In doing all of this, however, it should be borne in mind that I entertain no presumptions that this theoretical work would be the proposed meta-theoretic foundation for the science of education; the object of this study, as pointed out earlier, is to serve as a first step. Thus, it makes for an opening of ongoing discussion, an exploratory process that must go on indefinitely -- long process of dialogue, of argumentation and counter-argumentation in pursuit of coherent educational thinking and theory. Short of such a longstanding process, nothing conclusive can be achieved in this quest nor any definite claims be advanced. Therefore. this dissertation is a modest but firm start for this discourse -- a beginning that, while certainly not conclusive, is at least coherent.
5.2. CONCLUSION ON IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE SCIENCE OF EDUCATION
We started out our quest (Chapter 1) by asking if there is justification for education as a science. It was argued that science is an aspiration to unravel the essential reality of things, focusses the long-term interest of science on the universal qualities of reality. In the case of the science of education, essentiality would mean the holistic study of the phenomenon of education.
It was, moreover, observed that the chronic focus on the particulars of education appears to be due to lack of willingness to re-evaluate ingrained habits of the scholarly mind which, in turn, is attributable to the power of tradition. But, holding to tradition is not the characteristic of the entire scope of pedagogical research: far from undermining the work hitherto done by educationalists (groundbreaking educational approaches, experiments, policies and theories), focus on universals would provide that work with a broader rationale, a coherent context, a more appropriate platform to evolve and thrive, instead of abandoning them as unintegrated islands of educational knowledge.
The relevant quest of the science of education, for the present time, was then reformulated as follows: to empower the science of education to be free of the chronic pursuit of the particulars of education. The conclusions in my thesis, while addressing reality as a whole, are immediately relevant to this quest: if these theorems are accepted, science can seek to address educational universals from a realist perspective. Fundamentally, the science of education would start to address ethical ideals and educational objectives, as its most relevant universals. Educational approaches, methods, and outcomes can, then, be developed against the background provided by these universals.
As pointed out in Section 3.2.1., the new modes of educational implementation (such as action research and learning organization) may seem pragmatic in appearance, but they address a philosophical or universal foundation: the universal functionality of many of these new trends in the vast diversity of human culture and experience indicate certain factors that are universal to human reality (for instance, the capability to execute successful projects in as diverse setups as a small village in a developing country, a large supranational corporation, an international non-governmental organization for civic change, the political organization of a town in an industrialized country).
It is, indeed, commitment to genuine betterment that educational science shares with futures studies. Their similarity with the science of medicine, in that they seek to produce effective practice for real-life improvements, only underscores their need to be backed up by proper and credible theoretical thought. As the science of medicine needs to identify relatively objective criteria of physical healing (i.e. the betterment of the biological aspect of human reality), the science of education needs to find some universalist criteria for good education (i.e. the betterment of the social, intellectual, emotional and spiritual aspects of human reality).
The main asset of the conclusions in this thesis is that they provide theoretical tools for pursuing a global ethos that could provide some measure of objectivity in identifying values and educational goals -- for good education. Our theorems argue that "human reality is, primarily, manifested on the rational and moral levels" corresponding to "the laws of rational ego and purposeful volition as well as the principles of universal ethos"; that a universal ethos "is manifested in the social and individual reality progressively through a process of ethical evolution"; that "the principles of universal ethos are at the core of human reality and, thus, denote relevant educational universals" and "educational goals and values"; and that "human volition" is "a critical factor in realizing the human potential". Moreover, the theorems point out that "education can be a strategic agent of change for conscious and purposeful evolution"; that "scientific belief demands holistic vision"; that "human and educational universals need to become the focus of the science of education"; and that "General Systems Theory is fundamentally relevant for the study of educational universals".
All of this, if recognized, calls for a paradigm shift for the science of education and the academe that advocates it. It calls for overcoming anachronism in the science of education and transcending mere play with the philosophical nomenclature when discussing the ontology of human reality and its education. In order for education to bring forth the potential of human reality, to be committed to "genuine betterment" and to cause "effective practice for real-life improvements", it must pursue and find "some universal criteria for good education". For this purpose, the philosophy of education needs to come to the centre of educational research and theory.
