit changing social and cultural codes and now are In a state of [43](1. satisfaction 2. agreement 3. upheaval).

■ 第8段落
8:1 このことはまったく驚くに値しないと,生態学者のダニエル=ボトキンは主張する。以前の自然観は,有機的な全体としてであれ,神聖な秩序をもった一家としてであれ,明らかに,自然の秩序を説明しようと努めていた人々に利用可能な社会的言語を反映していた。
8:1 This should be in no way surprising, ecologist Daniel Botkin Insists: Previous views of nature, either as an organic [44](1. food 2 element 3. whole) or as a divinely ordered house, clearly reflected the social languages available to those who sought to explain nature’s order.
8:2 だから,ドナ=ハラウェイによって入念に詳細にわたって研究された霊長類学の歴史もまた,同様の社会的に制約された進化を示しているのである。チンパンジーとゴリラに関する調査と実験の変わりゆく主題(母親の本能攻撃,競争)はその歴史的な時期における社会の関心を反映しているのである。
8:2 So too, the history of primatology,* studied In careful detail by Donna Haraway, shows similar socially-bounded evolution; the changing topics of explorations and experiments on chimpanzees and gorillas (maternal instinct, aggression, competition) reflect the social concerns of their historical moment.
8:3 それは,動物行動学の秩序だった進化というよりむしろ現代アメリカ文化の歴史のように読める。
8:3 It reads more like a history of contemporary American culture than orderly evolution of animal ethology. **
8:4 Our scientific ideas of nature inevitably reflect the social conditions and dominant metaphors in which they were formed.
8:5 このことは必ずしも悪いことではない。
8:5 This is not necessarily bad.
8:6 With changing metaphors come emerging ways of thinking about and [45] (1. reproducing 2. reinventing g 3. reaching) the world.
8:7 Science is not free of “social objects.”

■ 第9段落
9:1 また別の穏健な構成主義的な研究手法である,「社会制度的な構成主義」が認めるのは,そうした偏見が科学的な実践の構造的な一部であるが,にもかかわらず,それらは客観的な物質世界の条件を決定するだけではないということなのだ。
9:1 An alternative soft constructivist approach, “social institutional constructivism,” allows that such biases are a structural par t of scientific practice, but that they nevertheless do not solely determine the conditions of the objective material world.
9:2 むしろ,科学のこうした概念的な偏向は,なぜ科学がときに事実を誤認するのかを説明するのに役立つ。
9:2 [46](1. Rather 2 Moreover 3. Hence) these conceptual biases in science help to explain why science some times gets facts wrong.
9:3 For social institutional constructivists, wrong ideas about nature are a product of the inevitable “socialness” of scientific communities.
9:4 しかしながら,時間とともに,また実験と反証の進行につれて「社会的な」観念は私たちの自然理解からは除去され,自然界の物体の正しい理解へと進んでいく。
9:4 Overtime, however, and through progressive experimentation and refutation the “social” ideas are purged from our understanding of nature, moving towards a true understanding of the objects of the natural world.
9:5 This is especially true, a social institutional constructivist might argue, as contemporary ecology and life sciences become more and more reflexive about the metaphors that [47](1. understand 2. underpin 3. underestimate) their analysis of objective systems.

■ 第10段落
10:1 As an approach to political ecology, this is perhaps the most common and attractive compromise.
10:2 Knowledges are all different, most researchers maintain, and different experiences, like those of biologists, herders, historians, famers, and foresters, [48』(1. counter-intuitively 2 are unlikely to 3. do indeed) produce extremely different categorical structures for interpreting the objective realities of the natural world.
10:3 そうではあっても,こうした知識は局所的な理解方法を,柔軟ではあるが厳密な科学的構造へと組み込むことによって検証することができる。そして,そのような構造によって,現実から神話をこし取り,よりよい,より解放的な知識を生み出すことになるだろう。
10:3 Even so, these knowledges can be examined by incorporating local ways of knowing into a flexible but rigorous scientific framework, which will distill myths from realities and produce better, more emancipatory knowledge.
10:4 [49](1. Acknowledging 2. Refuting 3. Reinforcing) the socially situated character of science, the method can still be used to test contested claims.

■ 第11段落
11:1 この研究手法は実利的な妥協ではあるが,科学と政治を見守る多くの人々にとって厄介なものである。
11:1 This approach is a pragmatic compromise but is troubling for many observers of science and politics.
11:2 From a philosophical and historical point of view, it is some what unconvincing and asymmetrical; social institutional constructivism Insists that only falsehoods, those situations where scientific facts are wrong, can be explained socially, whereas facts and true understandings of nature have no social component.

■ 第12段落
12:1 どのようにして環境的な概念が有力で正しいものになるのかということに際立った興味をもつ一部の政治生態学者にとって、このことはきわめて不満足なものかもしれない。
12:1 For some political ecologists who are most definitely interested in how environmental concepts become powerful and true, this might be quite unsatisfactory.
12:2 そうした研究手法が機能するのは、自然に関する支配的な説明を含めて「誤っている」と私たちが信じている物事を説明するためだけでしかなく、またその主張がどのようなものであるにしても、それらが誤っており、科学的に不当であるとすでに確信している場合だけでしかない。
12:2 Such an approach only functions to explain things that we believe to be “wrong” including the dominant account of nature, and only if we are [50] (1. already 2. still 3. far from ) confident that whatever the claims are, they are wrong, and scientifically untrue.
12:3 Generally this means that the claims of others (“enemies” like state oil conservationists, World Bank officers, or seed company representatives) can be disposed of as “constructions,” while the claims of other parties (“allies” like local herders or fishermen) are held up as environmental “knowledge.”
12:4 こうした味方の知識でさえも、科学的実地検査に通らない場合には、それらもまた構成となるのである。
12:4 Where even those allies’ knowledges fail the practical tests of science―whatever that is taken to mean―they too become constructions.

Note: * primatology – the scientific study of primates such as gorillas and chimpanzees
** ethology – the branch of zoology that studies the behavior of animals In their natural habitat

copyright 2016/Everyday school