Kaleidoscopic View of Chinese Philosophy of Education

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

In an article published in The Guardian on 9 April 2016, Michael Puett and Christine Gross-Loh—the authors of The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life—pose the question of why the history of Chinese philosophy is the currently most popular course at Harvard? As Puett and Gross-Loh describe, the ancient Chinese thinkers were neither rigid traditionalists nor placid preachers. Rather, they were exciting and radical thinkers, different from the Western thinkers: Western thinkers prefer to pose ‘big’ questions such as what and who we are, whereas Chinese thinkers like to ask ‘small’ and pragmatic questions that start from the mundane and doable. In this article, Puett and Gross-Loh pointed out several interesting ‘alternative’ ideas offered by Chinese thinkers. They include ‘Stop finding yourself’, ‘Be inauthentic’, ‘Do rituals’, ‘See the world as capricious’, ‘Stop deciding’, ‘Be weak’, ‘Don’t play to your strengths’, ‘Don’t be mindful’ and ‘Rethink the tradition and the modern’.

Of course, each of these ideas is worth much discussion beyond the pursuit of this issue. However, hidden behind the ideas is a presupposed dichotomy between the Western and Chinese thoughts in spite of the fact that Chinese philosophy, in contrast to the Western philosophy, is thought by many authors to be strongly attentive to the issues of cultivation of the self, the social order or the harmony between human beings and nature (Ivanhoe, 2000; Tu, 1978), or, as Puett and Gross-Loh suggest, to the ideas alternative to the Western ones. It is indeed a hopeful anticipation to solely extract the key to the solution to the difficulty of life or the path towards utopia from the teachings of ancient Chinese wisdom. The concept of Chinese philosophy or Chinese culture is indeed vague and unclear. Confucianism is usually seen to represent traditional Chinese philosophy—‘an integral part of East Asia and so salient a feature of the Sinic world’ (Tu, 2000). However, this opinion seems to ignore other schools of thought such as Daoism and Buddhism. When Confucianism is taken as the main reference, we get to know that the geographical areas influenced by Confucianism include China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Vietnam; these societies are termed as Confucian heritage cultures (CHC). The concept of CHC runs the risk of reducing or confusing the differences among these societies in the aspect of language, religion and history. Furthermore, if Chinese philosophy indicates a China-born philosophy, Buddhism has its roots in the religious thought of ancient India. In what sense is Buddhism considered as an element of Chinese philosophy? The more attempts that we make to define the domain of Chinese philosophy, the more ambiguities we encounter. Ideas evolve all the time. It has always been a challenge to draw clear boundaries between schools of thought and define Chinese philosophy of education. Especially, in modern times, educational practices are influenced by the diverse and miscellaneous relevance of the global village where rapidly exchange and interaction is occurring in all aspects of life. Is Chinese philosophy of education the Chinese way of philosophising education? Is there a particular Chinese way of philosophising? As philosophising is usually understood as exercising the mind to seek the truth and knowledge, where does the particularity of Chinese philosophy fit in? Is it a particular way of exercising the mind to seek the truth and knowledge or a particular truth and knowledge? However, as exercising the mind is an intellectual activity, it seems to be more rational to suggest that the particularity of Chinese philosophy of education lies in the subject matter to be philosophised. Thus, Chinese philosophy of education could broadly include philosophical discussion and reflection of education based on Chinese thoughts but with considerations of the influence of the West or with the interaction between Chinese and non-Chinese cultures. In this vein, comparative studies provide many inspirations. With the increase in studies of comparative philosophy, we have seen increasingly fascinating and exciting similarities or resonances between Chinese and the Western thoughts (Burik, 2010; Hung, 2015; Li, 1999). Without daring to claim the scope of Chinese philosophy of education, this special issue is intended to let the heteroglossia concerning Chinese philosophy of education be heard, by giving space to diverse considerations of various themes. The themes include the genealogy of the Westernisation of Chinese education, cultivation of the self with respect to deep ecology, Daoism and Buddhism, Daoist mindful education from the perspective of postmodernism, contemporary interpretation of Confucian pedagogy and Chinese identity from the lens of criticality.