5.3. CONCLUSION ON IMPLICATIONS FOR
HUMAN SCIENCES IN GENERAL
It is quite evident that our conclusions on the science of education apply, directly or indirectly, also to human sciences in general. A few additional words, however, concerning these implications may be approriate. As in the case of the science of education, also human sciences in general must confront and overcome their anachronism. Their disciplinarity is in crisis -- indeed, disciplinarity, itself, is in crisis due to a global crisis of perception (see: Capra 1983).
Most human sciences stem somehow from the tradition of sociology -- a discipline that "is deeply rooted in modernity" and "considers Max Weber as one of its founding fathers"; in the atmosphere of postmodernist fluctuating concepts, this discipline -- and, with it, the entire scope of human sciences -- finds itself confronted with an acute need for a paradigm shift (Giesen, 1992, p. 316). The misuse of theories of history and society for promoting elitist ideological ends has cautioned most human scientists against human universals (cf.: Goldthrope, 1992, p. 139). This experience is particularly acute to the Western experience of history. Sociology is, in fact, the attempt of the Western civilization to understand its own paradigm, not the human paradigm in general. According to Willis Harman (1988, pp. 33-34), we who have been educated in the modern (Western) society naturally assume that our scientific view of reality is essentially correct.
Thus, our 'scientific view' is not scientific at all because it lacks the criteria of holistic perspective, as demanded by the principle that "scientific belief demands holistic vision". Lack of true multicultural (i.e. multi world-view) experience of vision among the majority of prominent social theorists and philosophers has narrowed their empirical sample and has lead to incorrect (or too limited or specific) generalizations about human reality (for instance, the generalization that human universals either do not exist or are irrelevant -- itself, paradoxically, a claimed universal).
It was Western humanism that brought the human being to the centre of philosophical thought and elevated him to the status of the central figure of reality. It is strange, then, that a science that represents the culmination of a humanistic world-view should abandon the task of understanding the human reality. Instead, humanism placed only the individual as the focal point of human sciences; in virtually all sociological models, the a priori and basic sociological subject is the individual -- not a comprehensive concept of human reality that would attest to the synergic aspect of humanity.
Yet, the task of gaining some collective understanding of human reality may not have to be abandoned altogether. Instead of either abandoning it or pursuing it as a private enterprise, an alternative approach would be to adopt a gradual, progressive and consultative process that would involve, not only the scholars of the field, but the generality of people with their various world-views and mentalities. Today's communications technology provides the means for such an ongoing process of communication. It is up to the scientists -- both as opinion-makers and as ones who have the power to initiate such a process -- to provoke such a conscious evolutionary approach as a collective venture.
The evolution of human consciousness has reached a point where such ventures are both possible and necessary (hence, the crisis of perception). According to the existing biological, palaeontologic and archaeological evidence humans have trodden this Earth for a few million years -- that is, a mere 0.1 % of the Earth's life. As pointed out in Section 2.2.3. and restated as theorems T1d and T1e and T2a in Section 5.1.4., there are somewhat as significant differences between human consciousness and animal awareness as there are between animal awareness and vegetable non-awareness. Our theorems indicate that human reality corresponds to "laws of rational ego and volition" as well as the "principles of universal ethos" and that, thus, humans are essentially "rational and moral" beings. This is to say that human consciousness transcends that of the animal in two respects:
Rational consciousness: awareness that "I" exists and has a relationship with the surrounding reality, a capacity for rational thought and the volition to act deliberately by applying latent talents.
Ideal consciousness: awareness of some purpose or reality greater than ones ego, an ability to overcome self and ascend towards noble ideals, a capacity to commit to high principles and live accordingly.
We could designate these two aspects of human consciousness collectively as human "meta-consciousness". Perhaps, it is this meta-consciousness that Peter Russell (1983, p. 55) is referring to in saying: "Consciousness is different from a collection of [brain] cells, just as life is different from a collection of atoms. Instead of arguing that consciousness is merely a by-product of brain activity, one could take the view that since consciousness evolves out of life, consciousness is already inherent within life in some potential though latent form. Likewise, since life evolves from apparently inanimate matter, life is already inherent within matter in a latent form."
It is not hard to imagine that, if the notion of human meta-consciousness would be included as a universally accepted concept within human sciences, this would have unprecedented ramifications on theories of society, history, governance, psychology, and education.
