Classical Traditions of Education: Socrates and Confucius

views updated

Classical Traditions of Education: Socrates and Confucius

Charlene TAN and Benjamin WONG

Abstract

This chapter outlines the main educational philosophies of two thinkers from the classical period: Socrates and Confucius. Both Socrates and Confucius aimed to ennoble and humanise the character of rule by cultivating wise and virtuous leaders. Education was understood by both to mean the lifelong pursuit of the knowledge and practice of virtue. In terms of the implications of their teaching, educators should aim to inculcate in their students a love for learning and a desire for the life of virtue. To achieve this aim, the curriculum should be one that underscores the development of rational autonomy, virtues and spirituality in students. It should be delivered through a process of self-discovery, reflective inquiry and personal emancipation.

Introduction

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the educational ideas of Socrates and Confucius. Socrates' pedagogical method, commonly known as the Socratic dialogue or Socratic method, is adopted in many schools to promote critical thinking in students. Meanwhile, Confucianism is enjoying a revival in China as well as gaining international attention thanks to the political and economic resurgence of China. This chapter outlines the main educational philosophies of these two classical thinkers and considers some contemporary implications of their views for educators in terms of the aims of education, the curriculum and pedagogy.

For a start, it is interesting to note some similarities between Socrates and Confucius. Both lived around the same period: Socrates from 470 to 399 bce and Confucius from 551 to 479 bce. While both were outstanding thinkers, neither put down their ideas in writing. Their views were subsequently recorded by their disciples, leading to debate on the authenticity and accuracy of these writings. Nevertheless, scholars believe that the existing literature is sufficient to give contemporary readers a fairly accurate picture of the philosophies of Socrates and Confucius. Another similarity between the two is that both lived in periods of political and social changes during which traditional values and practices were being challenged. Living through the Peloponnesian War (431–404 bce), Socrates sought to empower the Greeks to know and think for themselves. For doing that, he was sentenced to death in 399 bce on charges of impiety and corrupting the young. Likewise, Confucius lived during the turbulent last days of the Zhou dynasty and tried unsuccessfully to persuade the warring feudal lords to embrace his teachings. Another parallel between Socrates and Confucius is that both did not discriminate against anyone because of their status or wealth, and were prepared to teach anyone who was teachable and diligent. The next section compares the key educational philosophies of Socrates and Confucius in terms of the aims of education, the curriculum and pedagogy.

The Educational Philosophies of Socrates and Confucius

Both Socrates and Confucius aimed to ennoble and humanise the character of rule by cultivating wise and virtuous leaders. In the Greek tradition, a well-educated person or gentleman was known as kaloskagathos, literally the noble and good person. The Chinese counterpart was jun zi, or son of the prince or gentleman. Socrates and Confucius had much in common in their understanding of and their approach to the education of their students, most of whom aspired to become leaders in their communities. Both of them sought to foster in their students the desire for the life of virtue. The chief concern of classical education, as epitomised by the teachings of Socrates and Confucius, was the cultivation of the moral character of the student. The aim of this education was to produce thoughtful and civic-minded individuals with a lofty sense of their social obligations. Such individuals would have the moral and intellectual resources to take responsibility for the affairs of the state without being tempted or seduced by the trappings of wealth and power. On the basis of their cultivation and learning, the class of gentlemen was expected to elevate the moral character of the people and enrich the cultural and intellectual life of the community. In contrast to contemporary education, it could be said that classical education focused more on the arts and humanities than on the sciences and commerce. As far as classical education was concerned, it was more important to deal with the good of the soul rather than the good of the body. The central problem for classical education was the problem of justice, of how human beings treat one another. This problem could not be fully understood without addressing the deeper question of what is the best way of life for human beings. In their different approaches to this question, the classical thinkers had in common the view that the best way of life had to be one that realised the moral or spiritual potential of human beings, for this aspect of human nature is ultimately what distinguishes human beings from animals.

