3 - Towards an
integrated theory of some
core concepts in Education
Ferdinand Potgieter, Hannes van der Walt, Martin Valenkamp, Charl Wolhuter
Introductory remarks
Educationists tend to find analysis of the concepts of their terrain “unbearably dull”, which
explains why even philosophers of education began to reconstrue the discipline as a form of
applied philosophy whose task it is to clarify the aims, content, methods, and distribution of
education appropriate to contemporary society (White, 2005: 231). In the process, they concern
themselves with virtually everything that somehow connects with education (Senchuk, 2005:
670). Recent debate has resultantly been dominated by concerns about, for instance, (children’s)
rights, freedom, equality and (social) justice, moral and political education, and issues of
authority, control and professional ethics (Curren, 2005: 231). Although we share the sentiment
that an analysis of pedagogical concepts in itself may be dull, we maintain that as educationists
we cannot do our work properly unless we occasionally examine some of the core concepts of
the discipline in an effort to conceptually connect them to our understanding of education both
as a concept and as the interpersonal event, process, entity or phenomenon that it denotes.
The purpose of this paper is to disseminate the findings flowing from our analyses of a cluster
of concepts that played a central role in our research during the last five years. In the period
since 2006, we researched the connections and relationships between education on the one
hand, and on the other, spirituality / religion, quality of life, wellbeing and happiness issues,
social capital, social justice, human rights and morality. The purpose of the research was to relate
the business of education to the needs of contemporary society, in view of the fact that we are
convinced that Education as a subject has to cover issues drawn from virtually every niche and
corner of everyday life. We realise that some of what we say about some of these concepts and
issues might only be construed as footnotes to Plato’s Meno (Senchuk, 2005: 670). We do not,
however subscribe to his epistemology there.
Our claim is that education is not only a core concept because of its centrality in the academic,
theoretical work of Philosophers of Education, but also because the concept denotes an entity,
activity, phenomenon, or form of interaction with others that affects the entire life of each and
every person at the core. As John Dewey said, it touches every aspect and facet of life; it is due
18
to education that we are what we are. On the one hand, we contend, education as a process,
action or activity is determined by certain preconditions, but on the other, education also has
certain observable results, whether knowledge (“pure” or applied), skills, abilities, capabilities,
attitudes, values, commitments and so on. By attending to some of these features of education
and to certain other concepts as well as the phenomena denoted by them such as quality of life,
wellbeing and happiness, we hope to make a contribution to the actual conduct of education.
[]
It is due to education that we are what we are.
Problem statement
As educationists, we are concerned about the quality of life, wellbeing and happiness of
restricted sense of teaching or instruction) is aimed at the improvement and enhancement of
the quality of our lives, general wellbeing and happiness. In our investigations, we were struck
by one of the negative effects of specialisation, namely that various subjects somehow related
to education tend to be discussed and analysed in relative isolation, in separate silos, as it
were. For instance, we found that spirituality, quality of life and wellbeing / happiness, social
capital, social justice, human rights and morality are all being investigated as separate issues,
each with its own philosophical ramifications and structural intricacies, and each with certain
connections and intersections with education but seldom connected with one another. We
reflected about the possible connections among them, and about their innate connections
with education (in the wider sense of the word) which, in our opinion, forms the conceptual
hub of the exercise. We subsequently contended that since the human being is (or should be)
an integral whole, education (in the already mentioned wider sense of the term) should also be
a holistic undertaking that ideally would lead to the formation of the less mature person into a
fully integrated mature person.
It is important for educationists to expose, discuss and reflect about these connections and
about the role played by education in these matters since that would provide a measure of
firmness in the volatile, labile, late modern socio-economic and socio-conventional times that
we live in. The results of our labours may be signposting the way for education in a time in which
reflection tends to be pragmatic, i.e. short-term and as practically applicable as possible.
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
individuals and societal relationships. Per definition (see below), education (note: not in the
On a methodological note
We are typical children of our time in that we did not search for fixed norms, principles or points
of departure, whether in some or other life and worldview or in some other source. Worldviews
19
are flexible, changeable, malleable and highly individual (despite often being shared to a greater
or lesser extent by entire communities). We found support for our search for firmer ground, i.e.
for criteria of a less coincidental and with a more socio-scientific basis, in the work of Harris
(2010) who claims that there must be certain scientific truths to be known about phenomena
such as those under discussion in this article:
A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear
distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging
some of them to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or
less ethical. Clearly such insights could help us to improve the quality of human
life – and this is where academic debate ends and choices affecting the lives of
millions of people begin … I’m not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve
every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain –
but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts (Harris, 2010: 2-3).
Although we were intent on discovering firm(er) norms on the basis of socio-scientific
investigation, we were also aware of the limitations of science, as Gratzer (2000) demonstrated.
