Modern language education is mostly unrelated to life

(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.

The reading of "We Philologists" continues. Starting from Chapter 26, Nietzsche asks, how do linguists obtain a large amount of social resources that do not match their abilities? This question leads to a series of sub-questions, including: What gives linguists the authority to control the education of young people in the entire society? What are linguists teaching? What education should young people receive? Answering these questions can reveal how hypocritical and empty modern language education is.

31. It is to be hoped that there are a few people who look upon it as a problem why philologists should be the teachers of our noblest youths. Perhaps the case will not be always so--It would be much more natural per se if our children were instructed in the elements of geography, natural science, political economy, and sociology, if they were gradually led to a consideration of life itself, and if finally, but much later, the most noteworthy events of the past were brought to their knowledge. A knowledge of antiquity should be among the last subjects which a student would take up; and would not this position of antiquity in the curriculum of a school be more honourable for it than the present one?--Antiquity is now used merely as a propædeutic for thinking, speaking, and writing; but there was a time when it was the essence of earthly knowledge, and people at that time wished to acquire by means of practical learning what they now seek to acquire merely by means of a detailed plan of study--a plan which, corresponding to the more advanced knowledge of the age, has entirely changed. Thus the inner purpose of philological teaching has been entirely altered; it was at one time material teaching, a teaching that taught how to live, but now it is merely formal. [Formal education is that which tends to develop the critical and logical faculties, as opposed to material education, which is intended to deal with the acquisition of knowledge and its valuation, e.g., history, mathematics, &c. "Material" education, of course, has nothing to do with materialism--TR.]

32. If it were the task of the philologist to impart formal education, it would be necessary for him to teach walking, dancing, speaking, singing, acting, or arguing · and the so-called formal teachers did impart their instruction this way in the second and third centuries. But only the training of a scientific man is taken into account, which results in "formal" thinking and writing, and hardly any speaking at all.

33. If the gymnasium is to train young men for science, people now say there can be no more preliminary preparation for any particular science, so comprehensive have all the sciences become. As a consequence teachers have to train their students generally, that is to say for all the sciences--for scientificality in other words; and for that classical studies are necessary! What a wonderful jump! a most despairing justification! Whatever is, is right, [The reference is not to Pope, but to Hegel.--TR.] even when it is clearly seen that the "right" on which it has been based has turned to wrong.

34. It is accomplishments which are expected from us after a study of the ancients: formerly, for example, the ability to write and speak. But what is expected now! Thinking and deduction . but these things are not learnt from the ancients, but at best through the ancients, by means of science. Moreover, all historical deduction is very limited and unsafe, natural science should be preferred.

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

These sections attempt to answer a question: What should be taught in philology/ancient studies? This is an extension of the previous section: "We entrust the young to the [philologist] class," it is necessary to clarify the teaching content and methods of these people, otherwise they are very likely to ruin a generation of young people.

This line of thought from Nietzsche itself has a rather archaic quality. Modern people naturally believe in the professional class, trust fund managers when managing finances, rely on lawyers when there are legal issues, and trust doctors when sick—in these areas, to some extent, one should trust experts, and Nietzsche has already used the example of a medical professor. But there is a break here in philology; philology is the study of antiquity, not the study of pedagogy/child psychology/etc., so on what grounds is it believed that philologists are capable of the work of "educating young people," and why not entrust this work to pedagogues or child psychologists instead?

But Nietzsche's question did not lead in this direction. In fact, if educators were really to replace philologists, Nietzsche would equally oppose it. For Nietzsche, research and education are far from being the same thing; people strong in research often lack communication, empathy, and oratory skills. More importantly, researchers can maintain a very calm and objective attitude when dealing with their subjects, obtaining new data, information, and conclusions, but education, in Nietzsche's view, is far from being just about transmitting information. Education is first and foremost about teaching a whole set of worldviews, cultivating aesthetic ability (please note that in Nietzsche's context, aesthetics is extremely different from what is called aesthetics today), and more importantly, about finding and nurturing individuals with the ability to create brand new values (individuals lacking this potential are not qualified to receive higher education). Therefore, Nietzsche's question is not "If it should not be philologists who educate young people, then who should," but rather "If there is a mismatch in the education of young people by philologists, what should be taught." Whether philologists or educational experts, in Nietzsche's view, do not constitute a "who," but at most a "what," mere mouthpieces for their disciplines, lacking individuality. True education should be carried out by true individuals.

