What Is Education For? A Discussion of Nussbaum’s Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities

Introduction

Nowadays, some countries see economic development, increasing personal income and national income as the most important goals of development. “President Obama has so far focused on individual income and national economic progress, arguing that the sort of education we need is the sort that serves these two goals” (Nussbaum, 2010, p. 137). The U.S. Department of Education website quotes President Obama as saying, “leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today—especially in Science, technology, engineering and math.” The website also reports, “President Obama has set a priority of increasing the number of students and teachers who are proficient in these vital fields” (Obama, 2010). When the world is immersed in the craze of the economy index, education has become the maidservant of economy development.

If the world’s education is in order to realize profit, profit seems to be the purpose of education. So the more profit education produces, the better it is. Otherwise, it is a failure. That is why today in education from primary school to university, especially in university education, all the courses that cannot earn money are facing the fate: cut classes or cancel directly (Nussbaum, 2010, pp. 2-5)

Different Voices

In contrast with Nussbaum’s (2010) views and opinions, of course, there are different voices. Some scholars question the relationship between humanistic education and democracy. They think that there is no connection between humanistic education and democracy. For example, Gavin Moodie (2012) wrote,

There is no evidence that more or less humanities in the curriculum are associated with more or less democracy. Nussbaum argues that the humanities have been denigrated in India since the middle of the twentieth century (p. 130), yet India remains a vigorous and now increasingly thriving democracy. Indeed, India is democratic with an illiteracy rate of 40 per cent (p. 140), with only 47 per cent of its relevant age group enrolled in secondary education (Kingdon, 2007, p. 6), and, as Nussbaum notes (p. 131), where the most prestigious tertiary education is offered by institutes of technology and management which do not teach the humanities extensively. Conversely, as Nussbaum writes (p. 122), the US’s strong tradition of liberal arts college and university education continues despite recent cuts. Yet it is hard to argue that democracy is stronger in the US than in the UK, Australia and other countries where the humanities are less prominent in education. (p. 106)

We hold the idea that the view that humanities education has nothing to do with democracy is narrow-minded. Moodie’s (2012) argument just refers to school education, and more specifically to the proportion of humanistic education in higher education; it is not enough to explain the relationship between humanistic education and democracy. On one hand, humanities education is a kind of cultural inheritance. Its place in education and its carriers are various. Humanities education not only refers to school education, but there are various forms of cultural education, family education, and so on, that occur outside of formal schooling. Moreover, the concept of humanities is from humanity. Humanity is the pursuit of human life significance. It considers the most basic questions on outlook on life, world outlook, and values, such as, “What are the qualities of Humanity?” “Why are people alive?” “What kind of life is worth living?” We can say this: If there is no humanistic framework, human life will be meaningless. So humanity is the soul of man’s living. I will explain what I mean. The important difference between humans and other species is the existence of transcendence, the existence of ideals. Human beings pursue a better tomorrow and a more free life than today. The essence of human being is yearning for democracy and freedom. If one person wishes for freedom, he or she must realize that every person in the whole world wishes for freedom. The development of human society toward freedom is the process that democracy gradually realizes for all mankind.

A difference between humans and non-human animals is that people have ideals. Their ideals transcend their present existence. We pursue happiness and freedom. Just like Marx (2011) said,

Man is a species being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species as his object (his own as well as those of other things), but—and this is only another way of expressing it—also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treat himself as a universal and therefore a free being. (p. 572)

The future ideal society is the union of free people. In this group, the free development of everyone is the condition of all. If a man is not free, the society as a whole is not free, because anyone possibly might become a person without freedom, unfortunately. If there is one person in this society who is not free, that person may be you or me. Democracy is an important characteristic of an ideal society. It is a representation that everyone’s freedom is truly realized. We must ask the following: Who can hold it? Who can realize it through the social system in reality? Who can lead the new trend of the world? Humanities education regards equality and mutual respect, for all of us as citizens of the world, as the main content. It is an important way to realize human liberation and to create a path for everyone consciously to grasp what is valuable about human life.

Humanistic education is education in liberal arts, the cultivation of human beings’ self-conscious pursuit of free life. The word liberal comes from the Latin word liber, which means “free.” The liberal arts are the arts that are appropriate for a free person—a person who is not a slave—to learn. The liberal arts directly relate to the realization of democracy and freedom. Therefore, humanistic education and democracy are not unrelated but of close relationship.