We therefore weighed the evidence and opinions about the concepts and entities in question
in terms of how the reasonable person, the proverbial “person on the Clapham bus”, would
see things (refer Rawls, 1999: 53). Our thinking was, in a sense, preference-utilitarian in that we
looked for what would satisfy the preferences of sentient people and put aside what would
frustrate those preferences (refer Singer, 2003: 14). We believed our reflections to be guided by
“the reason and the mind” (Comte-Sponville, 2005: 8).
Our point of departure was a view of education in the widest sense of the word (i.e. not restricted
to teaching-learning, instruction only), with emphasis on how it forms the pivot in our individual
and collective lives, and how it helps making sense of the other important entities that we
encounter in our everyday lives, namely spirituality, quality of life, human wellbeing, happiness,
social capital, social justice, human rights and morality. In what follows, we occasionally pause to
reflect on the connections and intersections of a particular entity with education.
Education as the pivotal concept in this constellation of concepts
Education manifests itself in so many forms and in so many locations that it can only be defined
in the most general and generic terms (Böhm, 2005: 186). Most definitions of education contain
the following elements: Education is a process or action in which a relatively more mature person
interacts with a less mature person (i.e. it is an interpersonal engagement) for the purpose of
guiding, forming, equipping and enabling the latter for his or her future calling or occupation,
including to become a mature and responsible member of the various societal relationships
that s/he will belong to in future (refer among others Van Crombrugge, 2006: 12, 13, 23, 41, 59,
62, 64, 86 et seq.).
20
Most definitions overlook the fact that education, and therefore the educator, finds inspiration
for this complex “dance” with the less mature person (Ex, 2007: 9) in some or other spiritual
source that may or may not be of a religious nature, and that the goals and aims of education
are also determined by such (a) spiritual driving force(s). Although most definitions of education
emphasise the guiding of the less mature person to responsible behaviour and to assume
responsibility for actions taken and behaviour displayed, they do not highlight the fact that
education should lead to moral integrity in that s/he should be formed, guided, equipped and
enabled to become a whole person with integrity of character (Basave, 2006: 1), able to discern
between what is right and wrong, good and bad, act on what has been so distinguished, even
at personal cost, and taking responsibility for such actions and behaviour (Noshulwana, 2011:
16). Most definitions also do not embrace the idea that education should lead not only to the
wellbeing and happiness of the less mature person but also to the wellbeing of the societal
relationships that s/he belongs to. Put differently, most definitions do not reflect the fact that
education should contribute to the enhancement of the quality of life of all concerned as well as
Spirituality and education
The more secular meaning of the term spirituality was first used in the eighteenth century,
although it was only in the twentieth century that scholars started using the term more generally
to refer to extra-Biblical contexts (Ferguson & Wright, 1988: 656, 657). Some of the reasons for
this epistemological shift include globalisation, the postmodern human condition (Middleton
& Walsh, 1995: passim), the accelerated increase in human migration across the globe, as well as
the escalation in the social phenomenon of multi-religiosity.
Spirituality refers, amongst others, to a sincere respect, appreciation for and embracement
of a sacred dimension in the life-world of people (Engebretson, 2003: 5). It speaks to our
understanding of our being-in-the world, especially as it relates to our relationship with the
mystery at the core of the universe (Engebretson, 2003:9). In this regard, Engebretson (2003:11)
and Vermeer and Van der Ven (2004: 51 ff.) have found that young people in Australia and the
Netherlands, among others, are yearning for a supra-confessional, supra-sectarian and suprainstitutionalised form of spirituality. They wish to experience a spiritual dimension that all people
may be able to share with one another, irrespective of their religious (or other) persuasions or
moral convictions (Van der Walt et al., 2008: 10). For them, the term spirituality includes those
attitudes, beliefs and customs that help us humans to reach out and establish meaningful
relationships with perceptible, distinguishable realities that often belong to the realm of the
mystical, including the supernatural (Richardson & Bowden, 1983: 549). Tacey (2004: 1) points
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
of broader society (refer Strauss, 2009: 509).
out that the rising popularity of this new kind of spirituality is, amongst others, attributable to
the wholesome, nourishing effect that it has in and on the lives, communities, health, happiness
and wellbeing of its followers. Those who seek this new kind of spirituality argue that they are
21
no longer able to find spiritual direction, security or certitude in our present-day technological,
multicultural communities by staying uncritically loyal to the dogmatic, confessional religions
and theologies and institutions of yesteryear (Van der Walt et al., 2008: 7).
According to Hardjono and Klamer (2005: 21), spirituality is the conduit through which a
transcendental, ultimate reality impacts on human beings, transforming them so that they
increasingly tend to live their lives in service of these ultimate realities. Although spirituality
affects a broad spectrum of being human, it is essentially a lived passion; a state of being focused
and energetically motivated; a condition known by a feeling of being wholly captured. De
Muynck (2008: 7) echoes this idea when he refers to spirituality as “the manner in which one
– by orienting (sic) oneself on sources – relates beliefs and experiences of inspiration and/or
transcendence, more or less methodically, to the actual practice of life”.