Education was understood by both Socrates and Confucius to mean the lifelong pursuit of the knowledge and practice of virtue. According to one of his students, Socrates “was always conversing about the human things—examining what is pious, what is impious, what is noble, what is shameful, what is just, what is unjust, what is moderation, what is madness, what is courage, what is cowardice, what is a city, what is a statesman, what is rule over human beings, what is a skilled ruler over human beings, as well as other things knowledge of which he believed makes one a gentleman, while those who are ignorant of these would be justly called slavish” (Memorabilia 1.1.16, by Xenophon, trans. 1994). Confucius similarly taught that learning was an integral part of acquiring moral and civic virtues: “To love benevolence without loving learning is liable to lead to foolishness. To love cleverness without loving learning is liable to lead to deviation from the right path. To love trustworthiness in word without loving learning is liable to lead to harmful behaviour. To love forthrightness without loving learning is liable to lead to intolerance. To love courage without loving learning is liable to lead to insubordination. To love unbending strength without loving learning is liable to lead to indiscipline” (Analects 17.8, trans. Lau, 1979). Confucius' concept of ren (compassion, or loving others) is best expressed in the Golden Rule: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others” and “Since you yourself desire standing then help others achieve it, since you yourself desire success then help others attain it” (Lunyu 12.2 & 6.30, by Yang, 1958, cited in Riegel, 2006).

The family featured prominently in the teachings of Socrates and Confucius. The family was understood as the first school of virtue. For Socrates, a person who aspired to rule a city should first prove that he could manage his household and private affairs in a good and noble manner: “For attending to private affairs differs only in terms of multitude from attending to public ones. Among other very great similarities the greatest one is that neither takes place without human beings … For those who attend to public affairs don't deal with any other human beings than those whom they deal with in private affairs when managing their households. And those who understand how to deal with these human beings do well both in private and in public affairs; and those who don't understand them fail in both” (Memorabilia 3.4.12). As for Confucius, he regarded being good as a son and obedient as a young man as the “root of a man's character”. Moreover, he also believed that “by simply being a good son and friendly to his brothers a man can exert an influence on the government” (Analects 2.21).

In terms of the curriculum, Confucius highlighted the need to learn the “six arts”: ritual, music, archery, chariot-riding, calligraphy and computation. The wisdom of ancient sages was also emphasised, as well as the mastery of li, the ritual forms and rules of propriety. On the latter, Confucius said, “Look at nothing in defiance of ritual, listen to nothing in defiance of ritual, speak of nothing in defiance of ritual, never stir hand or foot in defiance of ritual” (Lunyu 12.1). However, Confucius did not intend his followers to adhere to rituals at the expense of their own desires. Riegel (2006) points out that Confucius stressed the importance of reconciling one's own desires with the needs of one's family and community. Like Confucius, Socrates proposed an all-rounded curriculum to prepare the “guardians” to be leaders of the state. According to Plato in the Republic, Socrates believed that education should start early with music, poetry and physical training (Plato, trans. 1992). Students would then study science, which was the advanced studies in mathematics, and the subject of “dialectic”, which Socrates regarded as most important. The goal was to develop the reasoning ability of students, who, coupled with practical experiences, would be ready to be leaders of the community.¹

Socrates employed a conversational mode known as the dialectic to educate his students. Drawing on the aspirations and ambitions of the students, the Socratic dialectic sought to expose the ignorance of the students in order to arouse in them a longing for knowledge of those things necessary to fulfil their ambitions. Some of his students came to realise that the pursuit of knowledge of the most important things was itself the most important thing. In a spirit compatible with the Socratic approach, Confucius did not simply impose his views on his students, but instead guided them to discover knowledge for themselves. In describing his style of teaching, Confucius said, “I never enlighten anyone who has not been driven to distraction by trying to understand a difficulty or who has not got into a frenzy for trying to put his ideas into words. When I have pointed out one corner of a square to anyone and he does not come back with the other three, I will not point it out to him a second time” (Analects 7.8). Through their methods and by setting an example, Socrates and Confucius helped foster the desire in their students to pursue learning for the sake of their moral and intellectual development.

