Ninety-nine language teachers out of a hundred should not be language teachers at all

(translated from my Chinese blog)

This is my new project, “Nietzschean Philology”. In each installment, I’ll read a passage from Nietzsche’s original writings. By practicing text analysis, we can enhance our ability to understand the world.

"We Philologists" Section 1. Nietzsche further discusses the reasons why linguists are not competent for their role. On the one hand, linguistics itself goes beyond the comprehension of young people. On the other hand, society, in terms of career inheritance, generational transitions, and motivational mechanisms, tends to perpetuate and exacerbate the inadequacies of individual professionals. As a result, society as a whole is filled with incompetent people. In the face of such a reality, introducing the concept of eternal reincarnation might be of no help at all.

On inquiring into the origin of the philologist I find:

1. A young man cannot have the slightest conception of what the Greeks and Romans were.

2. He does not know whether he is fitted to investigate into them;

3. And, in particular, he does not know to what extent, in view of the knowledge he may actually possess, he is fitted to be a teacher. What then enables him to decide is not the knowledge of himself or his science; but

(a) Imitation.

(b) The convenience of carrying on the kind of work which he had begun at school.

(c) His intention of earning a living.

In short, ninety-nine philologists out of a hundred should not be philologists at all.

—"We Philologists" 2, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy

For better understanding, it might be helpful to make a cultural translation:

A young man cannot have the slightest conception of what people in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the Qin and Han dynasties, the Six Dynasties, and the Sui and Tang dynasties really were like. [Since the Song Dynasty, the concept of “modern times” has emerged. This concept originated from Naitō Konan’s theory of the “Tang-Song transformation.” People from these periods were somewhat similar to those living today, so they can’t truly be considered ancient people. Some historians may draw this boundary before the Six Dynasties, considering the period from the Six Dynasties to the Sui and Tang dynasties as China’s “Middle Ages” – a stage that lies between ancient and modern times.]

He does not know whether he is fitted to study these works [the various schools of thought, the Four Books and Five Classics, Han dynasty rhapsodies, Tang dynasty poetry, and so on].

3. And, in particular, he does not know to what extent, in view of the knowledge he may actually possess, he is fitted to be a [language arts] teacher. What then enables him to decide is not the knowledge of himself or his science; but

(a) Imitation.

(b) The convenience of carrying on the kind of work which he had begun at school.

(c) His intention of earning a living.

In short, ninety-nine language teachers out of a hundred should not be language teachers at all.

The latest data I’ve found shows that ancient poetry and prose make up as much as 30% of the curriculum in elementary school Chinese language education. In junior high school, this figure rises to 55%, which is more than the proportion of modern texts in the curriculum. Some people justify this by saying it helps to “preserve the vitality of traditional culture” which makes me laugh. According to Nietzsche the philologist, he would likely strongly oppose any effort to teach ancient poetry and prose during compulsory education (and perhaps even up to the undergraduate level). After all, “A young man cannot have the slightest conception of what the ancients were.” But why is that?

Nietzsche didn’t say this explicitly; we can only guess. Young people cannot understand the lives of ancient people, probably because: ① Young people lack life experience; ② Young people lack an understanding of intergenerational relationships; ③ Young people lack a historical perspective. As mentioned earlier, Nietzsche wasn’t interested in social issues. Given that he wrote “The Use and Abuse of History” in the same year (1874), it’s more likely that he was referring to point ③: young people lack a historical perspective.

In recent years, I’ve found myself completely unable to tolerate historical dramas nowadays. What bothers me most is that the characters in these dramas act according to modern logic, with an excessive focus on rationality, self-awareness, progressivism, and humanism. They also reject all traditional beliefs as “superstitions.” This isn’t how ancient people actually behaved. Recently, I read an example cited by Ge Zhaoguang*, which illustrates how much we misunderstand ancient people. Ge Zhaoguang mentioned that anthropologist Marcel Granet notes that Confucian texts avoid discussing the “meeting at Qilu Jiagu.” This is because it’s hard to believe that Confucius would be so barbaric as to order the execution of dancers and entertainers. But it’s more likely that Confucius indeed ordered executions, and this wasn’t considered barbaric at that time.