[]
Spirituality is essentially a lived passion; a state of being
focused and energetically motivated.
Education is a two-way street. From one direction, the educator (parent, teacher) guides, forms,
equips and enables the educand, in the process accompanying him/her towards insight into
the world of adulthood, as embodied in various societal relations. From the opposite direction,
the educand either follows the lead of the educator, or chooses not to. In this regard, Levering
(2007: 68) argues that the educator is obliged to live (by example) the values, norms, virtues
and demands of propriety that s/he is expecting the educand to acquire (amongst others by
following the lived example of the educator). Education consists of hearing and doing (refer the
Hebrew verb stem shema). The educand is not only supposed to hear when the educator calls
on him/her to follow the educator’s example1, but also to respond to that call in an appropriate
manner (Van der Walt et al., 2008: 9).
The educator is, as it were, the embodiment2 of the desired form of spirituality in the sense of
being committed to and captured by some or other inspirational force that may be of a religious
or a non-religious nature (Baggini & Stangroom, 2003: 103; Cupitt, 2003: 103). By emulating the
spiritual example set by the educator, the educand may either acquire the same spirituality
(energy, motivation, capture, orientation towards beyondness, etc.) for his/her own onward
journey as a human being or reject the example set by the educator, in which case the educand
orientates the self towards a new spiritual principle. The claim put forward by Nolan (2009: 13)
22
1
The educator should not only embody the ideals of the society to which s/he belongs and hence what is required
from the educand in terms of what society needs or lacks according to its social capital requirements (including,
for instance, an approach suitable for a diverse society), but should also embody sufficient openness so as to create
space for the educand (the younger person being educated) to be able to make meaningful choices, even to the
extent of rejecting the pedagogical efforts of the educator.
2
See footnote 1.
seems relevant here, namely that a person with integrity (“the organic individual”) is one who
has made a conscious ideological choice3. The spirituality associated with, and flowing from
such an ideological choice helps him or her as an organic individual, as fully integrated person,
to transcend his or her self-centeredness and to work towards unselfish altruism. According to
Nolan, the organic individual / the person with integrity, does not serve the interests of the rich
and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak, but will want to serve the interests of change
for the better of all4.
[]
The educator is, as it were, the embodiment of the desired
form of spirituality
Based on this argument, the ontological link between spirituality and education can be explicated
as follows: spirituality not only belongs to the core of the most fundamental manner-of-being of
being human; it is also the prime prerequisite for the realisation thereof through education. As
All of this does not preclude the possibility that the educand may choose to search for spiritual
meaning outside the sphere of influence of a particular educator. According to Grayling (2010:
261-262), “The main point of civil liberties is to make, and to hold open, a space for individuals
to choose their own way of realising what they choose to value, consistently without harming
others. The highest good for an individual is autonomy and the relationships freely nurtured
within that autonomy. Without the protection of civil liberties, individuals are all too likely to
have lives chosen for them by others.” This may be one of the explanations for the proliferation
of non-religious spiritualities among young people, as alluded to by Tacey (2004).
From the above we concluded that without education (in the widest sense of the word, namely
forming, equipping, guiding and enabling) no person can grow up to become, as Nolan (2009:
passim) says, a fully organic person, a person imbued with a particular spiritual or ideological
directedness and openness. Without education, a person will not be able to grow acquainted
with the ideological possibilities from which s/he can make an ideological life-choice, on the
basis (i.e. value and norm system) of which s/he will be able to transcend selfishness and selfcenteredness to the extent of also serving the interests of others and in this process positively
contribute to social justice wherever injustice prevails. The role of education in this process is to
inculcate5 the values and norms of social justice in the sense of fairness, and to the good of all.
3
No pedagogical intervention has occurred if the educand does not enjoy the space for making such choices.
Interventions without space for choice amounts to indoctrination.
4
And thereby exercises fairness, social justice towards all.
5
‘Inculcate” here should not be misconstrued as indoctrination, as defined, but rather interpreted as “to provide an
example to the educand by living a meaningful life that can be fruitfully and advantageously emulated”.
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
such it is irreplaceably valuable for the successful fulfilment of the educand’s humanness.
23
Quality of life, wellbeing and happiness
The current research into Quality of Life departs from the notion that it is not an objective
concept, but rather an index concept with which it can be attempted to indicate what the
prerequisites are for individuals and groups to be truly happy, or what is deemed to be a worthy
life. The investigations into what people say about happiness and quality of life and about the
prerequisites of happiness and quality of life seem to have an objectivising, socio-scientific
character. Taken at face value, the current worldwide interest in quality of life seems to be
offering innovative alternatives to the ubiquitous social injustices that proliferate in present-day
society. This kind of thinking seems to rely, to a certain degree, on the modus vivendi approach to
morality and social justice. Gray (2009: 29) refers to this approach as “liberal toleration”. In contrast
with classical or “older” forms of liberalism that focused on life in societies with a single way of life,
a modus vivendi approach seeks to show how people can live together in societies that harbour
many ways of life (Gray, 2009: 21). Put differently, it is an approach aimed at promoting peaceful
coexistence in plural societies. Societies nowadays are more deeply diverse than ever. The modus
vivendi approach is premised by the idea that “humans will always have reason to live differently”
(Gray, 2009: 24). Modus vivendi embodies an older current of liberal thought about tolerance and
applies it to new circumstances. It expresses the belief that there are many forms of life in which
humans can thrive. Among these there are some whose worth cannot be compared. Where
such ways of life are rivals, there is no one of them that is best. People who belong to different
ways of life need to have no disagreement; they may simply be different. From a standpoint of
modus vivendi, no kind of life can be the best for everyone. The human good – and hence also
the quality of life, wellbeing and happiness – is too diverse to be realised in any one life.
