Beyond Rote-Memorisation: Confucius’ Concept of Thinking

Abstract

Confucian education is often associated with rote-memorisation that is characterised by sheer repetition of facts with no or little understanding of the content learnt. But does Confucian education necessarily promote rote-memorisation? What does Confucius himself have to say about education? This article aims to answer the above questions by examining Confucius’ concept of si (thinking) based on a textual study of the Analects. It is argued that Confucius’ concept of si primarily involves an active inquiry into issues that concern one’s everyday life, promotes inferential thinking, and facilitates self-examination. Far from advocating rote-memorisation, Confucius highlights the need for us to take ownership of our own learning, engage in higher order thinking, and reflectively apply the lessons learnt in our lives.

Keywords:

• rote-memorisation
• Confucius
• education
• thinking

Notes

1. Besides the top performers, namely Shanghai-China, South Korea, Hong Kong-China and Singapore, two other East Asian societies, Japan and Chinese Taipei, also performed well in PISA 2009. Japan was ranked 8th in reading, 9th in mathematics, and 5th in science while Taiwan was ranked 23rd in reading, 5th in mathematics, and 12th in science. More remarkably, for PISA 2012, the top seven performers were all East Asian societies: Shanghai-China, Singapore, Hong Kong-China, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Macao-China, and Japan. For more information, see OECD (2010, 2012).

2. As the Analects was compiled a few centuries after the death of Confucius, it is not surprising that there have been controversies over its authenticity. This is a debate that is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that I share the views of Slingerland (2001), Shun (1993), and Li (2007), that we should assume that all the chapters in the Analects represent Confucius’ teachings, and that we can obtain a generally coherent reading from the chapters. In any case, my focus is not so much on Confucius as a historical figure but as a philosophical figure, whose sayings attributed to him were passed down to us in the Analects. Hence, I agree with Li (2007) that ‘if such attempts [to read the text in a coherent manner] cannot be taken as a reduction to Confucius’ own thought, they at least can be seen as reconstructions that may help us understand Confucianism’ (p. 324).

3. Ames and Rosemont (1998) translate si in 2.15 as ‘reflection’ while Lau (1979) and Slingerland (2003) translate it as ‘thinking’. I agree with Ames and Rosemont that si involves reflection but I do not think that it is confined to that. As explained in the text, si encompasses a range of advanced thought processes such as understanding, reflection, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, making connections, drawing analogies, making inferences, forming judgments and so on.

4. Commenting on 3.15, Hagen (2010) notes that ‘Confucius’s conduct was ritually appropriate (li) in the sense that this was a situation in which being inquisitive, and genuinely acting accordingly, expressed a proper sense-of-ritual. More generally, the point could be that one has to be deferential when one is in unfamiliar surroundings. Putting it this way usefully blurs the distinction between rule following and exemplifying a cultivated disposition’ (p. 7).

5. It should be acknowledged that Confucius’ questions in 3.15 are not critical in nature but fact-finding type that serve to express his interest to learn more about the ceremonial rituals. One may thus deem this example weak, as Confucius’ questions do not demonstrate critical thinking in terms of say, questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence and offering alternatives. While I see the validity of this critique of Confucius’ questions, I think that we should also bear in mind the historical-cultural context of Confucius’ time. The very act of asking questions by Confucius was novel and radical in ancient China, as evident from the surprised response of the observer in the same verse. Confucius should therefore be given the credit for promoting and pioneering a culture of inquiry in ancient China that is in accordance with li.

6. Lest we think that Confucius concludes that Yanhui is a poor student, we should note that Confucius goes on to praise him for putting into practice what he has learnt: ‘I speak with Yanhui the whole day, he never disagrees with me and seems stupid. When he withdraws and I examine what he does in private, [I find that] he is able to illustrate [what I have said], Yanhui is not stupid at all’ (2.9). Confucius’ point is that he prefers his students to be actively engaged in learning by asking questions as well as applying what they have learnt in their lives.

7. Here I am not making a stronger claim that East Asian students are explicitly adopting Confucius’ teaching approach that accounts for their academic success. This claim requires further empirical research for its confirmation. What I am arguing, instead, is a weaker claim that the teaching and learning approaches common in CHC societies are consistent with Confucius’ views on learning and thinking. I have further argued that there is a philosophical justification for this form of teaching and learning when we examine Confucius’ views in the Analects.