The Role of Tradition in Comparative Education Facing the

The Role of Tradition in Comparative Education Facing the New Age

Shen-Keng Yang, Ph.D. Professor

Graduate Institute of Education National Taiwan Normal University 162 Sec. 1, East Ho-ping Road Taipei, Taiwan, 106, R.O.C. Email:t04010@cc.ntnu.edu.tw Fax:886-2-23410882

數往者順，之來者逆。 ~易˙說卦

~ Aristotle, Topics

Innere Historizität des Denkens ist mit dessen Inhalt verwachsen und damit der Tradition. ~T.W. Adorno, Negative Dialektik

Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Comparative and International

Education Society Toronto, Canada, April 14-18, 1999

1

I.

Introduction

In response to the query whether the state of things ten generations hence could be foretold, Confucius said: “Yin succeeded to the Hsia rites, and it can be known what changes were made. Chou succeeded to Yin, and it can be known what changes were made. If there are any successors to the Chou, even one hundred generations hence, it is possible by analogy to know their characteristics.” （Confucius, Analects, II-23）. It seems to Confucius that the main task of historical comparison is to deduce the underlying principle of social and cultural development. The essence of this underlying principle has never ceased to exist. When the principle properly understood, one can know how to respond to the historical changes, as Hsün Tzu, （Ca. 325-238 B.C.）would say.（Hsün Tzu, The Works of Hsün Tzu, Chap.I）That what is transmitted or handed down from the past is called tradition（E. Shils, 1981:12）. It determines, according to H.-G. Gadamer （1986:265）, our institutions and attitudes to a great extent. Thus research in human sciences cannot regard itself as detached from tradition（H.-G. Gadamer, 1986:287）.

However, the hitherto dominant philosophy of the modern age wants, as T.W. Adorno（1982:63）maintains, to eliminate the traditional moments of thinking. The historical dimensions of thought would be stripped off and the fictious, one-dimensional Now became the cognitive ground of all inner meaning. What is historic in thought, instead of heeding the timelessness of an objectified logic, was equated with superstition. Since the Enlightenment endeavors have been made to overcome the superstition and to develop objective science, universal morality and law and autonomous art according to their inner logic. One of these efforts was Marc-Antoine Jullien’s（1816-1817, trans. By Fraser, 1963）attempt to establish comparative education as positive science. Succeeding the Enlightenment legacy many modern positivists in comparative education have been trying to formulate general laws to explain educational operation independent of national and cultural tradition.

Our age has, as P. Heelas（1996:1）puts it, moved beyond tradition and entered a post-traditional or post-modern period. Such is the momentum of change on the threshold of the new millenium that the increasing rationality since the Enlightenment is conductive to the promotion of the order and control and the achievement of enhanced interconnectedness of the world in a unified system. Modern science and technology, specifically cyber-technology, have brought humankind to an

2

institutionalized universal quasi world polity, wherein interdependence and globalization are the main forces in forming individual and collective identities. Rapid changes witnessed in human societies as Delors’ Report（1996:45）indicated, operate at two levels: there is growing internationalization but at the same time a search in many quarters for specific roots. “Education should therefore seek to make individuals aware of their roots so as to give them points of reference that enable them to determine their place in the world, but it should also teach them respect for other cultures（ibid:49）. To help actualizing that end, comparative education should take tradition into serious considerations in its scientific study on the internationally valid law of educational development.

II. “Tradition” in the Earlier Comparative Education

As Edward Shils（1981:12）notes, tradition in its most general sense means a traditum, -that is, anything which is transmitted handed down from the past. That what is transmitted from generation to generation constitutes, according to J. Zimmer（1990:609）, the mediation of the origin and present time and stands in such a way for the contituity of cultural preservation. The tradition with its canonical authority from the cultural origin makes the social solidarity possible. Thus tradition is, as H. –G. Gadamer（1986:287）maintains, always part of us, “a model or exemplar, a recognition of ourselves which our later historical judgement would hardly see as a kind of knowledge, but as the simplest preservation of tradition.”