Gray (2009: 23, 24) warns that this kind of “rational enquiry in ethics does not yield consensus on
the best life”. He then goes on to explain that “liberal toleration has contributed immeasurably to
human wellbeing, but it can no longer be our guide in late modern circumstances. If liberalism
has a future, it is in giving up the search for a rational consensus on the best way of life” (Gray,
2009: 29). Present-day society shows that people have reason to live and to search for quality
of life in different ways. The aim of modus vivendi is therefore to reconcile individuals and their
different ways of life. We do not need common values in order to live in peace, says Gray (2009:
25); we need common institutions, such as schools, in which many forms of life can coexist.
The ethical theory underpinning modus vivendi is value-pluralism (Gray, 2009: 25). This is why
Grayling (2009: 26) calls the discussion about the “good life” an essentially ethical enterprise,
claiming that ethics is about character and the quality of one’s life as a whole, and how one lives
it; in short, it is about what sort of person one is – from which the nature of one’s specifically
moral agency generally follows. So, to affirm that the good (and hence a happy, virtuous life) is
plural, as Gray argues, is to allow for it also to harbour conflicts for which there is no one solution
that is right among the many available (Gray, 2009: 26).
24
The worldwide investigation into Quality of Life was contracted by Nussbaum and Sen (1993)
and Nussbaum (2000) in the so-called Capabilities Approach. This approach views human
happiness in terms of human capabilities – on what people indeed can be and can do which,
once they have been determined, can form the substratum for revision of fundamental human
rights. This approach is more obligatory than Rawls’ fairness concept, because disrespect and
non-implementation of human capabilities would amount to depriving the human (a person)
of his / her humanity (both those of the perpetrator / actor and the offended person). One of
the ten basic capabilities of human beings in Nussbaum’s list (2000) is freedom of religion as an
upshot of the capabilities to imagine and to think.
Within Quality of Life investigations, particularly in Australia, there has been attention for the
religious and spiritual capacity of people as a contribution to both their happiness and quality
of life. Spirituality and religion are seen as important contributors to human happiness. In
line with Nussbaum and Sen, it can be claimed that to allow people the freedom of spiritual
to justice. Through this, a more just world / society comes into being. This both underscores
and supersedes Rawls’ warning that justice is not to be confused with an all-inclusive vision of
a good society.
The core discussion in Quality of Life discussions is: How much does having spirituality, religion
and faith weigh in both the bad, less good and good life situations of the human being? In line
with the above, it can be claimed that having an “organic” or integrated spiritual, religious or faith
life can contribute significantly to the quality of one’s life and hence to one’s happiness.
[]
It can be claimed that having an “organic” or integrated
spiritual, religious or faith life can contribute significantly
to the quality of one’s life and hence to one’s happiness.
Social Capital
Since its initial use by Lyda J Hanifan in 1916, the term “social capital” has enjoyed a wide variety of
meanings, some of which refer to the manifestations of social capital, and not social capital itself.
In this discussion, we restrict ourselves to the meaning of “accumulated social wealth” (Fukuyama,
1999: 2). The accumulation of social capital depends on cooperation between individuals as well
as the relationships between them (Smith, 2007: 2). Cooperation enables individuals not only to
create social networks, build communities but also to build relationships based on mutual trust.
According to Bourdieu (1983: 19), such relationships and mutual trust lead to the benefit of all
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
feeling and religious commitment is to acknowledge a human right and hence a contribution
concerned. Flora (1997) summarizes the core features of social capital as follows: the benefits
that accrue for individuals and groups from mutual trust, reciprocity, networking and collective
action. To this can be added the shared values that accrue from the social networks that people
25
create, among others: citizenship, neighbourliness, community involvement, volunteering and
civic participation (UK Snapshot, 2008), and democratic institutions as well as sustainable peace
(Coletta, 2003). Social capital more often than not has an individual and a collective or social
side as well as an inward looking side (the bond between friends, for instance) and an outward
looking side (having compassion for the destitute, for instance) (Smith, 2007: 6). Whatever form
social capital takes, it is always a difference-spanning bridge (Van der Walt, 2009).
