The Great Civilized Conversation

Education for a World Community

Wm. Theodore De Bary

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9780231535106
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Having spent decades teaching and researching the humanities, Wm. Theodore de Bary is well positioned to speak on its merits and reform. Believing a classical liberal education is more necessary than ever, he outlines in these essays a plan to update existing core curricula by incorporating classics from both Eastern and Western traditions, thereby bringing the philosophy and moral values of Asian civilizations to American students and vice versa.

The author establishes a concrete link between teaching the classics of world civilizations and furthering global humanism. Selecting texts that share many of the same values and educational purposes, he joins Islamic, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Western sources into a revised curriculum that privileges humanity and civility. He also explores the tradition of education in China and its reflection of Confucian and Neo-Confucian beliefs. He reflects on history's great scholar-teachers and what their methods can teach us today, and he dedicates three essays to the power of The Analects of Confucius, The Tale of Genji, and The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon in the classroom.

Part 1

EDUCATION AND THE CORE CURRICULUM

1

Education for a World Community

It is a good sign that today, as we meet to consider how the new world situation may affect our college education, our theme should suggest an awareness not only of the revolutionary changes going on around us but of the undiminished importance of liberal education. “Liberal Learning in a Changing World” are the terms in which one recent book has formulated the matter for us in 1964.¹ To me, it is a favorable indication of the progress made in over a decade of continuing discussion. In 1950, one had to argue the point with proponents of so-called non-Western studies that a broadening of the curriculum should be considered in the context of liberal education as a whole and not simply offered as a response to the shift in the world power balance. Now that the political factor has been brought into proper relation to the broader human aspects of the problem, we may be prepared to pursue its liberal implications further.

One of these is certainly to recognize that liberal learning has always taken place in a changing world. This is not the first era to experience revolutionary change, nor are we the first teachers to deal with it. It is false to think of the West as living in a world all its own, unchallenged until now by expanding horizons. Before Plato’s time, Greece had experienced invasion from Asia, and by Alexander’s it was more deeply involved in that continent than we are today. Aristotle, the father of scholastic philosophy and also Alexander’s mentor, contemplated no static world: his bust in stone, discovered in the ruins of northern India, bears silent witness to the cultural revolution that swept East and West in those days, from Gibraltar to the Japan Sea. Nor was medieval Europe immune to change and unresponsive to the East. Its confrontation with Islam helped stimulate the revival and creative development of scholastic philosophy. And if we look beyond the Western tradition to other countries in which some kind of “liberal learning” developed, there is China, perhaps the most stable of the great civilizations, yet it was no changeless world, either. Confucius and Mencius too, as educators, faced a revolutionary situation.

The point, of course, is that “liberal learning” has always been conscious of change yet at its best has responded to it without being swept away by it. In the midst of the historical flux, it has tried to preserve what was least mutable and most universal in learning as a core around which new experience and new insights could be ordered and passed on. Mark Van Doren says, concerning the education of the young man: “His job is not to understand whatever world may flash by at the moment; it is to get himself ready for any human world at all.”² This may seem to belittle change, but still the humane learning Van Doren reaffirms is grounded in a fundamental truth: that there is an inescapable tension between permanence and change in our lives that cannot be overcome by simply cutting ourselves adrift from the past.

Often, it seems to me, the advocates of greater world awareness often fail to reckon with this problem in its real depth. They make little allowance for the need to have deep roots in the past if one is to cope with the sudden, bewildering complexity of the present. Slowness to reform they see as motivated simply by a desire to preserve the status quo in education or to defend traditional departmental interests. Western learning, they think, has been too content with itself. Our scholars and teachers have been parochial, smug, and resistant to change.³

There is truth in this, but it is difficult to judge how much. We have no universal scale by which to measure our deficiencies against those of others, and we may be myopic in viewing our own myopia. If our knowledge of Asia, for instance, has been found wanting, so too has the Asian peoples’ knowledge of one another. If one argues that their ignorance reflects only the limitations of a Western-oriented education forced upon them in the contest for survival, one must nevertheless allow that the Asians’ seeming self-satisfaction or preoccupation with their own cultures reflected inherent limits in their environment that gave domestic needs priority over foreign ventures. Japan, and then only fitfully in its past, serves as perhaps the one exception to Jacques Barzun’s claim for Western civilization that “it is the only civilization which has had an unlimited curiosity about other civilizations.”⁴

Properly viewed, the great postwar upsurge of interest in other languages and cultures is a further extension of this unlimited curiosity, now that we have more means and opportunities to satisfy it. It represents especially the incorporation into the educational sphere of a type of learning that has ripened enough in the minds of scholars and thinkers so that the seeds may be more widely sown. We may be aware of the great lengths to which that dissemination must go to be truly effective, and we may look forward to advances in learning that will make our past gains seem insignificant, but progress will be surer if based more on respect for what has been accomplished than on contempt for what has not.