5.4. CONCLUSION ON
WORLD-VIEW AND WORLD ORDER
All preceding discussions, in fact this entire study, have circled around one central theme: the coherence of world-view. Whatever the particular case we have been discussing, the main assumption has been that all aspects of reality -- whether physical, mental, or spiritual -- belong to one universal whole. The crisis of perception in favour of such philosophical unity is, today, felt in all aspects of human life on this planet. The Cartesian paradigm has run its course and is now giving way to a different pattern of thought (Capra 1983). All of this will have repercussions for both world-view and world order.
Given such a critical historical paradigm shift, the ethical responsibility of no human being can be based on mere arbitrary or dogmatic claims or ideological preferences. This was the motivating impulse behind my dissertation. This is why the issue of holistic vision, as opposed to atomistic dogma, was so tenaciously (at times, perhaps even overzealously) pursued. A sceptical and cynical frame of mind is a sure trap for becoming tangled up with our present world predicament. It can prevent us from overcoming the obstacles in the way of our first global breakthrough and, instead, actualize the looming breakdown. Indeed, our mode of thought is critical to our common future. Thus, world-view and world order are intimately related and interwoven. (Cf.: Teilhard de Chardin 1965; Aurobindo 1971; Fromm 1976.)
The onrushing postmodernism has inclined the homo occidentalis, the Western man, (and with him, the majority of humankind) to the "total acceptance of the ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity, and the chaotic" (Harvey 1989, p. 44). The postmodernist insistence on this stance is to maintain that the current paradigm of the Western civilization would be the culmination and final word in human civilization (and social potential). There is no sign that we would be at the end of the road yet; neither is there any indication that the current paradigm would have stability or permanence. On the contrary, the systemic approach suggested in this work indicates that the world paradigm is undergoing momentous upheavals and profound transitions with a rapidity unprecedented in known history. The road forward is unpredictable and has ups and downs, breakthroughs and breakdowns. It would be indeed premature to assume that history would have given its final verdict on human civilization, and that that verdict justifies cynicism and pessimism. An example of an opposite, while subtle, indication is the mere fact that the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights ever came into being: despite the lack of commitment on the part of many member-states, its existence is an historic accomplishment that would not have been possible a few decades earlier -- an accomplishment that speaks in favour of the possibility that we have begun to learn agreeing on some universal principles, because they have proven to be empirically necessary for our survival and, hopefully, for the emergence of a sustainable human civilization.
In 1970, the renowned Finnish writer, Mika Waltari, said on a radio interview (translated from the Finnish): "While Finland is my fatherland, Europe is our hereditary land, but it is the world that is our only home, our only native land!" (*original Finnish) Some may dismiss such sentiments as romantic idealism, but global ethos inherent in these words has permeated enlightened minds all over the world and is becoming a hopeful sign that, indeed, we can learn from the lessons of history, albeit slowly (cf.: Küng 1998; Küng & Schmidt 1998; see also: Taylor 1992; Puolimatka 1989).
Now that the discussion is on world-view and world order, a cautionary note may be appropriate. We have often referred to a "Platonistic" view of universals and, in fact, of reality. This is a notion on world-view not world order. Even the world-view Plato espoused was, to some extent, inadequate in that, while suggesting highly enlightening principles on the ontology of reality, he interpreted these principles rather simplistically. More importantly, however, the political order of Plato's (1930 [original 4th century B.C.) Republic is certainly not advocated here. These political ideas, while coherent and progressive from a certain point of departure, fall utterly short of the needs of a complex and multifaceted humanity -- particularly in its present global paradigm. In fact, our 'Platonistic' conclusions suggest a number of quite different socio-historical perspectives, applying the principles of unity in diversity and macrodeterminism to the social reality:
The system of humankind, like any other system, has the potential of manifesting, in its social order, the principle of unity in diversity.
Such a potential can fully be realized only after a gradual evolutionary process of maturation.
The process of maturation of humankind has traditionally been disturbed, but not disabled, by both collective and individual misuse of human free will in conflict with the principle of unity in diversity.
Unity in diversity, as a universal principle, must ultimately penetrate the system of humankind through the urging of humanity's current problems compelling it to conform to this principle.
Humanity's stubborn hesitance to conform to the principle of unity in diversity both postpones its advent and makes its emergence a more painful process.