Social capital also has a dark side, however, as discussed by Smith (2007). Close-knit groups with
high levels of social capital may tend to exclude individuals considered to be outsiders and to
subordinate others that do not belong to the group.
According to Fukuyama (1999), the extent to which a particular group has created social capital
can be gauged with criteria such as the following: To what extent have the members of the group
succeeded in spanning the differences among them? How inclusive is this particular group?
How cohesive is the group? What is the level of trust among the members of the group? To what
extent are values and norms shared by the members of the group, and to what extent are they
able to cooperate? To what extent are individual and social goals shared by the members of the
group? To what extent do all the members have access to the resources of the group and of, for
instance, the state they live in?
The last criterion mentioned above is an issue of distributive social justice as well (Nozick, 2007:
578). Flora (1997) is therefore correct in saying that, in order to accumulate social capital, no
individual should be excluded from the group and / or deprived of access to, for instance,
material capital and other resources. Everyone should as far as possible be included so that not
only their needs can be met, but also that their contributions to the social capital of the group
can be enjoyed by all.
One of the aims or goals of education is to form, guide, equip and enable the younger person
– the educand – to be able to contribute to the social capital of the communities s/he belongs
to. Given the fact that all human beings are not only individuals, each in his or her own right, but
are also social beings, education helps, or should help, each educand to not only understand
his/her place in a particular group as an individual but also to have a clear notion of what to
contribute to the group in terms of social capital. For this purpose, as has emerged from the
discussion of social capital so far, the accumulation of this form of capital flows from certain
pedagogically significant actions, such as expecting young people to cooperate with one
another (e.g. group work and social interaction), to form lasting relationships (e.g. friendships,
social networks, communities, citizenship, civic participation, democratic institutions), learn
to trust others and to be themselves trustworthy, to have insight into what would benefit the
group and each of the individuals belonging to it, the place and value of collective action (e.g.
26
when a strike by a labour union may be justifiable), how and when to volunteer for community
work, how to have empathy with the needs of others and how to provide in those needs, to
understand what peace and peaceful coexistence (modus vivendi) entails and how to contribute
to these ideals, why certain individuals should not be excluded from the group (for instance, to
understand the negatives about xenophobia, racism, genderism, ageism, ableism, and other
forms of discrimination), how to bridge the chasms between people with different cultural and
other backgrounds, and – finally – to be able to apply the criteria for deciding to what extent
the group that s/he belongs to has succeeded in creating and accruing social capital. As will
be discussed in the next section, the amount of social capital that a group accumulates will
also depend on how social justice has been practised by the various groups of which society is
constituted and by the individuals who share membership of those groups.
Social Justice
Postmodern critique on the idea of a just society provokes an interesting debate: Can there
same rights and privileges? Most scholars would probably agree that a completely just society,
where all people have equal opportunities, has never existed (Ellis-Christensen, 2009, no page
number).
Most of the available literature shows that social justice is primarily a social concept that is
politically loaded and therefore notoriously difficult to define (Van Deventer, 2010: 76). While
the core noun, justice, may refer to equality and fairness (in the sense of equal access to things
that make it possible for people in any societal sector to be successful), the qualifier social refers
essentially to the sphere of praxis of justice. Social justice thus demands that all people have
equal rights and opportunities; everyone, from the poorest person on the margins of society to
the wealthiest deserves an even playing field (Ellis-Christensen, 2009: no page number). It also
represents an ideal, a hopeful vision of the future – and not retribution – hope (through social
transformation and restoration) that it could become a way of life that will be able to permeate
all aspects of being human for everybody (Van Deventer, 2010: 76, 77).
[]
Social justice demands that all people have equal
rights and opportunities. It represents a hopeful
vision of the future.
Wherever the subject of justice or injustice is raised, a discussion about juridical and moral issues
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
ever be a just society, per se? Can we ever view all people as inherently equal and entitled to the
and their foundations invariably ensues. They centre on the core theme of how to ground the
rights of human beings, exactly what it means to claim to have done justice to others, and on
what moral grounds the rights of others have to be respected.
27
The quest for firmer foundations for spirituality and justice once again took us to the work of
Nussbuam, Sen and others, to the more objective socio-scientific basis of the theory of human
capabilities. This theory takes leave of moral “ought tos”, i.e. the practicing of justice apart from
mere goodwill and love for humankind, and locates the discussion about right and justice in the
domain of human rights, thereby establishing a less accidental and more socio-scientific basis
for criteria for human happiness. To merely ascribe rights to people is to move too much on the
level of “should” and “ought to”. “Should” and “ought to” require a motive on the basis of which
they can be realised in the everyday practice of human life and existence.
Rawls’ theory of justice seems an apposite starting point to lift the debate (political, moral,
educational, etc.) about what constitutes an equitable education system above the level of
coincidence. That is, however, still not sufficient. Rawls’ vision about the concrete effect of justice
departs from the notion of human fairness (Rawls, 2007: 571). He regards the obligation to fair
play as a prima facie duty, but that duty is not absolute: “…the duty of fair play stands beside
other prima facie duties such as fidelity and gratitude as a basic moral notion; yet it is not to be
confused with them”. To be fair in the practice of human life domains, we need something more.