Traditional authority and superstitions were severely criticized by the Enlightenment philosophers in the 18th century. New ideas and new outlook on life were introduced for the emancipation of humanity. To that end, scientific study based on reason and experiment was emphasized in contrast to the obedience to the traditional order. The Enlightenment is, according to C. Frankel（1958:266）, mainly responsible for the contemporary ideal of an objective, co-operative social science. Nurtured in the liberal and scientific spiritual climate of the Enlightenment, Marc-Antoine Jullien de Paris（1775-1848）, generally considered Father of Comparative Education, attempted to develop the idea of comparative education as an almost positive science.（M.-A. Jullien de Paris, 1816-1817, S. Fraser, trans. 1963:41-42）. By the application of comparative method, a method thought particularly by the Enlightenment philosophers as means to accelerate progress, Jullien intended to establish the positive principles of educational development with a view to throwing more light on the possible transference from one system to another with certain modifications. Once the principles of educational development are

3

well-established, transposition of education from one country to another for purpose of improvement is possible. As a matter of fact, many educational comparativists in the 19th century, e.g. V. Cousin, Horace Mann, Matthew Arnold, had the common conviction that the transplantation and domestication of educational system with little modification was the suitable way to improve one’s own education, for general principles of education might be common to all nations and general laws of education must be made applicable to different countries（M. Noah & M. A. Eckstein, 1969:14-23）. Canonical authority of tradition and cultural continuity were relatively neglected.

Michael Sadler was the first educational comparativist who firmly repudiated the idea of direct cultural and institutional borrowing from other countries. In his famous Guildford Lecture, Sadler uttered his famous dictum that the “ things outside the schools matters even more the things inside the schools, and govern and interpret the things inside”（cit. in P.E. Jones, 1969:50）.Sadler’s major theoretical contribution to comparative education is, as H. J. Noah and M. A. Eckstein（1969:46）observe, “the axiom that schools of a society would be studied in the context of society.” The research in comparative education can not accordingly be detached from the tradition where the studied education system is embedded in .

Under the influence of Sadler, most of the comparative education works in the first half of 20th century were, as G.Z.F. Bereday（19:25）observes, “concerned with social causes behind pedagogical scene.” Referring to Sadler’s early rationale for studying comparative education, N. Hans（1949）sought to identify the traditions that underlay national educational system. I. L. Kandel（1933）took national character and nationalism as key components in comparative education analysis. F.Schneider（1947:144-163）intended to analyze the underlying culture types of the studied education systems. They represented, as Noah and Eckstein（1969:56-57）maintain, forces and factors approach of the variations in education from country to country. Moreover, they proceeded, as Hans（1949:5）would say, “to discover the underlying principles which govern the development of all national systems of education.” They tried to describe and scrutinize the embedded traditions of the education system concerned. However, they left the traditions unchallenged. As A. R. Welch（1998:3）comments, the elucidated traditions in the comparative education works that time, though pretended to be universal, represented, however, the tradition of the élite. Insufficient attention was usually drawn to the traditions of the underprevididged, e.g. of the working class or of racial and ethnic minorities.

4

III. Detradtitionlization in Positivism

Heir to the Enlightenment optimism, positivism and functionalism dominated in comparative education in 1950s and 1960s confidently claimed to be progressing and toward the development of law-like statement and generalizations to explain and predict educational trends. The culminating point of comparative education is, according to G.Z.F. Bereday（19:25）, to be concerned with the over-all impact of education upon society in a world perspective. The final stage of this discipline is thus concerned with the formulation of “laws” or “typologies” that permit an international understanding and a definition of the complex interrelation of the schools and people they serve. Underscoring the formulation of scientific law in comparative education, B. Holmes（1965:373）claimed that “sociological laws…bear to man’s social environment the relationship that natural laws’ of science have to his physical or natural environment. For those who wish to study the mechanics of curriculum development, the importance of studying modern opinions on the main characteristic of scientific laws is thus obvious. Models of investigation for comparative education must be identical with, and derived from used in the studies of physical sciences. Drawing heavily upon Karl Popper’s hypothetical-deductive approach, Holmes’ explicitly deductivist problem solving framework shows itself evidently technicianism-oriented and decontexualized similarly in the explanation of natural science. Equally technicianism-oriented, while more inductivistic, the comparative education model in H.J. Noah and M,A. Eckstein’s Toward a Science of Comparative Education （1969）deems quantification and hypothesis testing paramount important in construction of rigorous science of comparative education. When closely examined, based largely on the psychometric principles, Noah （1973:114）proposed further: “A comparative study is essentially on attempt as far as possible to replace the names of systems（countries）by names of concepts（variables）” Describing scientific approach of Noah and Eckstein as methodologism, B. R. Barber（1972:424-436）comments: “it presumes that reliability, precision and certitude can be attained by the dutiful application of specific methods and techniques-irrespective of the nature of the subject under study.”