Some scholars question Nussbaum’s (2010) overemphasizing the importance of humanistic education: In the process of democracy, is humanities education more important than other social issues? For example, William Chace (2011) wrote,

If we are to honor “the ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them,” on what strong ground can we rightly derogate a leader, an Indian leader perhaps, who might well believe that economic security, health, safety, and literacy must come before refinement of mind and the admirable luxury of self-examination? The study of painting, poetry, and all the arts, John Adams long ago said, follows the study of philosophy, but philosophy must wait its turn after politics and war. (p. 543)

We would object to Chace (2011) in this way: In my opinion, the process of realizing democracy is the result of joint action of many factors. Like Nussbaum (2010), I would emphasize the importance of humanities education. Neither can other social affairs substitute for it in the process of democracy nor do other factors have a comparable degree of importance. Only humanistic education can give a person a positive social ideal of life. Only humanistic education can promote consciously thinking on human social life in the future. This ideal will guide our social behavior toward the goal of a better, happier, and more harmonious social life. Philosophy as a worldview of knowledge is the self-awareness and self-reflection of the relationship between human and nature, human and society, human and self. The target of humanities education is for everyone to become citizens of the world, holding a broad vision of the entirety of human development instead of a narrow view that focuses only on a single individual or group. A vision of politics and war is narrow-minded. It is a vision of some people dominated by the rule of others. As the common pursuit of humankind, true humanism involves dialogue and social harmony. So, philosophy has the first turn. Its turn does not come after the turn of politics and war. Philosophical thinking is a must in the process of the realization of democracy.

Regarding Nussbaum’s (2010) view that emphasizes the important role of humanities education for realizing democratic goals, Timothy Simpson (2011) put forward this question: “Does Nussbaum mean to suggest that humanities are the only source of civic education? Can humanities education serve this purpose alone?” (p. 595). In answer to Simpson’s question, I would say that everyone needs a wide range of education content in the process of seeking freedom. In education, humanities education is an important aspect of democracy, it is necessary, but it is not sufficient and is not the only path. The philosopher Engels (1883) once said,

Only conscious organization of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. (pp. 9-11)

That means that only after two advances can people realize freedom and social development. One advance is ascending from the species relationship, and the other is ascending from social relations. That opinion supports my idea. It means, on one hand, that people must master the relationship between human beings and nature and must comply with the laws of nature; only then can we achieve freedom from being dominated by nature. On the other hand, it means that it is necessary to realize equality and mutual respect in human social relations to realize each person’s full-scale development of free personality. It is thus clear that in the process of achieving human development goals, the basic role of economic development is the premise to realize freedom, but also humanistic education is indispensable. Therefore, in the process of education, the cultivation of the humanistic spirit cannot be overlooked. Although we should attach great importance to the economic effect of education, we also cannot ignore that education has importance for democracy. We must maintain a balance between them because it is biased only to emphasize one aspect.

Does Economic Growth Conflict With the Cultivation of Sympathy?

We would like to further explore the relationship between education, economic progress, and freedom and democracy. It will deepen our understanding of the theme of Nussbaum’s (2010) book. My question is, If education serves for economic growth, is such education then certain to lead ignorance of the humanities? Is there a direct logical relationship between economic growth and moral indifference?

Nussbaum’s (2010) view is that economic growth means moral indifference and that there is a conflict between economic growth and sympathy. She noted,

Educators for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts. They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtuseness is necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality. It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated if you have never learned any other way to see them. As Tagore said, aggressive nationalism needs to blunt the moral conscience, so it needs people who do not recognize the individual, who speak group-speak, who behave, and see the world, like docile bureaucrats. Art is a great enemy of that obtuseness, and artists (unless thoroughly browbeaten and corrupted) are not the reliable servants of any ideology, even a basically good one—they always ask the imagination to move beyond its usual confines, to see the world in new ways. So, educators for economic growth will campaign against the humanities and arts as ingredients of basic education. This assault is currently taking place all over the world. (pp. 23-24)

Our own view is that in the long run, the realization of economic growth is not necessarily the source of moral indifference. The ultimate goal of economic development is the same as the goal of humane education, human happiness, and the realization of the all-round development of people’s free individuality. Everyone does everything for pursuing happiness and freedom. This is the nature of human beings.

Likewise, economic stability is a necessary component of individual well-being, and preparing students with the disciplinary knowledge; the intellectual, social, and technological skills; and the cultural capital they will need to compete successfully in the job market is a legitimate aim of education.