The capability approach embodies a nexus between human rights and spiritual / religious
capability. Van Deventer (2010: 77) captures the essence of this nexus by pointing out that social
justice calls for sincerity and honesty in human relationships and that all such relationships
should be built on an attitude of wonder and awe and on the principle of openness to mystery
and respect. She maintains that this kind of honesty and openness is fundamentally linked to a
spiritual kind of “re-spect” that seeks to look again and more deeply. In debates about education
systems, this “re-spect” calls for space to be provided not only for a just education system, but
also for spirituality, religion, etc. In this regard, Rawls’ question seems valid: “Which rights have to
be respected in a just education system?”
Efforts to implement these newly-gained insights about social justice call for an imperative.
Ashley and Orenstein (2005: 475) oblige by offering a conceptual link between quality of life
and social justice. They maintain that as human beings we are effectively subjected to a moral
imperative to search for a better and more just world. Van Deventer’s call for sincerity and
honesty in human relationships, based in a mindset of wonder and awe, and based on the
principle of openness to mystery and respect, accentuates the intrinsic relationship between
social justice, quality of life and spirituality as phenomena in our life worlds. Her view resonates
with Comte-Sponville’s (2005: 4) that to act ethically is to be considerate of the interests of
others: “…unobserved by either gods or men” (as Plato puts it), that is to say without hope of
reward or punishment, requiring no one but oneself to witness the act:
28
…an action is good only if the principle which sustains it could apply in practice
to everyone: to act morally is to act in such a manner that you would wish
that everyone might submit to those same principles. This corresponds to the
spirit of the Gospels, or indeed the spirit of humanity …, what Rousseau refers
to as the “sublime maxim”: do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. It corresponds, too, with the spirit of compassion, once again formulated
by Rousseau: do good to yourself with as little possible harm to others. It is, at
least in part, to live for others, or rather for oneself, but a self which reasons and
thinks… (Comte-Sponville, 2005: 8-9).
This view chimes with Kant’s categorical imperative and the so-called Golden Rule (“As ye would
that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”6) and thus also with social justice.
The foregoing train of thought knits the key concepts of this study together, namely spirituality,
terms of these interrelated concepts, we are all obliged to strive for a just and responsible society.
That is and should remain our core pedagogical goal. It would seem that the love command7,
developed in the direction of an ethics of responsibility, could play a motivating role in this
regard, since it is an appeal to be and act fairly to others.
Morality
The human being is a moral person, as portrayed in the Kantian view of moral autonomy and
the categorical imperative (Rawls in Strauss, 2009: 508). This view is in contrast with that of Van
der Walt (2011) who believes that the human being is primarily a spiritual person and that his /
her moral integrity is predicated upon a spiritual orientation.
There is the possibility of an ethical dilemma in the battle between interests, if they are not
properly harmonised (Strauss, 2009: 7; Grayling, 2010). What humanity needs is respect for
the institutions that balance the competing interests in society, despite the fact that some of
the deeper moral commitments we have would sometimes seem to come into conflict with
that (Hampshire, 2003: 137, 141). The thesis that conflict resolution is at the heart of political
justice demands a conflict resolution mechanism such as respect for diversity (Christian Science
Monitor, 2005: 8). Coercion or unfair treatment should be avoided since any such attempt would
unglue the respect that holds a diverse community together. Rée and Urmson (2005: 122) refer
to also another mechanism for conflict resolution, namely “to examine carefully the opinions
6
This claim should not be construed to mean that Kant’s categorical imperative and the Golden Rule are synonymous
or correlative. These two rules serve as examples of rules or guidelines that can be employed for judging the extent
to which fairness has been exercised.
7
Yet another rule or guideline for judging the extent to which social justice has been done.
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
morality, human rights, welfare, Quality of Life, social capital, social justice and education. In
29
that are accepted by [the] society or [oneself ] and reduce them to some sort of [moral] system”
according to which to act.
Gray’s (2003: 90, 112) solution to this dilemma is to resort to “fugitive empathy” with other living
things as the ultimate source of ethics. In his opinion, there are no fixed norms, although we may
strive towards them. Morality is supposed to be universal and categorical, but it is only a convenience
to be relied upon in normal times. He (2009: 26, 27) later observes that human interests are, in many
ways, opposed: “When communities contend for power…they are likely to justify their interests by
arguments of fairness. Where interests are at odds and political power is at stake, shared principles
of interest are likely to yield incompatible judgments of what justice demands”.
Grayling (2010: 15) differs. According to him, morality is categorical as opposed to hypothetical;
it is about intrinsic questions about right and wrong, the good and the bad, obligation and duty,
consequences and intentions, as these apply in our conduct and relationships, where the right
and the good are under consideration themselves and not merely as instrumental to some nonmoral goal such as profit, corporate image, or the like.