The first article, written by Ren-Jie Lin, traces back the history of the Westernisation or modernisation of education of China in the late Qing Dynasty (1616–1912) with particular focus on the contribution of overseas students with governmental sponsorship in the early twentieth century. Western contact with China dates back to mediaeval times, around the second-half of the thirteenth century. China was ruled by the Mongol Empire, the strength and prosperity of which impressed Europeans deeply. However, the rulers of the succeeding dynasties of imperial China also showed great pride and confidence when facing the West, until the First Opium War in 1839–1842. The loss of the Opium Wars and other conflicts with foreign countries forced the Chinese government and intellectuals of the late Qing Dynasty to initiate the movement of Westernisation (西化運動), to learn from the West. This was a process full of struggles and conflicts. Chinese intellectuals were proud and valued their own culture. To learn from the West, implying the recognition of self-deficiency, shattered the national pride and esteem. There was an idea formulated among Chinese intellectuals that became the principle of the movement. The principle of absorbing the Western advantages without losing identity was formulated into the motto: ‘Zhong Ti Xi Yong’ (中體西用), literally meaning ‘Chinese learning for fundamentals while Western learning for practical application’. The viability of the very interesting concept of ‘Zhong Ti Xi Yong’ is surely worth more discussion; however, Lin does not spend much time on this concept. His aim is to introduce how the Qing Dynasty implemented the policy; sending students overseas was one of the schemes, who were helpful in greatly influencing modern China in many aspects. Lin’s paper sketches the contour of the Westernisation of modern Chinese education.

Hektor Yan’s article Learning from the Barbarians? Reflections on Chinese Identity and ‘Race’ in the Educational Context provides a novel and critical lens for the understanding of the notion of identity with respect to traditional Chinese culture and modern curriculum in Hong Kong. There has been a strong and age-old nationalism embedded in Chinese history and culture, which asserts that Chinese people are a nation distinguished from all other nations around—the so-called ‘differentiation between Huá and Yí’ (華夷之辨) or ‘differentiation between Yí and Xìa’ (夷夏之辨), meaning ‘the differentiation between Chinese and barbarians’. Yí generally means all tribal people but Chinese, whereas Huá or Xìa means Chinese people only. Terms of this kind can be found in many ancient Confucian classics such as the Analects and Liji, Xunzi (Wu, 2013). As described in these classics, Chinese people strongly claimed the excellence in their own culture and civilisation as distinct from that of other tribes. And they still do in some sense. As the national self-confidence can be found in the ancient literature, it is extremely interesting to read the story about King Wuling of Zhào (325–299 BCE), who reigned in the State of Zhào during the Warring States period of Chinese history. The Warring States period is the second-half of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty when the ruling power of King of Zhou Dynasty was weak and the dukes of states proclaimed themselves as kings. King Wuling was one of the self-proclaiming kings; to strengthen the military power, he conducted reforms of ‘Barbarian costumes and horseback archery’ (胡服騎射), which initiated debates and criticisms. From the historical debates, Yan aptly reveals the age-old issue concerning national identity and its educational implications for modern Hong Kong. The story of King Wuling provides a lens for critically examining the notion of national identity taught in contemporary educational practice, e.g. using textbooks. In recent years, the issues about citizenship education and nationalistic education have aroused a lot of discussions (Lee, 2004; Leung & Print, 2002). In order to build and to strengthen the Chinese solidarity as well as identity among Hong Kong people, the concept of ‘race’ plays an important role. As Yan states, the concept of Chinese race is taught as natural and inbred. The point is that this conceptualisation is not new. It can date back to the past—from the debates aroused by the reforms of ‘Barbarian costumes and horseback archery’ in the Warring States period of time. More interesting is the fact that King Wuling convinced his people to take the reforms and thereby strengthened the military power of the kingdom in few years. The historical narrative, as Yan notes, calls for deep reflection upon the meaning of ‘race’ and ‘identity’, which should not be taken as natural and essential as they are conventionally understood in the traditional literature.

The following two articles both relate to the modern interpretation and contextualisation of Confucian pedagogy and pedagogue—the word ‘pedagogue’ is not used in its Greek origin to refer to a teacher slave, but only ‘a teacher’. Leonard Tan’s article Confucius: Philosopher of Twenty-First Century Skills aims to argue that the Confucian philosophy has great potential for implementing and improving the learning innovative skills required in the twenty-first century. As Tan notes, the key learning innovative skills, including critical thinking, communication and collaboration and creativity, have rich sources in the Confucian philosophy. This does not mean that the twenty-first-century learning skills are already contained in the ancient texts but that the Confucian wisdom provides rich sources for understanding these skills and contextualising them in the Confucian societies.