Rigorous quantitative hypothesis testing is also emphasized by G.

5

Psacharopoulos（1990）in his study of the relationship of comparative education and educational planning. Unsatisfied with the long nonquantitative accounts of the educational system of a single country, Psacharopoulos （1990:380）advocates that the goal of linking comparative education research with educational policy and planning can only be achieved through “conceptualization, methodological design, statistical sampling, rigorous data analysis, and hypothesis testing.”

The monolithic claims of scientific reason of the foregoing recapitulated comparative education positivism tend to, in T. W. Adorno’s（1982:33）phrase, “eliminate qualities and to transform them into measurable definition.” Increasingly, rationality itself since Decartes is equated more mathematio with the faculty of quantification. The pure, perfectly sublimated subjects themselves are called upon to exercise scientific authority in formulating educational “laws” or “typologies.” The notions of tradition and culture are dismissed from process of scientific study in comparative education. Detraditionalization thus involves the radical turn from tradition intrinsic to positivistic reflection in comparative education research.

IV. Rehabilitation or Critique of Tradition

Detradtitionalization, as P. Heelas（1996:4）argues, “cannot occur when people think of themselves as belonging to the whole.” For the decline of the belief in tradition entails that people have acquired the opportunity to stand back from, critically reflect upon, and lose their faith in what the traditional has to offer. They have to arrive at a position where they can have their own say.

Similar argumentation is also offered in H.-G. Gadamer’s（1956:287）Wahrheit und Methode. For Gadamer, there is no such unconditional antithesis between tradition and reason. Tradition needs to be affirmed, embraced, cultivated. It is, essentially, preservation, such as is active in all historical change. But preservation is an act of reason, though as inconspicuous one.

The preservation and cultivation of tradition, as act of reason, constitute educational process. To become rational is, according to Israel Scheffler（1973:2）, to enter into traditions, to inherit them and to learn to participate in the never-ending work of testing, expanding, and altering them for the better. Fundamental to educational process is thus the active rational participation into traditions and the renewal of them. This process presupposes, however, that “ we stand always within tradition, and this is no objectifying process, i.e. we do not conceive of what tradition

6

says as something other, something alien”（H.-G. Gadamer, 1986:287）.

Since tradition are always open to human agency. The effect of a living tradition and the effect of historical study must constitute a unity, the analysis of which would, according to H.-G. Gadamer（ibid:288）, reveal only a texture of reciprocal relationship. The distinguishing mark of human sciences is thus that its constitution entails an element of tradition active inside it. Being aware of the tradition-embeddedness of human science, many educational comparativists begin to challenge the 1950-1960 positivism and functionalism. In his “Comparative Education from an Ethnomethodological Perspective”, R. Heyman criticizes the supposed objectivity of various categories of measurement used previously in macrocosmic comparative educational research and the use of large-scale questionnaire surveys, since their use is decontextualized without talking any account of subjective engagement in the research. Attention should be drawn to the lived world wherein the educational process occurs.

