Abstract
Jeong-Gil Woo investigates the prototypical Confucian concept of education and the educational relationship according to Confucius’ Analects. It is marked with characteristics, such as deep respect for the human being, relationship ethics, and the spirit of dialogue, ren (仁, benevolence) and junzi (君子, noble person) as a goal of education, the correspondence of words and action as a basic principle of educational practice and interaction, and xiuji (修己, self-education and self-transformation) as the ideal form of the educational relationship. In this chapter, there is a particular focus on the dialogical nature of Confucius, which is directly related to the conceptualization of original Confucian education and the relationship as a dialogical one, which may lead one to rethink that Confucian education only advocates a hierarchical and authoritative system. In reading the original text of the Analects, Confucius is found as an educator and not as a manager of an educational project, where he tries to make others into junzi with his hierarchical authority, but as a companion, motivator, or partner in dialogue as well as a role model in the process of becoming a junzi. The goal of Confucian education is not to force someone to change, but encourage him or her to pursue an educational ideal of xiuji within the educational relationship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Lau, D. C. (1979). Introduction. In Confucius, The Analects (Lün yü). Translated with an introduction by D.C. Lau. New York: Penguin, pp. 9–55.
- 2.
Each of them means: (A) He can get from the whole kingdom the most talented individuals, and teach and nourish them. (B) Both the teacher and the student are travelling the same path together. (C) Teaching and learning help each other. (D) Blue comes from the indigo plant but is bluer than the plant itself. The student has surpassed his or her teacher.
- 3.
There is also research on the characteristics of Confucian communication based on general theory of human relationship (Yum 1988; Chen and Chung 1994; Park 1994; Xiao and Chen 2009; Lee 2009). Studies with focus on East Asian traditional culture, even though not from pedagogical viewpoint, but from the science of communication can be seen in Kincaid (Ed.)(1987) Communication Theory and Oliver (1971) Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China.
- 4.
“Doing of non-doing, image of finger-raising in the air, questioning glance” (cf. Woo 2012a: 581).
- 5.
For example, see Tweed and Lehmann (2002). This study is based on the dichotomy of Western and non-Western, naming them as “Western and Chinese”. On one side, the authors say that they are well aware of the risk of “cultural labels.” But on the other hand, they happen to reach an unwanted fictitious narrative of cultural groups called “culturally Chinese and culturally Western” which does not really exist, or, at the very least, incredibly ambiguous in its identity. With a similar dichotomy, Yum (1998) presents a certain typology of East Asian vs. North American orientation which seems to end in a culturally ambiguous grouping or unscientific culture-determinism. It is true that these studies contributed to a wider understanding of East Asian culture regarding education in its ostensible dimension. However, it is necessary to note that the cultural phenomena of East Asia is, like in the case of other cultures, the result of long and complex interactions of various elements beneath the surface of a culture or even between heterogeneous cultures (cf. Chang 1997: 110). As Kwak correctly comments on a similar case of careless treatment of the East-West dichotomy, we “need to be informed by more of cultural history and philosophy to avoid a too simplistic and modernist prejudice” (cf. Kwak 2015: 756).
- 6.
Unless otherwise noted, the English quotations from the Analects marked in form of “(the Analects, Roman numeral – Arabic numeral)” as well as phonetic transcription of words in this article are from the translation of Ames & Rosemont (1998). We have also consulted the Korean translation by Kim (2013).
- 7.
The distrust in language or what Bollnow called “hostility towards language” (Sprachfeindlichkeit) is actually not an exclusive characteristic of Confucianism. Regardless of European or Asian philosophy, this tendency has marked an important part of mainstream philosophies. Bacon’s “Idola Fori” would be the most famous example in European philosophy. 以心傳心 (Communication from heart to heart) and 拈花微笑 (smiling and twirling a flower) in Buddhism and 道可道非常道 (When 道 called 道, it is not 道 anymore) in Lao-tsu’s Tao-Te-Ching are comparable examples in Asian philosophy (cf. Bollnow 1966: 11; Lee 1994: 13–24).
- 8.
The Master said: “I can speak with Yan Hui for an entire day without him raising an objection, as though he were slow. But when he has withdrawn and I examine what he says and does on his own, it illustrates perfectly what I have been saying. Indeed, there is nothing slow about Yan Hui!” (Analects, II-9)
- 9.