This once again brings us to the role of education.
Since the human being is, among others, a moral person, education should focus on the
developing, guiding, enabling, equipping of the moral capability of the educand: the educator
should equip the educand with knowledge and understanding of the rights of others, caring
for the interests of others, of having compassion, empathy and sympathy with the interests of
others, teach them to care for others, to understand what is right and wrong – both in terms
of the “reasonable person” and in terms of the surrounding society - to understand the nature
of moral conflict and how to resolve it, how to be fair and just to others, how to respect the
differences in others and in the community, how to avoid coercion and unfair treatment, how
to gauge the moral climate of the community and how to act with propriety on it. Educators
should furthermore focus on inculcating an understanding of moral rules such as the Biblical
love command, Kant’s categorical imperative, Rousseau’s “sublime maxim”, the Golden Rule8 for,
inter alia, bringing home to them the importance of having respect for the interests and rights
of others (Nussbaum, 2006: 71).
Human rights
People objectively possess human rights, irrespective of whether they are constitutionally
enshrined or not, and they should be respected. They may also be criticised, however (Brand,
2011: 8, 11).
8
30
Once again, these are mentioned as possible rules that can be applied, without implying that they are the same,
similar or correlative.
To positivise their objective status, human rights are normally enshrined in constitutions,
manifestos and declarations of human rights and thus become legal obligations which have to be
respected, protected and fulfilled. The obligation to respect requires states and individuals to refrain
from unduly interfering with people’s enjoyment of a right (United Nations: Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC), 2009: 4-6). Human rights protect civil society, individuals and groups against
abuse of power and interference by the other individuals and the state. It prevents the state from
crossing “the boundary into nannying and, eventually, unjustifiable diminution of individual liberty”
(Grayling, 2010: 216), thereby putting civil society on the slipway to Huxley’s Brave New World.
Also in this case, educators should equip the educand with the knowledge and understanding
that s/he possesses certain objective and inalienable rights that should be respected, protected
and fulfilled, that may be criticized but should always be respected by all, and that have to be
“enforced” responsibly. The educand should be placed on his / her guard against attempts at
Towards an integrated theory of all of the above concepts
After having reflected about the cluster of core concepts discussed above in terms not only of
their pedagogical imperatives and ramifications, but also their interrelatedness, we developed
a heuristic that explains how they all fit together in terms of order (classification), (a spiralling)
sequence, comparison and interrelationship (see Figure 1). Education is the pivotal concept (#1),
in the sense that pedagogical imperatives flow from all the other concepts (and, of course, the
activities or entities they denote) and, obversely, education contributes to a greater quality of
life, wellbeing, happiness, spirituality, respect for human rights and so on. All the concepts and
the entities they denote are also complexly interrelated. Among these, spirituality (#4) has a
special place in that it is, on the one hand, the primary driving force behind education and a
motivational force behind all the other entities shown in the Figure, and, on the other hand,
may itself become more profound and better articulated in the lives of young people through
pedagogical intervention. In addition to this, all the concepts denote certain entities the optimal
realisation of which can be construed as aims of education. Put differently, if and when all these
other entities are in place, they facilitate more effective education.
[]
Pedagogical imperatives flow from all the other concepts.
The heuristic furthermore draws attention to the upward spiralling nature of the process: optimal
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
impinging on his / her rights by any party, including the state.
levels of education lead to elevated levels of social capital, social justice, morality and respect for
human rights and hence to an enhanced quality of life, greater wellbeing and happiness. This,
in turn, leads to more effective education.
31
Other clusters of core concepts in Education can – and should – be similarly analysed.
Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
Morality
2
3
Quality of Life,
wellbeing and
happiness
1
4
Education
Spirituality
Corrective
feedback and action
6
Social Capital and
Social Justice
5
Human Rights
References
Ashley, D. & Orenstein, D. (2005). Sociological theory. Boston: Pearson.
Baggini, J. & Stangroom, J. (2003). What philosophers think. London: Continuum Books.
Basave, A. (2006). Integral Philosophy of Education: A New “Paideia”. [Online]. Available from: http://www.
bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducBasa.htm. Accessed: 8 November 2006.
Böhm, W. (2005). Wörterbuch der Pädagogik. Stuttgart: Kröner.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. (In Richards, J.C., ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education. New York: Greenwood Press.)
Brand, G. (2011). Om hoog en laag by menseregte te sweer (To swear by human rights). Die Burger: p. 11. 12
January.
Christian Science Monitor. (2005). The Monitor’s View: Limits of Religion in Public Life. Christian Science
Monitor: 97(150), p. 8. 28 June.
32
Coletta, N.J. (2003). Human security, poverty, and conflict: Reform of International Financial Institutions. (In
Chen, L., Fukuda-Parr S. & Seidenstricker E., eds. Human insecurity in a global world. Cambridge (Ma.):
Harvard University Press.)