Hong-de Lei’s Problem-centred Design and Personal Teaching Style: An Exploratory Study of Youguang Tu’s Course on Philosophy of Education provides readers with a genuine story of Confucian pedagogue. Lei introduces readers—most of whom are unfamiliar with the ideas and practices of philosophy of education in contemporary China—to a pedagogical story about a contemporary Chinese philosopher of education, Youguang Tu (1927–2012). Tu underwent many turbulent and unsettling experiences in modern Chinese history in his whole life. He was respected as the most outstanding student of the contemporary prestigious philosopher Youlan Feng (1895–1990). Through the Cultural Revolution, Tu stood fast as a loyal scholar at restoring Feng’s philosophy and as a diligent teacher of the philosophy of education. As Lei writes, Tu has a far-reaching influence upon academia. This paper thus widens the horizon of philosophy of education of contemporary China for readers outside China in the light of Tu’s ideas and modes of teaching.

The following two papers do not deal with the most prominent theme—Confucianism—in the field of Chinese philosophy. Chia-Ling Wang’s article is titled Toward Self-Realisation: Exploring the ecological Self for education. This paper argues for the concept of ecological self based on Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess’ deep ecology, Buddhist and Daoist teachings. Wang argues that an in-depth understanding of the ecological self can be achieved from the perspectives of Naess’, Buddhist and Daoist philosophies, all of which contribute to the formation of holistic view and the unity of humans and nature. Education with a holistic inspiration tends to encourage students to pay more attention to the non-human world, or in Abram’s (1997) terms, the more-than-human world and thereby to widen the understanding of the self beyond the limits of egotism.

The next article is Contextualising Postmodernity in Daoist Symbolism: Toward a Mindful Education Embracing Eastern Wisdom written by Rob Blom and Chunlei Lu. Like Wang’s article, this pays attention to education in the holistic and ecological context. The authors point out that there has been a prevalent belief concerning the worldview that is situated between the opposition between modernism and postmodernism. From the lens of the belief, modernist worldview defines the modes of thinking as rational, analytic, reductionist and linear. It also gives preferences to competitive and quantitative value systems. However, in the camp of postmodern worldview are modes of thinking with the characteristics of being intuitive, synthetic, holistic and non-linear and values of cooperation and equality. As the authors claim, the modern worldview can be labelled as ‘masculine’ (yáng), whereas the postmodern worldview is ‘feminine’ (ying) in the terms of Daoism. To elaborate the contrast between these two modes of thought, Blom and Lu consider issues with respect to various themes such as environmental problems, the concept of nature, system theory and the body–mind dualism. As the authors argue, the oppositional scheme of thinking modernism and postmodernism is a certain reductionist metaphysical mode of thought that may result in many theoretical and practical problems, including the compartmentalisation of education, agriculture and science. The authors attempt to propose an alternative—or holistic—framework with the inspiration of Daoist integral and dynamical concepts of ying and yáng to give a more mindful approach to the understanding of the world. Based on the above, Blom and Lu suggest a mindful education that is able to embrace the eastern wisdom that would help in understanding the world in an inclusive way and to provide a careful treatment of education. For me, Chia-Ling Wang’s and Rob Blom and Chunlei Lu’s papers both suggest that the holistic metaphysical view implied in Chinese philosophy contributes to build an environmentally friendly education. Nevertheless, what is noteworthy is that their papers lack criticality towards the sociopolitical–socio-economic structures in relation to ecological problems.

Translation, the Knowledge Economy, and Crossing Boundaries in Contemporary Education written by Viola Y. Chen discusses about the interplay between knowledge, translation and culturally creative economy in the context of global education. Translation plays a tricky role in the contemporary global world. Does translation improve communication between societies of different cultures and languages? Or does it result in misunderstanding? Chen focuses on the role of translation in educational settings when creative knowledge and knowledge economy crossing borders of cultures, languages, states and traditions are in need. The so-called good translation needs be achieved based on ‘correct understanding, precise interpretation and representation of different cultures s through various languages‘. It is not only about the enhancement of second-language ability, but involves the wide and broad understanding of different cultures and societies with respect to history and politics. After reading this article, I dare not say that education of translation and interpretation aims to produce ‘correct’ translation. Perhaps a better way of describing the education of translation is that it prepares students to be more flexible and open to the new world. Then the crossing of boundaries is possible.

The articles included in this issue provide a variety of, but not exclusive, ways of conceptualising Chinese philosophy of education in the postmodern times. I do not have a clear and definite answer to the scope, limits, questions, subject matter and paradigm of Chinese philosophy of education. In the miscellaneous world or worlds, this special issue lends a kaleidoscope for viewers to see parts of the features of Chinese philosophy of education that survives and evolves shifting time and space.

Ruyu Hung
National Chiayi University, Taiwan
Email: [email protected]