Revisiting the Analects for a modern reading of the Confucian dialogical spirit in education

Abstract

This study investigates the educational thought of Confucius with focus on the educational relationship in the Analects, which is a historical text that defines the foundations of Confucianism. The first part of the investigation examines Confucius’ concept of the educational relationship and how it is characterized with a dialogical spirit, which consists of worldly and secular human-orientedness, co-existentiality as a fundamental principle for educational practice, and dialogue to become an ideal ruler through self-discipline. The second stage of this study further examines the spirit of dialogue in the Analects with consideration of its historical–cultural context. Through this process, the study unravels the historical and cultural limitations of original Confucian educational thought for modern society and proposes a possible way to reengage Confucius’ educational value in today’s modern educational context.

Keywords:

• Confucuianism
• Analects
• educational relationship
• dialogue

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 International Workshop ‘Learning and Self-Transformation from a Confucian Perspective’ (May 5–7. 2016, University of Zuerich); cf. Reichenbach, R., & Kwak, D.-J. (Eds.). (2018) Learning and Self-Transformation from a Confucian Perspective. Manuscript in preparation.

2 This part will be re-presented in a concrete and abridged form in the second chapter of this paper for a critical review of the following chapter. I would like to briefly note what was discussed in my preliminary remarks in my presentation in Zuerich, which might require context: (A) the topology of theories of the educational relationship in European pedagogy in comparison with Confucian pedagogy, (B) various understandings of the word Confucian and Confucianism as a restriction in researching the Analects, (C) the limitations of a hermeneutical approach to the Analects as a historical source of Confucius’ thought, (D) danger of an inconsiderate oriental-occidental binary when researching the cultural and educational aspects of Confucianism.

3 Unless otherwise noted, the English quotations from the Analects marked in form of ‘(the Analects, Roman numeral - Arabic numeral)’ as well as the phonetic transcription of the words in this article are from the translation of James Legge (1930). We have also consulted the English translation by Ames (1998) and the Korean translation by Kim (2013).

4 The Master said, ‘From the man bringing his bundle of dried flesh for my teaching upwards, I have never refused instruction to anyone’. (Analects, VII-7)/When the Master was eating by the side of a mourner, he never ate until he was full. He did not sing on the same day in which he had been weeping. (Analects, VII-9)

5 The Master said, ‘Respectfulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes a laborious bustle; carefulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes timidity; boldness, without the rules of propriety, becomes insubordination; straightforwardness, without the rules of propriety, becomes rudeness. When those who are in high stations perform well all their duties to their relations, the people are aroused to virtue. When old friends are not neglected by them, the people are preserved from meanness’. (Analects, VIII-2)

6 The Master said, ‘A sage it is not mine to see; could I see a man of real talent and virtue, which would satisfy me’. (Analects, VII-25). / The philosopher Tsang said, ‘The officer may not be without breadth of mind and vigorous endurance. His burden is heavy and his course is long. Perfect virtue is the burden which he considers it is his to sustain; - is it not heavy? Only with death does his course stop; - is it not long?’ (Analects, XIII-7) / The Master said, ‘The superior man thinks of virtue; the small man thinks of comfort. The superior man thinks of the sanctions of law; the small man thinks of favors which he may receive’. (Analects, IV-11) / The Master said, ‘The mind of the superior man is conversant with righteousness; the mind of the mean man is conversant with gain’ (Analects, IV-16).

7 The Master said, ‘With one like Ts’ze, I can begin to talk about the odes. I told him one point, and he knew its proper sequence’ (Analects, I-15). / The Master said to Tsze-kung, ‘Which do you consider superior, yourself or Hui. … I grant you, you are not equal to him’ (Analects, V-8).

8 Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application? Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters? Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him? (Analects, I-1)

9 ‘The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it’ (Analects, XII-19).

10 ‘Therefore when he learns, one knows his own deficiencies; when he teaches, he knows the difficulties of learning. After he knows his deficiencies, one is able to turn round and examine himself; after he knows the difficulties, he is able to stimulate himself to effort. Hence it is said, “Teaching and learning help each other”; as it is said in the Charge to Yüeh, “Teaching is the half of learning”’ (Li Chi: Book of Rites: Legge, 1967, p. 83).

11 The Master observed, ‘How numerous are the people!’ Yu said, ‘Since they are thus numerous, what more shall be done for them?’ ‘Enrich them’, was the reply. ‘And when they have been enriched, what more shall be done?’ The Master said, ‘Teach them’ (Analects, XIII-9)

12 ‘It is no wonder that the desire for realization of the political vision of each disciple of Confucius became stronger and stronger as time passed, because the lecture of Confucius was ultimately aimed at the cultivation of an ideal ruler. […] This might have resulted in an escalation of the bureaucrat-oriented atmosphere among the disciples of Confucius. A few might have come into the inner circle of this discipleship with the purpose of a successful political career. […] Confucius was critical toward such attitude and atmosphere, while he calls it “weirenzhixue” (爲人之學, study for ostentation), and he advised to his disciples that “I will not be concerned at men’s not knowing me; I will be concerned at my own ability.” (Analects, XIV-32). However, this tendency could not be easily overcome’ (Park, 2002, p. 61).

13 If ‘dialogue’ is confined to its pragmatic meaning when reading the Analects, Confucius can be easily misunderstood since he is not particularly in favor of verbal communication. In fact, Confucius does not put much emphasis on language, specifically spoken language. Confucius repeatedly expresses his skepticism towards language in regard to its superficiality and even cautions against the risk of linguistic communication. However, this does not mean that teacher and his pupil should not participate in discourse. Rather, he advises that language is meaningful only when it is accompanied by action. Through action, he stresses yanxingyizhi(言行一致), namely, the correspondence of one’s words with one’s actions, as seen in the following citations: [The Master said: ‘It is a rare thing for glib speech and an insinuating appearance to accompany authoritative conduct (ren仁)’. (Analects, I-3) / Someone said, ‘As for Yong, he is an authoritative person (ren仁) but is not eloquent’. The Master said, ‘What is the use of eloquence? … I cannot say whether or not he is an authoritative person, but what need is there for eloquence?’ (Analects, V-5) / Abolish the ‘music’ from the state of Zheng and keep glib talkers at a distance, for the Zheng music is lewd and glib talkers are dangerous (Analects, XV-11)]. His concept of dialogue should not confined to only its literal meaning. Rather the concept should be understood in a broader sense including Confucius’ idea of theory–action, coexistence,.

14 I would like to thank to the reviewers, who have shown their dialogic spirit and well balanced perspectives with regards to the reading of the Analects as well as modern understanding of Confucianism in pedagogy during the review process, for their critical comments and productive suggestions.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeong-Gil Woo

Jeong-Gil Woo is a professor at the Graduate School of Education, Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea. His research interests are, broadly speaking, in humanisms in educaiton, educational dialogue and communication, educational relationship, intersubjectivity and interculturality, iconological researches in education. His current work focuses on the humanistic education in the era of the mechanization of humanity, especially in relation to trans- and posthumanism.