Another significant similarity between Socrates and Confucius is that both adapted their teaching to suit the interests and abilities of their students. Their students naturally varied in intellectual capacity, as some were clearly superior to others. But both saw no reason why their students should not be equal in their capacity to act in accordance with virtue. As Confucius put it, “Is there a man who, for the space of a single day, is able to devote all his strength to benevolence? I have not come across such a man whose strength proves insufficient for the task” (Analects 4.6). Another parallel is that Socrates and Confucius were not just theorists; they modelled their values and beliefs by living an exemplary moral life, especially in their concern for justice (Beck, 2006). In other words, both were men of wisdom who combined knowledge and action. That was evident in Confucius when he refused to serve an unjust ruler, and Socrates' convictions ultimately led to his death.

Implications for Educators

The educational philosophies of Socrates and Confucius offer implications for educators today in terms of the aims of education, the curriculum and pedagogy. Both Socrates and Confucius aimed to inculcate in their students a love for learning and a desire for the life of virtue. This educational objective is pertinent in a knowledge-based economy where subjects such as mathematics, science and commerce are given greater importance and more curriculum time than the arts, humanities, moral studies and religious studies. The emphasis on intellectual capital has prompted many countries to see the role of schools primarily as preparing students to be knowledge workers who will enhance the country's economic competitiveness. While this vision is not wrong in itself, the danger is for educators (and their students) to see education merely as a stepping stone to extrinsic rewards in life, overlooking its role in students' moral and intellectual development. More attention should instead be devoted to building thoughtful and civic-minded individuals who possess the moral and intellectual resources to take responsibility for their own lives, their families and the affairs of the state. Apart from imparting the skills and knowledge needed in a globalised and technology-driven world, educators should also cultivate the moral character of their students. Consistent with the teachings of Socrates and Confucius, educators should aim at the cognitive emancipation of their students, who are then capable of forming authentic convictions about the life they regard as most worth living (Puolimatka, 1997). In a recent survey, young people in Singapore defined success as consisting of “having a happy family”, followed by “doing well in one's job or studies” and “being knowledgeable and well-informed” (Teo, 1998). The teachings of Socrates and Confucius are salutary for these young people, to help them achieve success in life by balancing the practice of virtue and the pursuit of lifelong learning.

To achieve the above aims, the curriculum should be one that underscores the development of rational autonomy, virtues and spirituality in students. Values education such as moral education, civic education, citizenship education and religious education should take centre stage in the curriculum. In many countries, there is a conflation of moral values and civic values as they are usually taught in schools under the same subject (usually known as civics and moral education). However, there is a need to focus on the teaching and learning of moral values that go beyond economic and political socialisation. Moral education should guide students towards more Kantian considerations, where one acts morally for intrinsic reasons and not purely for utilitarian reasons stipulated by the state. For citizenship education, educators should eschew the promotion of passive and rule-following citizenship that is evident in a number of Asian countries (Kennedy, 2004). Instead, they should take the cue from Socrates and Confucius to nurture citizens who combine their own desires with those of the state. Committed to the state through their active participation in civic activities, these citizens will be leaders of the community (the Greek's idea of kaloskagathos or the Confucian ideal of jun zi) who elevate the moral character of the people and enrich the cultural and intellectual life of the community.

To follow the example of Socrates and Confucius in nourishing the soul of students, educators should encourage their students to appreciate and reflect upon “ideals or goals which are both apt for positive moral evaluation and concerned with those aspects of human experience which attempt to reach beyond the mundane and the material towards what is transcendent and eternal” (Carr, 1995, p. 90). Schools can promote the spiritual growth of students through all areas of their curriculum, especially through the arts, such as literature, poetry, drama, painting and music. Universal themes and values from both religious and non-religious sources may be introduced to encourage students to reflect on, internalise and apply the moral values learnt. For example, the poems of English Romantics such as Wordsworth and Coleridge could be used to help students explore the themes of love, self-fulfilment and worship. Spirituality can be promoted in students by arousing appropriate feelings and inculcating desired values through discussions of natural or man-made disasters and tragedies (Robson & Lonsdale, 1987). For instance, a sensitive discussion of the Ethiopian famine, the Asian tsunami tragedy or the Bali bombings could prompt students to reflect on concepts and values such as human nature, justice, compassion and social responsibility.