The ultimate goal of economic growth is humanity’s common ideal of life—democracy and freedom, as well as the development of science and technology. We can learn it from the analysis of the historical origin of natural science. In ancient Greece, science was produced in the process of asking questions and challenging authority. Science attempts to explore the essence of everything, including nature and society, and finds its inner logic and rule to realize freedom from being dominated by nature or other people in the society. Greek liberty to talk about politics becomes the norm. Plato’s (2004) republic dialogues demonstrated that the Greeks were very keen to discuss justice, law, the ideal form of government, and the political ideals of the rulers. During the debate, the topic actually went far beyond political issues. It involved the entire universe and all aspects of life. The debate about freedom constituted the foundation of social science and natural science. For example, the purpose of math training is not only for promoting of computing ability; its ultimate aim is to establish a reasonable and logical path to earn freedom. It is evident that natural science is a method whereas freedom and democracy is the human being’s final goal (Lloyd, 1970, pp. 8-12). And, of course, the absolute commercialization tendency of the development of natural science today is a deviation from the healthy track. We must correct it.

How Does One Implement the Education of Humanities?

Robert Gomme (2012) said about Nussbaum’s (2010) book, “The author admits to a diffuse approach in places. Most importantly the author ends by wringing her hands, but she comes to no conclusion as to what is to be done to remedy the nation’s apparent educational sickness” (p. 44).

My view is that we can try to use a variety of carriers and resources to carry out a wide range of humanities education. Our means are not just limited to humanities education in schools. We can build diverse joint education modes to realize fully utilized and fully integrated education resources.

In this respect, I have made a systematic investigation and analysis during my learning at the University of Minnesota in the United States. I shall discuss some long-standing practices of experiential education in the humanities in the University of Minnesota. I have participated in a course in philosophy (3307, Social Justice and Community Service) at the University of Minnesota in fall of 2013, for example. It adopts a joint university and community education model and has formed a stable and popular tradition of humanistic education.

John Wallace (2000) explained his years of experience with the course:

The linkage between the University of Minnesota and the Jane Addams School for Democracy, a community-based center for learning and action in the West Side neighborhood of St. Paul, gives a concrete example of how it is possible to work toward the ideal model from within a traditional university and to create with university students and community partners a fabric of experiences that rebinds education as connected, whole and humane. (p. 756)

The following is Wallace’s (2000) detailed description of the university–community organization mode:

The institutions that are partners in the school are the College of St. Catherine, the University of Minnesota, and Neighborhood House, a 100-year-old settlement house in the neighborhood. A group composed of staff from Neighborhood House and students and faculty from the two higher education institutions, in consultation with neighborhood residents, planned the school in the summer of 1996. Learning circles began to meet in the fall of 1996 and have been growing and meeting continuously since then. The topics for learning circles now include Hmong, Spanish, and English language, citizenship (including preparation for the U.S. citizenship test), and the immigrant experience. A children’s learning circle has also emerged, with a multifaceted agenda of crafts, stories, reading, music, theater, and games. The practice of college students and neighborhood residents being involved not only in the learning circles but also in the evaluation of the learning circles and in planning improvements and expansions to the work has also continued. (p. 763)

Wallace summed up,

Some students gain greater confidence in themselves as learners who can take responsibility for their own learning. They develop ownership in conceptual and practical issues that arise from problems facing our society, and they develop voices for contributing to discussions of these issues. They act in the community and see that their actions make a difference. They find a sense of vocation that aligns their talents with their ideals for a decent society, and they become committed to continued engagement in the community and to seeking for themselves further learning experiences of the same kind. (pp. 756-757)

It is my opinion that there could be expansions of such study circles. I gather this from the positive and enthusiastic attitude to such education that Wallace (2000) reported. He said, “We can see this kind of impact on my own students and also on students of colleagues in my university and in universities and colleges around the country that are practicing their own versions of this approach to education” (p. 757).

This service-learning model of humanities education mode practices the “education is life” concept of Dewey (1916). He wrote, “Life is a self-renewing process through action upon the environment” (p. 2). Service-learning improves the effect of humanistic education, and expands the scope of humanities education to all levels of society. It produces a deeper understanding of social problems for college students. It arouses their sense of social responsibility and civic awareness. Students’ practice and cooperation in service interaction with others will train their sense of justice, their awareness of equality. It will enhance their critical thinking skills. Community service-learning becomes an effective path to democratic education.