Dr. Hayhoe provides 11 interesting mini biographies of influential
educators of Mainland China.
Since I am not familiar with the history of Chinese philosophy, I
found the introductory chapter, where Dr. Hayhoe explains Chinese
philosophy to be difficult reading. Confucianism has played a big
role in China�s history. But Confucianism apparently has more than one
face. It was not always the authoritarian system, where the teacher�s
word was not to be questioned. Confucius himself asked students to
challenge him. ( I mean verbally, not fist fighting, even if his name
was really Kung fu tzu; Confucius being the Latinized version of his
name). This is not the only instance where Confucianism took a
different direction from its founder. In Japan, Neo Confucian
ideology specified a four class system in which the samurai or
warriors were the highest class. Confucius did not believe that the
warrior class should be the ruling class. He said the one does not
use good iron to make nails or good men to make soldiers.
While the first chapter explaining the philosophical background was
slow reading, I found the rest of the book relatively faster reading.
She does a good job of painting the background history as well as the
personal history of the people profiled. In doing so, she provides
the context in which these various scholars worked and lived.
While I do not agree with the Marxist worldview of these scholars, I
think some have made some interesting points which tie in with the
question of Western Civilization versus �Multiculturalism.� I found
it interesting that Chinese scholars have expressed a desire to learn
from other cultures, but that the learning should be adapted to a
Chinese context. In other words start from �Chinese soil.� To me
this indicates that one must have a place to start. I think we
Americans should begin our learning from �American soil� and then
branch out exploring other cultures. Those denigrating �Dead White
Europeans� should be aware that these �Dead White Europeans�
influenced people beyond the confines of Europe and America. Many
Chinese studied under Columbia under John Dewey. And Mao was
influenced by a dead white European, Karl Marx.
In understanding our American Heritage, I think the reasons as to the
reasoning behind the Constitution should be explained and expounded
upon. My impression was the Constitution was a pragmatic document
balancing the conflicting interest group, drawing heavily upon
historical experience from various European countries.
The Chinese scholars who were part of the various phases of educating
China believed that it was foolish to blindly copy a foreign model.
Up until roughly 1957, the Chinese followed the Soviet model. In
hindsight some scholars believed the Soviet system should not have
been adopted wholesale, but adapted to a Chinese context. The Soviet
system was seen to be too restrictive and dogmatic, with no room for
discussion. In the same way if we Americans were to adapt something
from another country, it should be adapted to an American context.
Perhaps it can even be improved upon. I am reminded that gunpowder
came from China. But it was the Europeans who really moved ahead with
the application of this invention.
I should also add the cautionary note that the grass is not always
greener on the other side of the fence. And maybe one should think
twice before adopting something. I am reminded of the time that the
Japanese business model was all the rage. Japan�s partnership with
government bureaucracy and Japanese management was supposed to be so
far ahead of everybody else. Then the Japanese �Bubble Economy� burst
in 1989. I asked a professor as to why the collapse. He remarked
that it was a number of factors, e.g. bad business decisions and the
Japanese becoming full of themselves. So maybe the Japanese model
wasn�t the ideal.
While denigrating Western Civilization may be fashionable among
Western academic circles, I find it interesting that Chinese scholars
include works of �Dead white Men,� such as Plato and Commenius in
their readings. So if the Chinese are willing to include these
Western works in their curriculum, why shouldn�t we?
It is kind of funny that in reading this book I also learned a bit of
European history as well. I did not know about the German academic
tradition. In America there has been the debate of separation of
church and state. In Germany there was the issue of separation of
university and state. In other words the academics were supposed to
stay out of political affairs. One German influenced Chinese, who was
president of a university disapproved of the political activism of his
students. Personally I am at the point at saying why not let every
law abiding citizen participate and have a voice? Religious, secular,
academic, non-academic etc.
I don�t think I would agree with every point made by these Chinese
scholars. Good grief, there is even some disagreement among these
eleven scholars profiled Some are more positive about the Soviet era
of education. While others have harsh words to say about that time.
But while there are points of disagreement, I think these scholars
have some interesting points. And ironically I found their comment
have inspired or encouraged me to advocate learning from �American
soil.� In other words, start from an American foundation and then
explore other cultures and traditions.
Unfortunately this book is not readily available from your local
bookstore. The book is orderable through Amazon.com. But the book has
not yet been released.
It might be simpler to contact:
Comparative Education Research Centre
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
Email cerc@hksub.hku.hk
Website: www.hku.hk/cerc
Fax (852)25174737
# posted by GuyTak @ 12:21 AM