……Such tradition [the meeting at Qilu Jiagu] can be traced back to ancient times, when people would pour human blood on drums and bells for ritual purposes. It continued into the Song Dynasty, during which people would still sacrifice humans to appease the ghosts.[……] Kuwabara Jizō wrote a long article titled “The Practice of Eating Human Flesh Among the Chinese”. This shows that such practices, which modern people would consider “barbaric”, indeed existed in ancient times. For example, during the Tang Dynasty, Qiu Xinggong, a general under Emperor Taizong, ate the heart and liver of an enemy general Liu Lancheng, who had been captured. This is recorded in the “Zizhi Tongjian”. During the reign of Emperor Xuanzong, eunuch Yang Sizhu also ate the flesh of officials who collaborated with the enemy. This is recorded in the “Old Book of Tang: Biographies of Eunuchs”. During wars, such practices were even more common. When Zhu’s army ran out of food, they would “steam and eat infants”. They also captured women and weak people to eat. It was believed that if a person liked to drink alcohol, then his flesh would taste like “pork preserved in fermented grain”. What kind of tradition is this? Kuwabara Jizō mentioned these practices in his article.During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, because Duke Huan of Qi had a taste for delicious food, the book Han Feizi records that “Yi Ya boiled his own eldest son and served it to Duke Huan.” Why was this done? Later, Mr. Qiu Xigui wrote an article titled “Killing the Eldest Son as a Sacrifice,” which was published in the 9th issue of Chinese Culture. In this article, he cited passages from Mozi’s works, where it is said that in a certain southern kingdom, “the eldest son was killed and eaten upon birth.” Similar accounts can be found in the Han Shu and Hou Han Shu. Mr. Qiu linked this practice to what is described in Han Feizi’s works, where Yi Ya killed his own eldest son to serve to Duke Huan of Qi. He believed that this might have been a religious practice from ancient China, similar to rituals involving the consumption of “new” foods as offerings. Strangely enough, this concept never really became a topic of discussion in the history of thought. So, from our own historical records, it seems that we’ve always held the notion that we’ve always been a civilized people since ancient times.

—“Lectures on the History of Ideas, Volume 2: Around the History of Ideas,” by Ge Zhaoguang

In later generations, it’s somewhat justified to “avoid smearing the sages” by deleting certain negative aspects of Confucius’s history. But if history is altered purely to please the public or increase profits, then it’s simply despicable. For example, Yu Dan’s alterations to The Analects were done to cater to people’s desire for self-help advice, completely ignoring the historical context of The Analects and Confucius’s “barbaric” ways of life as a man from ancient times.

Young people’s inability to understand the lives of ancient people cannot be simply attributed to a lack of empathy. Historical thinking requires a dual perspective—that is, considering both the content and the form of a particular way of life. The same elements of daily life, like paper and writing tools, can have completely different meanings in different historical contexts, due to differences in the overall structure of society. Young people fail to distinguish between what is determined by the “default settings” of their own time and what is the result of individual choices. As a result, when they look back at ancient times, they unconsciously apply their own “default settings” to those times, leading to a complete misinterpretation of history.

It’s impossible for middle and elementary school students to understand the historical context of ancient classical Chinese poetry. Teachers in these grades also lack the ability to explain such texts effectively. As a result, language classes become quite comical situations. It’s like a group of older children taking a group of younger children to see Ingmar Bergman’s “Marriage”. The older children try to explain the plot to the younger ones, but they don’t really understand what the couple in the movie is arguing about, let alone what the movie’s message is. Yet, the older children think they’ve understood Bergman’s work, simply because the younger children nod in agreement. The best proof of this is that I can’t remember a single piece of classical Chinese text from my middle and elementary school days.

Nietzsche’s lack of concern for social issues doesn’t mean he was unaware of them. He said that “young people are particularly ignorant of the extent to which they’re actually capable of fulfilling the role of teachers.” This is due to imitation, inertia, and the need to make a living. Since there are already incompetent older teachers, young teachers will likely follow their example. If students receive education in this manner during their school years, then teachers will also teach in the same way once they become teachers themselves. After all, schools continue to pay these teachers, which means that society doesn’t object to their efforts to educate students. So, there’s no reason for young teachers to go against those who pay them.

Connecting this with Nietzsche’s dilemma regarding career choices from the previous section, what does Nietzsche want to say in this section? How do we gradually slide towards destruction in life? Linguists and language teachers are merely representatives of countless different careers. Ninety-nine out of a hundred language teachers shouldn’t be teaching at all. The same applies to programmers, real estate agents, construction workers, and delivery drivers. [I’m even unsure whether construction workers and delivery drivers can truly be considered careers at all. Would anyone really want to spend their entire life as a delivery driver, considering it their true calling? Does this mean that our society has created many occupations that merely waste people’s lives and cannot truly be called careers? Regardless of individual effort, if a doctor or teacher fails to strive for excellence, it’s their own fault. But what can a delivery driver possibly strive for in terms of excellence? To deliver orders faster? To become more efficient under the platform’s rules? But let’s leave this question aside for now.]

At first, it’s due to ignorance—ignorance of oneself and of the career one attempts to pursue. Then, bad examples set by those who came before are copied by those who come after (can we really blame them? After all, how can one know and engage in their true calling at the same time?). Once one generation becomes the next generation of teachers, the mistakes learned from the older teachers are perpetuated out of inertia. Finally, when societal incentives become such that teaching becomes merely a means to make a living, teachers will stop trying to correct their own mistakes in their chosen careers. One wrong step leads to many more wrong steps.

So, considering again the discussion about eternal reincarnation from the previous section, Nietzsche’s answer isn’t so simple after all. You can’t simply rely on the number of reincarnations and their limited probabilities to “hit the jackpot” in life. The probabilities involved in these processes can decrease over time due to factors like imitation, inertia (as generations pass), and rigid social structures. This rate of decrease might even be faster than the rate at which reincarnations occur. It’s like with Pinduoduo’s “cutting prices” strategy: you think the next cut will bring you a discount, but in reality, it just leads to even more cuts.

* Ge Zhaoguang, a contemporary Chinese scholar specializing in history of thought.