Consequently, in approaching our problem today, we will accept it as a challenge not to our past but to us in the present. We will recognize it as a unique opportunity for our educational system today, without justifying this new departure on the dubious ground that Western learning has been too narrow and self-centered until now. And we will regret that a book so laudable in its aims, so reasonable in its recommendations as The College and World Affairs should yield to the current compulsion to deprecate the past in order to enhance the present opportunity. It regrets that before 1945 so little had been done to “escape from the historical confines of Western culture”:

There was little change … in the general concept of the liberal arts. As late as 1943 Mark Van Doren could write a book on liberal education that neither took into consideration its application to cultures other than those of the West, nor sought new meanings in those cultures. Alfred North Whitehead also confined himself to the traditional West when he wrote on education in 1929 (although he did mention Chinese as a preferred language for study), even as he discussed in the same volume the educational implications of “Space, Time, and Relativity.”⁵

Admittedly, this problem has not been dealt with directly by Van Doren or Whitehead, but their writings as a whole do show an acquaintance with what lies outside the Western tradition and an appreciation of its significance to their own studies.⁶ If they have not chosen to discuss the so-called non-West as a separate problem in liberal education, it is perhaps from a disinclination to dichotomize their subjects in this way. But who yet has said anything more fundamental about the problem than Van Doren when discussing the role of imagination in liberal education? Since this passage may have escaped his critics, permit me to cite it:

Imagination always has work to do, whether in single minds or in the general will. It is the guardian angel of desire and decision, accounting for more right action, and for more wrong action, than anybody computes. Without it, for instance, the West can come to no conclusions about the East, which war and fate are rapidly making a necessary object of its knowledge. Statistics and surveys of the East will not produce what an image can produce: an image of difference, so that no gross offenses are committed against the human fact of strangeness, and an image of similarity, even of identity, so that nothing homely is forgotten. The capacity for such images comes finally with intellectual and moral virtue; it is not the matter of luck that some suppose it, though single imaginations of great power are pieces of luck that civilization is sometimes favored with. It is a matter of training, of the tempered and prepared character which all educated persons can share. This character is a condition for the solution of any huge problem, either in the relations of peoples—and such relations, beginning at home, call first for knowledge of self, so that in the centuries to come it will be as important for the West to know itself as to know the East, which means to know itself better than education now encourages it to do—or in the ranges of pure speculation.⁷

Along with Van Doren and Whitehead, there are many other poets and philosophers whose work was affected by acquaintance with the Oriental world well before the postwar boom of Oriental studies. Besides Pound, whose passion for Confucius is well known, there is Paul Claudel, who encountered Zen years ahead of the Beats, and T. S. Eliot, who plunged early into the study of India and Buddhism (though it only produced, he says, “enlightened mystification”). And besides Whitehead, there are among philosophers of this century Bertrand Russell, who wrote The Problem of China after visiting there; John Dewey, whose personal encounter with young China reflected his consciousness of it as a world-regional rather than an East/West problem; and William Ernest Hocking, philosophically as much at home in China as in New England—to say nothing of others reaching back to William James, Thoreau, Emerson, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Leibniz, or, among writers, to Yeats, Tolstoy, Wordsworth, and many more. A dialogue with the East has been going on for centuries, since the Jesuits first introduced the learning of India and China to Europe while at the same time bringing Western learning to Asia. And today it serves poorly to advance this dialogue if we imply that little has been gained by it so far.

This is why I cannot join in scolding the West, though it has become almost a ritual introit to all praise of “non-Western studies,” as in this opening to Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College:

Until quite lately higher education in the United States of America has been almost completely under the sway of an illusion shared by nearly everybody of European descent since the Middle Ages—the illusion that the history of the world is the history of Europe and its cultural offshoots; that Western experience is the sum total of human experience; that Western interpretations of that experience are sufficient, if not exhaustive; and that the resulting value systems embrace everything that matters.⁸

In my estimation, such sweeping accusations only obscure the real issues. In the first place, the educational picture, if it ever was that black, is certainly more mixed today. Among the social sciences, some, like anthropology and political science, have been quick to reexamine basic premises and methodologies in the light of foreign-area studies; others, like economics, have been notoriously resistant. In large areas of the South and Midwest, there are now more voices raised in behalf of Asian studies; in other sections, the interest in language and area studies is lively and intense. The curiosity of educators, teachers, and students and their desire to do more is limited only by the available means. Financial help and professional guidance are what they need; encouragement and support, not prodding and preaching.