Culturalist approach advocated by W. D. Halls（1973）tries to formulate educational typology through study of cultural typology. Referring to Bourdieu and Passeron’s definition of culture as “standardized patterns of activity and belief that are learned and manifested by people in their collective life”, Halls maintains that cultural and educational features are linked, and act reciprocally upon each other. Cultural traditions that embed the studied education systems should be carefully investigated for the purpose of setting up educational typologies in comparison.

All the afore mentioned efforts left the tradition unproblematized. The culture was still perceived, as A. Welch（1998:11）argues, in terms of the received view, （the official version of culture, or the culture of the nation state）. Little attention was drawn to the possible distortion implicit in the education process and comparative education.

In educational experience, traditions are continued, according to Shaun Gallagher（1992:99）, not as are produced past, but as transformed past, insofar as they are challenged and questioned, and insofar as they take on new meaning in our present interpretations. Critical reflection is thus essential to make transparent the possible bias of process of tradition and cultural domination. The purpose of critical reflection is to assist in the achievement of emancipation from the constraints of tradition and ideology. Critical reflection makes, as J. Habermas（1970:129）maintains, “our own individual or collective life-history transparent to ourselves at

7

any given time, in that we, as our own products, learn to penetrate what first confront us as something objective from the outside.”

In attempt to understand impartially culture and symbolic life of the actors, V. Masemann（1986）proposes to integrate critical theory with ethnography in comparative education. Through the lens of critical theory, all forms of penetration of dominant ideology or imported innovative “ rationality” could be studied in a comparative sense. Furthermore in her presidential address to the 1990 Comparative and International Education Society annual meeting, V. Masemann（1991）argues that a more grounded, realistic methodology is needed in comparative education. Knowledge form other than western rationalistic tradition-bonded should be carefully taken into account in the comparative education.

V. Re-mooring of Tradition for the Uncertain Future

Accompanying the progress of science and technology, humankind has been, as Delors’ Report（J. Delors, 1996:43）maintains, brought into the age of universal communication. Human societies will have nothing in common with any model from the past because the interactive media technology available to anyone, anywhere in the world. It is thus possible for anyone to engage in dialogue, discussion and transmission of information unconstrained by distance or operating time. As the transmission of tradition becomes dependent on the media technology, tradition become gradually de-ritualized, de-personalized and de-localized（J. B. Thompson, 1996:97-99）.

Uprooting of the tradition thus occurs, as the whole world is proceeding towards becoming a global village. The bond that tied traditions to specific locales of face-to-face interaction has been gradually weakened. With such a development of the world, there is a gradual decline in the traditional grounding of action and in the role of traditional authority.

However, dangers are also engendered by the globalization process. A very large underprivileged population remains excluded from the development of modern technology. Disparities between the developed and underdeveloped countries are getting worse with the rapid progress of technology.

Education reform strategies based on the research of western rationalistic science and technology have been imposed upon those non-industrialized countries. The

8

uprooting of indigenous tradition becomes even worse in the underdeveloped countries receiving international aid. The blatant in equalities and gulf between the developed and the underdeveloped countries are the major dangers that entail of a setback to democracy and prosperity of all the humanity.

A comparative education worthy of its name, as A. Welch（1998:13）argues, must support the claims for social justice（in education）of disposed and marginal groups in society. Varieties of voices should, as V. Rust（1991:619）remarks, be listened to carefully with understanding and appreciation. In comparative education, the uprooted traditions should be refashioned in ways that enabled them to be re-embedded in a multiplicity of locales and re-connected to territorial units that exceed the limits of face-to face interaction. Through such a re-mooring of tradition, the research of comparative education make it easier to “make individuals aware of their roots so as to give them points of reference that enable them to determine their place in the world.”（J. Delors, 1996:49）. Only through their clear self- identity, people can respect the “other”. It is thus imperative for comparative educationaists to engage themselves in formulating multiple re-embedded traditions to facilitate both the self-respect and the acceptance of spiritual and cultural difference. Facing the coming century, education comparativists should take the solemn responsibility to come to terms with varieties of values from different cultures and to take account of the future and prosperity common to all humanity into their serious consideration in their research activities.