A few authors have hypothesized that Confucius’ lecture, namely warning against glib speech and stressing on the correspondence of words and action has influenced how East Asian people communicate. According to Yum’s research, East Asian people prefer to communicate passively and indirectly, and they communicate with dual (private and public) identities because of the Confucian tradition (Yum 1998). This research seems to assume that the general attitude of East Asian people, which Yao calls “Asian backwardness in communication” (from Yao 2006: 37), has something to do with the Confucian tradition. It has also been reported that important elements in the human relationship, such as the “face” (Cheng 1986), “關係kuan-hsi” (Chang and Holt 1991), “感應gan-ying, 眞 sincerity” (Xiao and Chen 2009) have been rooted in this Confucian tradition as well. On a similar note, Tweed and Lehman (2002) insist that East Asian students have a certain way of studying and learning, which is, according to the authors, related with Confucianism. However there needs to be a more critical investigation for these hypothetical assertions: namely, which Confucianism do they mean when they refer to Confucian tradition? Should the history of 2500 years be generalized with a single adjective Confucian?
- 10.
“I have never failed to instruct students who, using their own resources, could only afford a gift of dried meat. (Analects, VII-7) / When dining in the presence of someone in mourning, the Master would not eat his usual portions.” (Analects, VII-9)
- 11.
The Master said, “Deference unmediated by observing ritual propriety (li 禮) is lethargy; caution unmediated by observing ritual propriety is timidity; boldness unmediated by observing ritual property is rowdiness; candor unmediated by observing ritual propriety is rudeness. Where exemplary persons (junzi 君子) are earnestly committed to their parents, the people will aspire to authoritative conduct (ren 仁); where they do not neglect their old friends, the people will not be indifferent to each other.” (Analects, VIII-2) On the relation between 仁 and 禮 in the Analects, please see Li (2007) who proposes that “we should understand li as cultural grammar and ren as the mastery of a culture.” According to him, “society cultivates its members through li toward the goal of ren, and persons of ren manifest their human excellence through the practice of li” (Li 2007: 311)
- 12.
The Master said, “I will never get to meet a truly efficacious person (shanren 善人) – I would be content to meet someone who is constant.” (Analects, VII-26). / Scholar-apprentices (shi 士) cannot but be [can be nothing but] strong and resolved, for they bear a heavy charge and their way (dao 道) is long. Where they take authoritative conduct (ren 仁) as their charge [When they act authoritatively conduct as their disposition], is it not a heavy one? (Analects, VIII-7) / Exemplary persons (junzi 君子) cherish their excellence; petty persons cherish their land. Exemplary persons cherish fairness; petty persons cherish the thought of gain. (Analects, IV-11) / Exemplary persons (junzi 君子) understand what is appropriate (yi 義); petty persons understand what is of personal advantage (li 利) (Analects, IV-16).
- 13.
The Master said: “Zigong, it is only with the likes of you then that I can discuss the Songs! On the basis of what has been said, you know what is yet to come” (Analects, I-15). / The Master said, “You [Zigong] are not his match; neither you nor I are a match for him.” (Analects, V-9)
- 14.
“Having studied, to then repeatedly apply what you have learned – is this not a source of pleasure? To have friends come from distant quarters – is this not a source of enjoyment? To go unacknowledged by others without harboring frustration – is this not the mark of an exemplary person (junzi 君子)?” (Analects, I-1)
References
Analects. Transl. into English by Ames, R. T. & Rosemont, H. Jr. (1998). The Analects of Confucius. New York: Ballantine Book.; Transl. into Korean by Kim, H.C. (2013). Seoul: Hongik.
Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19-2, 175–192.
Biesta, G. (2015). Teaching, teacher education and the humanities: Reconsidering education as a Geisteswissenschaft. Educational Theory, 65-6, 665–679.
Bollnow, O. F. (1966). Sprache und Erziehung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Chang, H.-C. (1997). Language and words: Communication in the Analects of Confucius. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16-2, 107–132.
Chang, H.-C., & Holt, R. (1991). More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of Kuan-Hsi. Communication Quarterly, 39(3), 241–271.
Chen, G.-M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42-2, 93–110.
Cheng, C.-Y. (1986). The concept of face and its Confucian roots. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 13, 329–348.
Creel, H. G. (1960). Confucius and the Chinese way. New York: Harper & Row.
Dilthey, W. (1974). Pädagogik. Geschichte und Grundlinien des Systems. In O. F. Bollnow (Ed.), Wilhelm Dilthey. Gesammelte Schriften. 4. Aufl. Göttingen.
