The Implication of a Spiritual Diversity for Educators
What goal is not realistic for the Educator? Can he or she hope to pass on all he or she has learned concerning a certain skill or outlook on life? Perhaps. We have plenty of movies that enforce this impression. Caputo mentions the Star Wars franchise as a rich source of information about religion, but it is also rich with information about education. In the franchise we learn of the Jedi order. A Jedi Master took a Padawan (later called Apprentice) and disciples him or her. When the Master thought them ready, the Padawan would undergo a trial and if successful, achieve the rank of Knight (2009). After Knight is the rank of Master, and after Master there is Grand Master. While the chain is hierarchical, and there are decreasing number of individuals is the chain, the chain is not monarchical, for there is no requirement that a singular individual alone be at the highest level. There could be two, or more, Grand Masters. They would be peers. Indeed, one could had once been the student of the other.
The implication of this is that it is possible to educate the other in all that can be communicated. So perhaps we can safely say that it is possible, even realistic, that an educator might teach a student all he or she knows. This knowledge will necessarily include the teacher’s assessment of the value of things. The teacher will love some things and hate others. The teacher may be indifferent toward somethings. This knowledge, the knowledge of the teacher’s value system, will be increasingly apparent to the student. But we must be careful to make the distinction. What is not received from the teacher is the way things are, or ought to be, rather, the teacher’s best understanding of the way things are, or ought to be. The student comes into contact with the viewpoint, with the worldview, of the teacher. The student can accept the teacher’s viewpoint, or not.
If this is realistic – that a teacher might communicate all he or she knows to the student – then what is unrealistic? Let us pretend for a moment that a teacher’s viewpoint, his or her value system that corresponds perfectly with the way reality is. (This is a hypothetical.) Let us say that the teacher is experiencing the happiness of being fully alive, full in all her relationships. She is “one with the universe.” She communicates all she knows and holds dear to her student. Her student apprehends it completely. But the student does not accept it. The student does embrace it. The student does not love it. She is in the presence of the most peaceful being on the world. She has sat at her feet. Listened to every word. Still, she sees the world differently. She values something else. She loves differently. Does this picture surprise? Do we think the student a fool? If we do, then we are uncovering the fact that one does not really believe there is true diversity in the universe. Rather, we hold that the diversity we experience everyday is only an illusion. And more importantly, that our beings, our selves, are not real, but only an illusion. For only if I am not the Other, should I not be surprised if there exists real diversity in values? To be able to give true dignity to the Other, I have to assume that even if the Other knew all I knew, he or she would still be empowered to reject my values and see the world differently.
To use Education as a means to save the Other is to place oneself in the position as a Savior to the Other, as the one who brings salvation to the Other. Doing so does not recognize the Other as an equal. It casts the Other as radically inferior. If one enters into a relationship with the Other with the intent to bring salvation to them, then one is bringing a predefined structure to the relationship into which the Other is forced to conform. This is not a healthy relationship, as Appiah writes, “Would you really want to live in a world in which the only things anyone had ever cared about was saving lives?” (2007, p. 166)
The Teacher is responsible for communicating his or her best understanding of values which contribute to a healthy relationships. The result of education, however, may be very different than what we envision. The relations the Student may develop may appear to us wonderful, or they may appear to us horrible. Because of the diversity of reality, this should not come as surprise, nor should it be feared. Rather Educators should engage the Student recognizing that the Other has full agency and an equal responsibility. The Student will and should examine the Teacher’s values, and test the claims of superiority. Ultimately, the Student is empowered to accept or reject the Teacher’s values completely. To be an educator is to risk rejection. Appiah writes, “We enter every conversation – whether with our neighbors or with strangers – without a promise of final agreement (2007. p44). A significant element of the Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education is the recognition that to educate means to participate in the expansion of the Other’s choices. While Love requires us to choose one thing over another. Wonderfully and ironically, it is only content if the Other is free to choose as well.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2007). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1995). Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caputo, John D (2001). On Religion. London: Routledge.
Padawan. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from Wookeeepedia Web site: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padawan
Rorty, Richard (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. London:Penguin Books.