9

Reference

Adorno, T.W.（1982）, Negative Dialektik, 3. Aufl., Frankfurt am M.:Suhrkamp, （1. Auf., 1966）.

Altbach, P. G. (1977) “Servitude of the Mind? Education, Dependency, and Neocolonialism” Teachers College Record, 79, (2), 187- 204.

Anweiler, O. (1967) “Konzeptionen der Vergleichenden Pädagogik” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Bd. 13.

Anweiler, O. (1977) “Comparative Education and the Internationalization of Education” Comparative Education, 13, (2), 109- 114.

Arnove, R. F. (1980,Feb.) “Comparative Education and World- Systems Analysis” Comparative Education Review, 48- 62.

Barber, Benjamin R. (1972) “Science, Salience and Comparative education: Some Reflections on Social Scientific Inquiry” Comparative Education Review, vol. 16. Confucius, Analects.

Bereday, G. Z. F. (19) Comparative Method in Education, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Carr, David（1998） “Traditionalism and Progressivism: Problematic of Educational Theory and a Perennial Policy”, Westminster Studies in Education, Vol.21, 47-55

Coulby, D. & Jones, C. (1996) “Post- modernity, Education and European Identities” Comparative Education, 32, (2), 171- 184.

Crossley, M.（1998） “The Place of Research & Evaluation in Educational Transformation: Cross-Cultural Issues and Research Capacity Building in Belize, Central America.” 10th World Congress of Comparative Education Societies（WCCES）, Cape Town, South Africa, July 12-17 Delors, J. (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within, UNESCO.

Frankel, C.（1958） “The Philosophy of the Enlightenment” in V. Ferm（ed.） A History of Philosophical Systems, Ames, Iowa: Littlefeild, Adams & Co.

Fraser, S. (1963) Jullien’s Plan for Comparative Education 1816- 1817, Teachers College, Columbia University. Gadamer, H. –G（.1986）, Wahrheit und Methode, 5. Aufl., Tübingen:J.C.B. Mohr, （1. Aufl., 1960）.

Geertz, Clifford (1983) ,Local Knowledge, New York: Basic Books.

Greene, M,（1994） “Epistemology and Educational Research: The Influence of Recent Approaches to Knowledge,”Review of Research in Education, 20:423-4 Habermas, J.（1970）, “Summation and Response” in Continuum, vol. 8:123-133. Halls,W. D. (1973) “Culture and Education: The Culturalist Approach to Comparative

10

Studies”, in Edwards, R., Holmes. B. & Van de Graaff (eds.) Relevant Methods in Comparative Education, Hamburg :UNESCO Institute for Education: 119-136. Hans, N. (19) “Functionalism in Comparative Education” International Review of Education, 10, (1), 94- 105.

Hans, N. (1967) Comparative Education, London: R.K.P.

Harvey, D.（1990）. The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford：Blackwell.

Heelas, P., Lash, S. & Morris, P.（eds.）（1996）Detraditionalization, Oxford:Blackwell.

Heelas, P.（1996）, “Introduction:Detraditionalization and its Rivals” in P. Heelas, S. Lash & P. Morris（eds.）Detraditionalization, Oxford:Blackwell.

Heyman, R. (1979) “Comparative Education from an Ethnomedothdogical Perspective”, Comparative Education, 15:241-249.

Hollinger, R. (1994) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Holmes, B. (1981) Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Horkheimer, M. (1972) Critical Theory, New York: Continuum. Hsün Tzu, The Works of Hsün Tzu. Jones, Ph. E. (1969) Comparative Education: Purpose and Method, St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Kandel, I.L.（1933）Studies in Comparative Education, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. Kazamias, A. M. & Schwartz, K. (1977) “Intellectual and Ideological Perspectives in Comparative Education: An Interpretation” Comparative Education Review, 21, (2-3), 153- 176.

Kern, P. (1973) Einführung in die Vergleichende Pädagogik, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mallinson, V.（1966） An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Education, London:Heinemann Education Books Ltd.

Masemann, V. (1976,Oct.) “Anthropological Approaches to Comparative Education” Comparative Education Review, 369- 380.