The so-called individuality, first and foremost, is the ability to gain insight into one's own life, distinguishing what belongs to oneself and what belongs to society. For example, one can realize how much of their shopping desires are shaped by society and how much come from their inner self. When it comes to a Chinese language teacher, an individualistic Chinese language teacher (this position is hard to maintain) can clearly realize how much of the teaching syllabus is part of social discipline and how much might genuinely reflect the compiler's feelings. And they are responsible for the education of so many children, how much they want to pour into it, and how they hope to meet the children not just as social members but as two people meeting sincerely, and how much. In the end, they will find that even the compiler's genuine feelings are almost invisible, and how frustrating it is that their attempts to pour their life's reflections into teaching are always hindered by the administrative department. Only then do they truly begin to examine their role as a contemporary Chinese language teacher, and how much it tortures the soul.

But if he really has enough space to be creative, please let this Chinese teacher think carefully, completely setting aside the college entrance exams, and even employment, what skills does a person, a modern person, truly need to master in this society; facing this group of young people who will soon be "beaten by society," what can he teach them. He must ask himself: if he had a choice, what would he rather learn in his early education years, what would he actually have learned that would be most helpful to his life. And he must temporarily forget his future career choices and interests, because these things are hindsights, unknown during early education years. Then, Nietzsche would say, he should realize that the best learning path is:

……political economy, and sociology, if they were gradually led to a consideration of life itself, and if finally, but much later, the most noteworthy events of the past were brought to their knowledge.

I think that if the Nietzsche experts were honest enough, they would be very surprised by this answer. May I ask Zhou Guoping* and others, why did Nietzsche advocate that children should first learn the principles of economics and sociology, rather than first receive artistic inspiration? When did Nietzsche become a proponent of political economy? Wasn't he particularly disdainful of society and an advocate of the individual?

The answer was hinted at in the previous sections: interest. Young people must first understand the "economic base" of life. But of course, this is not the old-fashioned class theory. Nietzsche and Marx have only one intersection on the ideological spectrum: both considered themselves the terminator of tradition. Nietzsche's concept of interest is closer to the subjective utility of the marginal school, excluding the necessities for survival (most of modern people's time is not spent on this), people always pursue what they subjectively believe is beneficial to them. It is precisely this that makes the valuation problem the core issue of society: whoever monopolizes the right to interpret value controls people's hearts; whoever can also monopolize basic resources (energy, information, water, food, building materials, etc) controls everything. Interest is not objective, so the process of history cannot be objective either, but always depends on how people of each era define interest, i.e., how they value things. The way to change history is to change the values of the era, not, as Marx said, to change the "objective productive forces and production relations."

A person who truly wants to understand how the world works should always start by understanding people's interests and relationships. Art, aesthetics, religion, philosophy—these "superstructures" all originate from the struggle of interests between people, are symbolic expressions of the original experience of survival, and are at the same time an irremovable symbolic realm that gives these original experiences depth and life. But to understand this level, one needs to observe the processes of disenchantment and re-enchantment in history, the moments when value systems changed in history—the "most noteworthy events" as Nietzsche called it. Young people must first understand the most common interests and the interpersonal relationships that form around them, and then think about the conceptual foundations behind these interests, trace the formation of these value systems ("consideration of life itself"), and finally, from a broader historical perspective, see the evolution of value systems and understand their position in their own time.