Pedagogy-wise, knowledge and virtues should not be taught in a didactic style. Rather, they should be delivered through a process of self-discovery, reflective inquiry and personal emancipation. In particular, educators in Asia need to deliver a form of education which gives learners and teachers opportunities to explore the role of participation in decision making affecting social issues (Thomas, 2002). In line with Socrates' and Confucius' practice of adapting their teaching to suit the interests and abilities of their students, educators could choose methods that take account of the debate about culture, nationality, ethnicity and religion so as to connect the learning to students' personal experience and concerns (Jackson, 2003). Socratic dialogue, the employment of philosophical questions, and the community of inquiry are examples of pedagogical methods that are student-centred, thinking-driven, interactive and enjoyable (see essays in this volume for useful ideas for teachers). Through an array of appropriate communicative activities, students will not only enjoy learning but perform better in a subject. That students' enjoyment of learning a subject contributes to their performance is affirmed in a study in Singapore which reported that three in every four students attributed their good results in mathematics and science to their enjoyment of learning the subjects (Ho & Lin, 2004).

The world in which we live is not that different from the classical age of Socrates and Confucius. In a knowledge-based economy and a postmodern age, we are confronted with a myriad of political, economic, social and moral changes. The modern world promises much in terms of material enjoyment and technological progress, but it leaves us none the wiser in how to live the good life. It is for such reasons that we may need to turn back to the past, and to the guidance of the greatest teachers of mankind in particular, to rediscover the deeper and nobler truths about our humanity. While space does not permit us to discuss at length the philosophies of Socrates and Confucius, we hope that the ideas and implications highlighted in this chapter have offered readers a glimpse of the wisdom from the past.

Note

1 Although Plato claimed to outline Socrates' vision of a comprehensive curriculum for the education of guardians in the Republic, some scholars have argued that those were Plato's views rather than Socrates'. Nevertheless, what is certain is that Socrates regarded the thinking process as more important than any fixed curriculum. Comparing himself to a midwife, his aim was to guide the audience to arrive at the answer on their own.

References

Beck, S. (2006). Confucius and Socrates compared. Retrieved 12 May 2007 from http://san.beck.org/C%26S-Compared.html.

Carr, D. (1995). Towards a distinctive conception of spiritual education. Oxford Review of Education, 21(1), 83–98.

Ho, A. L., & Lin, L. (2004, 20 December). Teaching less won't hurt maths, science. Straits Times (Singapore).

Jackson, R. (Ed.) (2003). Citizenship, religious and cultural diversity and education. In International Perspectives on Citizenship, Education and Religious Diversity (pp. 1–28). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kennedy, K. J. (2004). Searching for citizenship values in an uncertain global environment. In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and Issues (pp. 9–24). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Lau, D. C. (Trans.) (1979). Confucius: The Analects. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Plato (1992). Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube & C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Puolimatka, T. (1997). The problem of democratic values education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 31(3), 461–476.

Riegel, J. (2006). Confucius. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 12 May 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius.

Robson, J., & Lonsdale, D. (Eds.) (1987). Can Spirituality Be Taught? London: ACATE & BCC.

Teo, C. H. (1998). Crisis as refining fire. Keynote address presented to the Third Polytechnic Forum, Singapore, 29 September.

Thomas, E. (2002). Values and citizenship: Cross-cultural challenges for school and society in the Asian Pacific Rim. In M. Schweisfurth, L. Davies & C. Harber (Eds.), Learning Democracy and Citizenship: International Experiences (pp. 241–254). Oxford: Symposium Books.

Xenophon (1994). Memorabilia. Translated by A. L. Bonnette. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Yang, B. J. (1958). Lunyu yizhu. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. (Cited in Riegel, 2006.)