The Implication of a Spiritual Diversity for Educators
Against Indoctrination: Cosmopolitanism and its Implications for the Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education
What goal is not realistic for the Educator? Can he or she hope to pass on all he or she has learned concerning a certain skill or outlook on life? Perhaps. We have plenty of movies that enforce this impression. Caputo mentions the Star Wars franchise as a rich source of information about religion, but it is also rich with information about education. In the franchise we learn of the Jedi order. A Jedi Master took a Padawan (later called Apprentice) and disciples him or her. When the Master thought them ready, the Padawan would undergo a trial and if successful, achieve the rank of Knight (2009). After Knight is the rank of Master, and after Master there is Grand Master. While the chain is hierarchical, and there are decreasing number of individuals is the chain, the chain is not monarchical, for there is no requirement that a singular individual alone be at the highest level. There could be two, or more, Grand Masters. They would be peers. Indeed, one could had once been the student of the other.
The implication of this is that it is possible to educate the other in all that can be communicated. So perhaps we can safely say that it is possible, even realistic, that an educator might teach a student all he or she knows. This knowledge will necessarily include the teacher’s assessment of the value of things. The teacher will love some things and hate others. The teacher may be indifferent toward somethings. This knowledge, the knowledge of the teacher’s value system, will be increasingly apparent to the student. But we must be careful to make the distinction. What is not received from the teacher is the way things are, or ought to be, rather, the teacher’s best understanding of the way things are, or ought to be. The student comes into contact with the viewpoint, with the worldview, of the teacher. The student can accept the teacher’s viewpoint, or not.
If this is realistic – that a teacher might communicate all he or she knows to the student – then what is unrealistic? Let us pretend for a moment that a teacher’s viewpoint, his or her value system that corresponds perfectly with the way reality is. (This is a hypothetical.) Let us say that the teacher is experiencing the happiness of being fully alive, full in all her relationships. She is “one with the universe.” She communicates all she knows and holds dear to her student. Her student apprehends it completely. But the student does not accept it. The student does embrace it. The student does not love it. She is in the presence of the most peaceful being on the world. She has sat at her feet. Listened to every word. Still, she sees the world differently. She values something else. She loves differently. Does this picture surprise? Do we think the student a fool? If we do, then we are uncovering the fact that one does not really believe there is true diversity in the universe. Rather, we hold that the diversity we experience everyday is only an illusion. And more importantly, that our beings, our selves, are not real, but only an illusion. For only if I am not the Other, should I not be surprised if there exists real diversity in values? To be able to give true dignity to the Other, I have to assume that even if the Other knew all I knew, he or she would still be empowered to reject my values and see the world differently.
To use Education as a means to save the Other is to place oneself in the position as a Savior to the Other, as the one who brings salvation to the Other. Doing so does not recognize the Other as an equal. It casts the Other as radically inferior. If one enters into a relationship with the Other with the intent to bring salvation to them, then one is bringing a predefined structure to the relationship into which the Other is forced to conform. This is not a healthy relationship, as Appiah writes, “Would you really want to live in a world in which the only things anyone had ever cared about was saving lives?” (2007, p. 166)
The Teacher is responsible for communicating his or her best understanding of values which contribute to a healthy relationships. The result of education, however, may be very different than what we envision. The relations the Student may develop may appear to us wonderful, or they may appear to us horrible. Because of the diversity of reality, this should not come as surprise, nor should it be feared. Rather Educators should engage the Student recognizing that the Other has full agency and an equal responsibility. The Student will and should examine the Teacher’s values, and test the claims of superiority. Ultimately, the Student is empowered to accept or reject the Teacher’s values completely. To be an educator is to risk rejection. Appiah writes, “We enter every conversation – whether with our neighbors or with strangers – without a promise of final agreement (2007. p44). A significant element of the Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education is the recognition that to educate means to participate in the expansion of the Other’s choices. While Love requires us to choose one thing over another. Wonderfully and ironically, it is only content if the Other is free to choose as well.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2007). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1995). Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caputo, John D (2001). On Religion. London: Routledge.
Padawan. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from Wookeeepedia Web site: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padawan
Rorty, Richard (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. London:Penguin Books.