In the second place, to indict the Western academic tradition will get us nowhere. We must rather show how a world outlook is rooted in and deeply relevant to the traditional concerns of liberal learning. Superficially, one might expect the humanities to be the stronghold of Western classicism and traditionalism, whose defense mechanisms would have to be broken down before a broader, more progressive position could be established. Yet at Columbia, a pioneering movement for Oriental studies in the core curriculum was spearheaded by professors of French, English, philosophy, and American history (without an “Orientalist” on the committee). The first Oriental humanities course was launched jointly by a professor of Greek and Latin (Moses Hadas) and a political scientist (Herbert Deane). Their standpoint was not progressive or iconoclastic but liberal and humane.

And this attitude of mind seems to me crucial. If we have failed at all in our efforts to broaden the scope of education, I suspect that the fault lies less with teachers and scholars in the past—the “dreamy” poet whose thoughts were perhaps off with Du Fu in China, the philosopher whose “ivory tower” may actually have afforded a glimpse of Al Ghazali and Sankara, the philologist whose absent mind was probably fixed on a difficult Sanskrit text—and more with the “practical” men of our own society—on foundation boards, in congressional committees, and even in our highest political offices—who have often disbursed vast sums in the field of international studies and cultural exchange without educating themselves to the task. It is not that they have lacked experience in international affairs or sometimes even training in specific areas like Asia and Africa. They are handicapped just as much by ignorance of the West, of their own liberal traditions, and of a liberal learning about the East that is already ours. Hence, our problem in respect to broadening the scope of liberal education is complicated by the continuing failure of many college graduates to receive any kind of liberal education at all, Western or “non-Western.”

I shall not cite here cases of foundation preoccupation with contemporary problems, of fellowship applicants who have had to contrive justifications for classical research in terms of “contemporary relevance,” of governmental support for language study in the interests of “national defense.” “Everyone knows,” says Arthur Wright in his contribution to the Report of the Commission on the Humanities, “it is easy to persuade the board to give $950,000 to young economists working over the meager data on China’s present economy, difficult to get $120,000 for a seven-year project in the humanities (here pre-modern history) involving all the senior Chinese scholars in the country.”⁹

We need not deprecate what has been accomplished in current research on Communist China—the scholarly world is less ignorant of conditions there than some would have us believe—in order to demonstrate the futility of a policy that is completely preoccupied with the contemporary scene and the supposedly quantifiable factors in it.¹⁰ Wolf Ladejinsky, one of our most experienced economic advisers in the Far East, years ago indicated that the economic problem in Vietnam could be solved yet everything lost through ineptitude in dealing with the human factors. Today, South Vietnam’s economy thrives, and the country is near collapse. Americans, having poured millions into economic and military aid, are stupefied at what is happening and totally unprepared to cope with it. Why? Because no one bothered to find out what was going on in the minds of the Vietnamese people; no one was trained to analyze the religious factors in the situation. You cannot acquire an understanding of Buddhism in a few days, as the ineptitude of our journalistic efforts shows. But do we have to wait until Buddhists are rioting in the streets to realize that the traditional religions of Asia are important fields of study? And without such study, how is one to judge what kind of “Buddhists” they are, when so many of their violent acts are inconsistent with Buddhism? Thus we fail even in the handling of current problems if we lack insight into the minds and hearts of these people, into the political uses that are made of traditional beliefs, into long-term trends that alone give current data meaning and predictive value.

What a tragedy, then, that our newest multi-million-dollar foundation efforts should continue the same sterile policy, only on a grander scale, of promoting more contemporary research that will speculate over the same “meager data” and probably be out of date or irrelevant next week!

It is some consolation that the superficiality of thought around the concentrations of educational power and money is, to some degree, offset by the growing numbe...

Table of contents

• Cover 
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents 
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part 1. Education and The Core Curriculum
• Part 2. Liberal Learning in Confucianism
• Part 3. Tributes and Memoirs
• Appendix: Wm. Theodore de Bary: A Life in Consultation and Conversation
• Notes
• Index