Fingarette, H. (1966). Human community as holy rite: An interpretation of Confucius‘ Analects. The Harvard Theological Review, 59-1, 53–67.
Grennholtz, J. (2003). Socratic teachers and Confucian learners. Examining the benefits and pittfalls of a year abroad. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(2), 122–130.
Han, H. J. (1996). From Zhu Xi to Yag-Yong Jeong. Seoul: Segyesa.
Kim, B. H. (2003). A study of the master-disciple relationship in Confucian educational tradition. Journal of Social Thoughts and Culture, 7, 131–152.
Kim, B. H. (2008). Educational implications of the doctrine of king-master-father trinity. Philosophy of Education, 34, 61–83.
Kim, G. S. (2013). Confucius’ education in Analects. Gyunggi: KSI.
Kim, T. O. (2002). Confucius’ Ongojisin(溫故知新) and basic ability of teachers. Philosophy of Education, 20, 37–53.
Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Communication theory. Eastern and Western perspective. New York: Academic.
Ko, D. H. (2011). The normative status of teachers in Confucian tradition and its implication on today’s education. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 22-2, 57–73.
Kron, F. W. (1971). Theorie des erzieherischen Verhältnisses. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Krüger, H.-H. (1999). Eiführung in Theorien und Methoden der Erziehungswissenschaft. 2. Aufl. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Kwak, D. J. (2015). Commentary on Michael A. Peters’ short essay, ‘Socrates and Confucius: The cultural foundations and ethics of learning’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(8), 755–757.
Lee, G. H. (1994). The power of speech. Seoul: Jeilchulpansa.
Lee, B.-S. (2009). A study of communication factor in Lunyu. The Study of the Eastern Classic, 36, 85–104.
Li, C. (2007). Li as cultural grammar: On the relation between LI and REN in Confucius’ Analects. Philosophy East & West, 57-3, 311–329.
Liu, S.-H. (1996). Confucian ideals and the real world: A critical review of contemporary neo-Confucian thought. In W.-E. Tu (Ed.), Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity (pp. 92–111). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, T., & Weber, R. (2010). Confucianizing socrates and socratizing Confucius: On comparing Analects 13:18 and the Euthyphro. Philsophy East & West, 60(2), 187–206.
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Park, G. S. (1994). Communication from Confucian perspective. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 31, 123–142.
Park, Y. H. (2002). What Confucius had done as an educator and its historical significance. History of Education, 12, 1–70.
Peters, M. A. (2015). Socrates and Confucius: The cultural foundations and ethics of learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 423–427.
Ryu, S.-W. (2005). Idealistic role of teachers according to Confucius’ teachings. The Journal of Educational Idea, 15, 1–21.
Seong, T. Y. (1992). Dialogue in Confucianism – With focus on Xun Zi. In Christian Academy (Ed.), Philosophy of dialogue (pp. 23–58). Seoul: Seogwangsa.
Shin, C. H. (2005). SUGI – The core of Confucian philosophy of education. Seoul: Wonmisa.
Shin, C. H. (2012). The system of Confucian pedagogy. Seoul: Korea University Press.
Son, S. N., et al. (2010). Education in east Asian classic. Gyunggi: KSI.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context. Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57-2, 89–99.
Waldenfels, B. (2000). Das leibliche Selbst. F.a.M: Suhrkamp.
Woo, J.-G. (2008a). Subjektivität und Responsivität. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 84, 147–166.
Woo, J.-G (2008b). Konfuzianismus im pädagogischen Alltag Südkoreas – aus kulturvergleichender und autobiogra [hischer Sicht]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(4. Heft), 1–17.
Woo, J.-G. (2012a). Buber from the Cartesian perspective? A critical review of reading Buber’s pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31, 569–585.
Woo, J.-G. (2012b). ‘Inclusion’ in Martin Buber’s dialogue pedagogy. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(4), 829–845.
Xiao, X., & Chen, G.-M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence – A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 61–74.
Yao, X. (2006). Confucianism and its modern values: Confucian moral, educational and spiritual heritages revisited. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 20(1), 30–40.
Yu, J. (2005). The beginning of ethics: Confucius and Socrates. Asian Philosophy, 15(2), 173–189.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Woo, JG. (2020). Educational Relationship in the Analects of Confucius. In: Reichenbach, R., Kwak, DJ. (eds) Confucian Perspectives on Learning and Self-Transformation. Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40078-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40078-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40077-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40078-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)