Continue the dialogue – symposium of cultivation of self in east asian philosophy of education

The special issue of EPAT, vol. 49 issue 12, themed on ‘Cultivation of self in East Asian philosophy of education’, was published in 2017. It provides a forum for the discussion of the core concept in East Asian philosophy of education—self-cultivation—from many different aspects (Hung, 2017). In spite of the diversity of approaches and the intensity of the discussion of the articles, there are some articles dealing interesting issues that the special issue could not include due to the limited length. This symposium is intended to make room for the dialogue over the theme to continue.

This symposium consists of four articles, all of which are focusing on the concept of self-cultivation in the Confucian context. Yuanbiao Lin’s ‘Confucius’ View of Learning’ offers a thoughtful and delicate explication of Confucius’ concept of learning by drawing textual evidence from the Analects. Lin aptly reveals the characteristics of Confucian learning and method. Although many discussions have been produced on this theme, Lin’s enfolds the multi-layered meanings in a clear and distinctive way. Confucius’ fondness for the ancients is highlighted in relation to the purpose, contents, and methods of learning. Lin provides a novel and profound way of reading of the beginning chapter of the Analects. The importance of the role of friend and traveling in learning is very illuminating. Traveling is not taken seriously in the education of Confucian literati. In addition, Lin brings on board the views of three contemporary Confucian scholars: Hu Shi, Liang Qichao, and Liang Shuming. Lin’s approach in a certain sense modernises Confucian philosophy of education. This article offers a very interesting and stimulating approach to Confucius’ learning.

Bin Wu’s ‘Self-cultivation and the legitimation of power: Governing China through education’ presents the picture of modern Chinese education regarding the concepts of self-cultivation, socio-political power, and the Confucian tradition. It is eye-opening to read the interpretation about the relation between Confucian tenets and education that are both under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the Mao and post-Mao times. As Wu writes, the ‘new Confucianism’ which is not a repetition of the past but a very skilful and cunning appropriation by the CCP makes the Confucian self-cultivation to serve the CCP’s socio-political power. The CCP government makes very good use of the mechanisms of university entrance examinations and ‘quality education’ (suzhi education) to achieve the goal of national governance. Wu’s article makes explicit the sensitive aspects of Confucian education in modern China, which are desperate for more attention and exploration.

Yen-Yi Lee’s article ‘The Implication of Xunzi's Li as Ritual-Based Self-Cultivation for Integrative Ethical Education’ discusses Xunzi’s thought about ritual in relation to the contemporary ethical education. Xunzi was a Confucian philosopher in the Warring States Period. Unlike Mencius who believes in the innate good of human nature, Xunzi claims that human beings are inclined to do things for their own good, to be selfish. In Xunzi’s words, human nature is innately ‘bad’. However, as Lee argues, the ‘bad’ human nature is not essential. It is bad because there is a tendency or disposition of following along with the innate fondness for profit and thereby doing bad. However, the ‘bad’ tendency can be modified if one receives proper education – the ritual education or education of Li (禮). Lee modernises Xunzi’s ritual education by Narvaez’ integrative ethical education. This is a brave but rewarding attempt to relate Xunzi’s junzi and Narvaez’s ethical expert.

Jinhua Song and Xiaomin Jiao’s ‘Confucius’ Junzi (君子): the conceptions of self in Confucian’ takes the concept of junzi (usually translated as the noble person or the benevolent person) as the core for discussion. This article stresses the cardinal virtues like benevolence (Ren), righteousness (Yi), and rite (Li) and the interrelationship among them in the cultivation of the self. What impresses me is the concept of ‘self-mastery’ or ‘self-control’. The authors adopt Foucault’s technologies of the self as a lens to see Confucius self-cultivation. In order to cultivate the benevolent person, one must accept the command of power to master the self. Interestingly, the power comes not only from the inner self but also from the outside world, as the authors point out that self-mastery incorporates notions of discipline, governmentality … and the historical-social context.

The symposium consisting of the four articles deepen and broaden the Confucian tenet with a modern renewal. The viewpoints of Lin, Lee, Song, and Jiao seem to take the relatively conservative position on the issue of Confucian self-cultivation. By ‘conservative’ I mean the view of holding traditional values. In contrast, Wu provides a polarised and radical approach. All in all, the symposium engages the Western and modern views in the dialogue wherein a reborn or new born Confucian self appears to envision.