Masemann, V. (1978) “Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative Education” in Altbach, P. G. & Kelly, G. P. (eds.) New Approaches to Comparative Education, 11-25, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Masemann, V. (1990) “Ways of Knowing: Implication for Comparative Education” Comparative Education Review, 34, (4), 465- 473.

Masemann, V. (1990a) “Educational Reform: Impact of Indigenous Forms of

11

Knowledge” in Husen , Torsten & Postlethwaite, T. Neville (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 4, 2ed., 1848- 1857.

Noah, H. J. & Eckstein, M. A. (1969) Toward a Science of Comparative Education, London: Collier- Macmillan.

Noah, H. J. (1973) “Defining Comparative Education: Conceptions” in Edwards, R., Holmes. B. & Van de Graaff, J. (eds.) Relevant Methods in Comparative Education, Hamburg :UNESCO Institute for Education: 109-118.

Paulston, R. G. (1997) “Mapping Visual Culture in Comparative Education Discourse” Compare, 27, (2), 117-152.

Paulston, R. G. (ed.) (1996) Social Cartography, New York & London: Garland publishing, Inc.

Peters, M. (1995) Education and the Postmodern Condition, London: Bergin & Garvey.

Przeworski, A. & Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Malabar Florida: Robert E. Krieger publishing Company.

Psacharopoulos, G. (1990) “Comparative Education: From Theory to Practice, or Are You A:\\Neo.* or B:\\*.st?” Comparative Education Review, 34, (3).

Renkema, W. J. (1996) “Knowledge of the Traveller: Case Study Research and the Problem of Generalisability” paper submitted to the Commission on Theories and Theory Shifts, 9th World Congress on Comparative Education, Sydney, Australia, July 1996. Röhrs, H. （1995）. Die Vergleichende und Internationale Erziehungswissenschft, Weinheim：Deutscher Studien Verlag

Rust, V. (1991) “Postmodernism and its Comparative Education Implications” Comparative Education Review, 35, (4), 610- 626.

Rust, V. (1996) “From Modern to Postmodern Ways of Seeing Social and Educational Change” in Paulston, R. G. (ed.) Social Cartography, New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Schneider, F.（1959）Europäische Erziehung:Pédagogie Européenne European Education, Basel: Herder

Schneider, F.（1949）Triebkräfte der Pädagogik Der Völker, Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag,

Scherffler, Israel (1973), Reason and Teaching, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Schriewer, J. (1978) “Unterwegs zu einem neuen Selbstverständnis?” Z.f.Päd., 30.Jg. Nr.3, 323-342.

12

Schriewer, J. (1984) “Vergleichend- historische Bildungsforschung: Gesamttableau order Forschungsansatz” Z.f.Päd., 24.Jg. Nr.1, 117-139.

Schriewer, J.（1988）. The method of comparison and the need for externalization：Methodological criteria and sociological concepts. In J. Schriewer and B. Holmes（eds.）, Theories and Methods in Comparative Education., Frankfurt am M: Peter Land

Schweizer, T. (1978) Methodenprobleme des Interkulturellen Vergleichs, Köln, Wien: Böhlau Verlag. siehe S.7

Shils, E.（1981）, Tradition, London:Farber & Farber.

Vallier, I（1973）Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications, Berkeley and Los Angles, California: University of California Press. Wallerstien, I.（1995）Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth Century Paradigms, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Watson, S.T.（1997）, Tradition（s）, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weiller, H. N. (1983) “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation: Strategies of Compensatory Legitimation in Educational Policy” Comparative Education Review, 27, (2), 259- 277.

Welch, A. (1985) “The Functionalist Tradition and Comparative Education” Comparative Education, 21, (1), 5- 19.

Welch, A. (1991) “Knowledge and Legitimation in Comparative Education” Comparative Education Review, 35, (3), 508- 531. Zimmer, J.（1990）, “Tradition”, in H.J. Sandkühler（hrsg.）Europäische Enzyklopädie zu Philosophie und Wissenschaft, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag. 602-609

13