Nietzsche emphasized "practice," "material teaching," "walking, dancing, speaking, singing, acting, arguing," "mastering certain skills," none of which stem from a Marxist materialist view of history but from his own life-affirming view of history. You must personally experience doing something to have a "gut feeling" about it. For example, Chinese ancient scholar education must learn the "Six Arts,"[六艺] namely rites[礼], music[乐], archery[射], charioteering[御], calligraphy[书], and mathematics[数]. Translated into a modern context: understanding rites means knowing what position to stand in ritual events like banquets, official meetings, village drinking ceremonies, etc., what clothes to wear, how to stand and sit, what language to use, how to handle ritual vessels, how to walk, etc., it is absolutely not just mouthing "thank you" or "sorry"; music is synchronized with rites in dance, choir, rhythm, ritual, and collective synchronized action; archery is not about pursuing being a sharpshooter but emphasizes posture, humility, composure, and a dignified attitude after winning or losing, and shooting ceremony is a civilized product of the harsh physical competition civilization in ancient times; charioteering refers to controlling a two-horse or four-horse chariot, requiring high-speed turning, coordination with archery, formation control, and battlefield mobility, which is much more difficult than today's driving tests; calligraphy mainly involves administrative writing, the ability to draft official documents, knowing how to write various forms of documents to meet the requirements of the state machine; mathematics includes abilities such as calendars, land surveying, finance, military organization, and time calculation. Imagine, if we didn't have various smart devices today and were stranded in the wilderness for dozens of days, we would even forget the months and dates, losing our sense of time. Suppose a modern plane geometry class were directly replaced with having children measure the area of the school by hand, this educational method would be somewhat near the spirit of Nietzsche.

Ladies and gentlemen, you might want to reflect on how much of our current compulsory education truly teaches children how to navigate life—how to interact with different people, how to express their joys and sorrows in a "proper" manner, how to solve practical problems they will encounter in life, how to walk (Chinese students almost always walk with their heads down and severe hunchbacks), how to manage a business, how to understand office politics (they will learn it quickly as soon as they get the chance), how to plan their living space... None of these are things that any specialized field can teach; they all belong to the realm of the "generalist." Just as a gymnast shouldn't focus on just one movement but should aim for the development of all their muscles, Nietzsche advocated for this comprehensive, down-to-earth approach to life education.

But we have heard too many clichés about classical education and liberal arts education, and Nietzsche has already made a clear opposition. He quoted Hegel's famous saying "Whatever is, is right," implying that: you literary scholars or classicists, now using the excuse of modern disciplines narrowing and the disappearance of liberal arts to rehash old tunes, are actually just trying to save face and find some justification for the existence of your career. So Nietzsche's philosophy of history is definitely not brainless historical relativism, which claims that any era has its concepts and no correction is needed, whatever is is right. Not in Nietzsche's opinion. It is unreasonable when cultural institutions and facilities cause harm to life. So we must "revalue all values" and re-examine all concepts from the perspective of their utility in life or existence. If the entire school education teaches content that is completely irrelevant to a child's future life, even to the point of not being useful or useless, this is certainly unreasonable and should no longer exist. Forcing an explanation that Chinese language education makes children have some life insights and artistic tempering, especially some people say that understanding literature and appreciating art can provide a literary and artistic world for comfort when students feel disappointed about life in the future, isn't this the same as saying life is bound to be disappointing so as to buy insurance in advance, isn't it basically not wanting to play this game called "life" and thinking in advance what to do if the game is lost? What kind of life guidance is this?

If literary studies truly, as they claim, provide an education that covers the whole of life, why do literary studies not reflect on the presuppositions of their own value at all? The answer has long been given: because once such reflection is made, literary studies would expose their own hypocrisy and decay, people would realize that the veneration of literary studies is fundamentally based on a series of outdated prejudices and lies, and the entire industry would face ruin. The vested interests would never allow such a thing to happen, and could only use excuses like "whatever is is right" to justify themselves, just to muddle along.

* Zhou Guoping, a popular philosopher who almost always interprets Nietzsche aesthetically.