Comte-Sponville, A. (2005). The Little Book of Philosophy. London: Vintage-Random House.
Cupitt, D. (2003). The Non-realist Guard. (In Baggini, J. & Stangroom J., eds. What philosophers think. London:
Continuum Books.)
Curren, R.R. (2005). Education, Philosophy of. (In Craig, E., ed. The shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
London: Routledge.)
De Muynck, B. (2008). Summary of the dissertation “A Godly Vocation”. Paper presented at the Conference on
Spirituality in Education. De Driestar Educatief, Gouda, Netherlands. 14 - 16 January.
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2009). What is Social Justice? [Electronic Version]. wiseGEEK from http://www.wisegeek.
com/what-is-social-justice.htm.
Engebretson, K. (2003). Young People, Culture and Spirituality: Some implications for the Ministry. Religious
Education, 98(1): 5-24.
Ferguson, S.B. & Wright, D.F. (1988). New Dictionary of Theology. Leicester: Inner-Varsity Press.
Flora, C. (1997). Building social capital: The importance of entrepreneurial social infrastructure. [Online].
Available from: http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/newsletter/june97/build-soc-capital.html. Accessed: 13
September 2008.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social capital and civil society. Paper presented at the IMF Conference on Second
Generation Reforms. George Mason University. 1 October.
Gratzer, W. (2000). The Undergrowth of Science. Oxford: University Press.
Gray, J. (2009). Gray’s anatomy. London: Allen Lane.
Grayling, A.C. (2009). Ideas that matter. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Grayling, A.C. (2010). Thinking of answers. London: Bloomsbury.
Hampshire, S. (2003). Justice and conflict. (In Baggini, J. & Stangroom J., eds. What philosophers think. London:
Continuum Books.)
Hardjono, T. & Klamer, H. (2005). Breng spirit in je werk! Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Meinema.
Harris, S. (2010). The Moral Landscape. How Science can Determine Human Values. London: Bantam.
Levering, B. (2007). Levensverhalen scheppen. (In Ex, C., ed. Opvoeden, wat kun je? Amsterdam:
Wereldbibliotheek.)
Middleton, J.R. & Walsh, B.J. (1995). Truth is stranger than it used to be. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Nolan, A. (2009). The spiritual life of the intellectual. (In Gumede, W. & Dikeni L., eds. The poverty of ideas. South
African democracy and the retreat of intellectuals. Auckland Park: Jacana.)
Noshulwana, V. (2011). Integrity and what it really means in age of entitlement. The Herald: p. 16. 17 February.
Nozick, R. (2007). The Entitlement Theory of Justice. (In Lafollette, H., ed. Ethics in practice. Oxford: Blackwell.)
3 - Towards an integrated theory of some core concepts in Education
Ex, C. (2007). Opvoeden, wat kun je? (Education, what can you do?). Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2000). Women and human development: The capability approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
Unversity Press.
33
Nussbaum, M.C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. & Sen, A. (1993). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2007). A theory of justice. (In Lafolette, H., ed. Ethics in practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.)
Rée, J. & Urmson, J.O. (2005). The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Richardson, A. & Bowden, J. (1983). A new dictionary of Christian theology. London: SCM.
Senchuk, D.M. (2005). Philosophy of Education. (In Audi, R., ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Cambridge: University Press.)
Singer, P. (2003). Darwin and Ethics. (In Baggini, J. & Stangroom J., eds. What philosophers think. London:
Continuum Books.)
Smith, M.K. (2007). Social capital [Electronic Version]. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved 7 May
2008 from www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm.
Strauss, D.F.M. (2009). Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press.
Tacey, D. (2004). The Spirituality Revolution: The emergence of contemporary spirituality. New York: Brunner:
Routledge.
UK Snapshot. (2008). Social Capital.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital.
Accessed: 13 September 2008.
United Nations: Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc). (2009). Report of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights on Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva. 6-31 July
Van Crombrugge, H. (2006). Denken over opvoeding (Reflection about education). Antwerp: Garant.
Van Der Walt, J.L. (2009). Metaphorical bridge building for promoting understanding and peaceful
coexistence [Electronic Version]. HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies, 65.
Van Der Walt, J.L. (2011). Spiritual education for moral integrity. Port Elizabeth: 16 February 2011. Personal
communication.
Van Der Walt, J.L., Wolhuter, C.C. & Potgieter, F.J. (2008). Die Intrinsieke Verband tussen Opvoeding en
Spiritualiteit. Koers, 73(1): 1-14.
Van Deventer, I. (2010). Chapter 2: The Nature of Social Justice, Preliminary literature study for PhD thesis (pp.
76). Pochefstroom: North-West University.
Vermeer, P. & Van Der Ven, J.A. (2004). Looking at the Relationship between Religions: An Empirical Study
among Secondary School Students. Journal of Empirical Theology, 17(1): 36-59.
White, J. (2005). Education, problems of the philosophy of. (In Honderich, T., ed. The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. Oxford: University Press.)
34