God, Man, and Education: An Elegy (original) (raw)

CONFUCIANISM AND EDUCATION (Special issue of Asian Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2)

Asian studies, 5(2), 2017

Since Immanuel Kant’s seminal essay “What is Enlightenment?”, independent, autonomous and critical thinking has stood at the forefront of any “progressive” (and even any reasonable) theory of education. In today’s neo-liberal and globalized world, the common trend of making everything a marketable commodity has also affected this, notwithstanding the fact that the ability to establish one’s critical and independent judgement remains the very basis of becoming an autonomous individual, and represents a central pillar of democracy. As such, critical thinking has become a product that can be bought, sold or even stolen––just like its traditional breeding ground, namely institutionalized education. It may thus be time to mourn the loss of the critical mind, and so mark the sad end of a certain kind of education, one which gave a key place to the humanities. However, instead of grieving for such losses and memorializing the end of the European subject, who has obviously lost his free will in the whirlwind of the all-embracing market economy, and sadly died in front of the barbed-wire fences defending his homeland from thousands of unarmed, weakened, starving and freezing refugees, we are searching for alternatives. As such, we present in this issue another kind of education. Admittedly, the values Confucian education aimed to foster did not include much absolute independence, but it still laid emphasis on autonomous critical thinking and genuine humaneness. While many believe that Confucianism is incompatible with the critical mind and personal autonomy, this issue aims to show that this wide-spread prejudice is rooted in a lack of knowledge. The most common image of Confucianism is that it was advocating a strict, rigid and hierarchically structured society based on the absolute obedience of those at the subordinate levels of the system, and, analogously, on absolute power of their superiors. However, we would like to present another Picture of Confucian education, one that is more academically justified and closer to the truth. It is important to recall that this model was originally, and especially in the classical Confucian teachings, rooted in the principles of complementarity and reciprocal responsibility. Moreover, while the autocratic model of hierarchy, by which the ruler’s authority was absolute and their responsibility towards their subordinates reduced to a mere formalism or symbolism, has undeniably held sway in Chinese history, we must also bear in mind that Confucianism in its role as the state doctrine represented the interests of the ruling class, and as such was defined by legalistic elements that are not found in original Confucianism. We must not forget that hierarchic structures are also present in Western democratic systems, and most importantly, authority based on experience, knowledge and abilities is not necessarily a negative ideal, or a threat to individual autonomy. The Confucian classics stress the important role of ideational and axiological elements, like rituality, relational ethics, the virtues of humaneness and justice, and the crucial role of education as a basic means of cultivating and thus improving (inborn) humaneness in order to achieve progress and social development. While they also lay stress on the so-called “Six Arts”—ritual, music, archery, chariot-riding, calligraphy, and computation—it is clear that the Confucian classics see morality as the most important subject. Confucian didactic methods are rather remarkable. Like Confucius, a Confucian teacher never lectures at length on a subject. Instead, he or she poses questions, quotes passages from the classical works, or applies fitting analogies, and then waits for the students to find the right answers “independently”––by themselves. According to the Analects, Confucius pointed out that thinking without learning is blind, and learning without thinking dangerous. Besides, he also asserted that attacking the views of others is harmful. This tolerance is based on a notion of moral autonomy, which is typical for the Confucian ideal personality, and implicit in most of the Confucian discourses. As such, promoting education is one of the most important Confucian values, and it is better to educate one’s children than to give them wealth. However, education is not only the wealth of a person, but also that of the cultures and societies he or she lives within. It is the most valuable inheritance we can give future generations. Moreover, in today’s globalized world, in which different traditions can interact and learn from each other, this kind of inheritance can be exchanged, combined, synthesized and thus enriched. Therefore, this special issue wishes to present different approaches to achieving and preserving this, in the West, at least, hidden treasure. It also aims to raise awareness regarding a particular, culturally and historically conditioned model of institutions, didactic structures and axiological priorities, which differs profoundly from traditional Euro-American educational models.

Pedagod: God as Teacher

Christian Privilege in U.S. Education: Legacies and Current Issues, 2017

Chapter 6 explores two main issues: first, we look into the God of the Old Testament as a teacher, that is, into the methods and means God uses as well as how those combine to teach the particular lessons and knowledge he wishes to teach his students, looking specifically at his encounters with Adam and Eve in the two stories of creation, with Abraham (particular attention is paid to Abraham’s journey from his homeland to the land God shows him and to the sacrificing of Isaac), Moses, and others. In all, we examine what godly teaching entails, and how it is enacted, and compare those to the pedagogies currently enacted in education, emphasizing the role of the Bible in helping provide a teacherly imagination as to what constitutes good (and in some cases, not-so-good) teaching. To use the example of Adam and Eve, we look into the ways in which God, much like teachers today, asks Adam questions for which he (God) already has the answers (and most of which tend to have short, “correct” answers); how he poses particular questions to Adam and engages the student (Adam) when the latter responds incorrectly, or simply refuses to respond; and how he proceeds to admonish his students (Adam, Eve, and the snake) following their failure—of conduct, of complying with established rules as to what can and cannot be eaten, and finally, of failing the “test” questions administered by God. Not surprisingly, as noted, such teacherly maneuvers are not uncommon in today’s classroom, even if their ramifications, luckily, do not impact all generations to follow with such harsh results. The chapter also attempts to mirror the ways in which God initially teaches directly (in person), as is in the case of him speaking directly to Adam and Eve, Abraham, or Moses, yet distancing himself later on by creating proxies—in the form of judges and prophets—to do his speaking for him. In that regard, we connect God’s disillusionment with the Israelites with similar notions exhibited by teachers who are initially enthusiastic with direct teaching, and, following several years in the profession, often either take on student teachers to “assist” in their teaching and/or move on to administrative positions that remove them from direct contact with students in classrooms while still ensuring their pedagogical and curricular messages are conveyed to students by others.

" AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER? " EDUCATION AND THE WOUNDS OF CIVILIZATION

This paper argues that the collective suffering of humankind, especially man-made suffering inflicted on the human species and on the natural world in general, must find a place for serious consideration ineducational discourse. Specific and dramatic instances of suffering such as wars or famine find mention in history but the contemplation of man-made misery as a large-scale, banal, and universal phenomenon is avoided in the curriculum.The conventional arrangement of subjects along disciplinary lines contributes in producing this silence. The obvious danger of such avoidance is the possibility of naturalizing suffering and seeing it, as Hegel did, as the unavoidable accompaniment of history. What is eroded in the process is accountability, which the critical discourses within education ought torecognize, for nothing serves more to corrode education from within thanits lack of participation in social accountability. Besides, it is also the stance of this paper that an emancipatory moment does not occur until we walk through collective suffering to the other side. In the Book of Genesis, on being asked about his brother Abel, whom he had murdered out of jealousy, Cain retorts in these ill-famed words: " I do not know. Am I my brother " s keeper? " 1 If we put this question seriously to ourselves, almost all the major ethical systems such as the Judeo-Christian, the Islamic, the Confucian, the Buddhist, and the Vedantic,would answer quite clearly in the affirmative. A trusteeship is assumed as part of being human although differentially interpreted. Nevertheless, human attitude in general towards the world at large has reflected the brazenness of Cain. Political systems to which humans have surrendered their common will-to-power,and technological systems to which they have surrendered their will-to-think, are typically devoid ofethics. The wounds of civilizations are deepened by the metaphysical and ethical vacuum in which politics has located itself and from which it operates in the name of realpolitik.But why must this question come up at all in the realm of education? Modern suffering is mostly man-made and modernist education is necessarily and unavoidably implicated in it; both come out of the same set of assumptions and affective determinations about the world, about ourselves, and the relations between the two. The most fundamental condition of the human being and of human societies in general is suffering, and yet this fact has not led to serious discussion in the general curriculum. 2 The " business-as-usual " attitude adopted by mainstream education thus leaves out of the reckoning vital questions of phenomenological 1 Genesis 4: 1-9, The Bible, King James Version. 2 Etymologically, suffering comes from the Latin ferre " to carry. " At the minimum, human beings have been carrying the burden of their civilizing efforts, and at the maximum, tearing down the results of those very same efforts (through war and aggression).

Education as a Human Right: a Confucian Perspective (Philosophy East & West 67.1)

Joseph Chan has shown persuasively that, in a Confucian society, rights should exist as a “fallback apparatus.” I argue that in his philosophical framework, education must be a human right. Education is vital to the Confucian conception of the good life. Its significance far exceeds the instrumental value for political purposes. Any contemporary Confucian society must take education as a human right. Accepting such a fundamental right strengthens Chan’s Confucian perfectionism.

Editor's Foreword: Confucianism and Education

Since Immanuel Kant's seminal essay " What is Enlightenment? " , independent, autonomous and critical thinking has stood at the forefront of any " progressive " (and even any reasonable) theory of education. In today's neo-liberal and globalized world, the common trend of making everything a marketable commodity has also affected this, notwithstanding the fact that the ability to establish one's critical and independent judgement remains the very basis of becoming an autonomous individual, and represents a central pillar of democracy. As such, critical thinking has become a product that can be bought, sold or even stolen––just like its traditional breeding ground, namely institutionalized education. It may thus be time to mourn the loss of the critical mind, and so mark the sad end of a certain kind of education, one which gave a key place to the humanities. However, instead of grieving for such losses and memorializing the end of the European subject, who has obviously lost his free will in the whirlwind of the all-embracing market economy, and sadly died in front of the barbed-wire fences defending his homeland from thousands of unarmed, weakened, starving and freezing refugees, we are searching for alternatives. As such, we present in this issue another kind of education. Admittedly, the values Confucian education aimed to foster did not include much absolute independence, but it still laid emphasis on autonomous critical thinking and genuine humaneness. While many believe that Confucianism is incompatible with the critical mind and personal autonomy, this issue aims to show that this widespread prejudice is rooted in a lack of knowledge. The most common image of Confucianism is that it was advocating a strict, rigid and hierarchically structured society based on the absolute obedience of those at the subordinate levels of the system, and, analogously, on absolute power of their superiors. However, we would like to present another picture of Confucian education, one that is more academically justified and closer to the truth. It is important to recall that this model was originally, and especially in the classical Confucian teachings, rooted in the principles of complementarity and reciprocal responsibility.