The idealism inherent in these propositions should be viewed in the light of the two examples of Section 2.3.6.: it was pointed out that the Nazi educational system and, to a lesser degree, that of the Soviet system were allegedly idealistic and did appear so but, in reality and in their broadest contexts they were actually quite cynical and were, in effect, rather gloomy in their view of human reality. This was based on the understanding that these systems did not view humanity in an inclusive and optimistic manner but were highly exclusive and pessimistic in relation to humankind as a whole. Idealism is attached to some manner of optimism and, in order to remain coherent, this optimism should be as comprehensive and inclusive as possible; otherwise, that idealism is a mere rhetoric core within a shell that is de facto cynical and counteracts that idealism.
Inevitably, this discussion of comprehensiveness and inclusion brings us to the problematique of the much-misunderstood concept of globalism. The problem of globalism is that it is a contextual condition; in this condition any social or political or economic 'feature' can become globally dominant or widespread (similarly, in a national or local context any feature can become nationally or locally dominant or widespread). Thus, the problem is not with globalization per se, but with what is made global through individual and collective human choices, which, in turn, are dependent on the spiritual maturity of the human race.
It is precisely here that globalization appears as destructive to us. My assumption is that the unbalanced victory march of the European civilization, for the past half millennium, is the primary reason for the distortion of the phenomenon of globalization (see: P. Izadi 1996). The era of imperialism in European history brought that civilization into the world stage as the dominant cultural influence. Its acts became global in scope and its effects were, and are, felt worldwide. The heritage left by the European conquistadors to the colonists of new domains all over the world has been the arrogant self-justification, not only to pillage and plunder the human and natural resources of the invaded areas, but to disperse the very structure of the native society and to dismiss with narrow-minded neglect a unique opportunity to enrich their own world-view and life perspectives. Many are the cultures and their world-views that were swept from the face of the earth. For instance, the unyielding reluctance of European settlers to even consider the virtues of native Americans -- much less to learn from their undeniable virtues -- resulted in the American culture becoming the extension and, indeed, the culmination of the European civilization, with virtually no trace of native American mentality left in it.
Let it be pointed out that it is not the qualities of the Western civilization, as such, that are under critical review here. Western science and technology, economic efficiency, sense of enterprise, administrative organization -- these are all excellent aids to human progress. As a result of these we, today, have a global network of communication and traffic connecting the people of the world and enabling cultural interaction in an unprecedented scale. But this intercommunication follows, for the most part, the patterns of the Western world-view. Indeed, the Western way of thought and life is the dominant aspiration of the modern world. For, no longer can one apply the name "Western civilization" only to Europe and America. It is applicable to a global network of interaction founded upon the imperialistic heritage.
Thus, the cause of objection is not the Western civilization itself but its overwhelming dominance over the entire world. And it is this feature that has given the term "globalization" a bad name. For, the virtues of the West, when combined with excessive pursuit of material well-being and void of corresponding ethical values and a moral code, have proven globally harmful. In fact, this has corrupted and retarded the long-term development of the Western civilization itself, as by its dominance it prevents the salutary influence of other cultures on its own evolution.
There are examples of similar events in history also in other parts of the world and by other cultures, although in a much smaller scale. The main point is that the immoderate dominance of any one culture or civilizational paradigm is detrimental, not only to other cultures, but also to its own development. For, the exercise of any matter beyond moderation will cease to promote its development (another universal, perhaps!). In the words of Bahá'u'lláh (1952 [circa 1880], pp. 342-343): "The civilization, so often vaunted by the learned exponents of arts and sciences, will, if allowed to overleap the bounds of moderation, bring great evil upon men. ... If carried to excess, civilization will prove as prolific a source of evil as it had been of goodness when kept within the restraints of moderation."
Willis Harman (1988, pp. 33-34) points out that other world-views are an essential ingredient in a relevant view of reality in that, through other cultural windows, other aspects of the total human experience are emphasized and contribute to an holistic understanding of human reality. Any cultural mentality on this planet, regardless of its demographic dimensions, is a potential contributor to this enterprise (cf.: Ereira 1990, pp. 228-230). Perhaps the true potentials of a culture are fully realized only in communication with other cultures -- not just any kind of interaction, but a communication that seeks to release new aspects in human society through the exposure of these aspects by varied cultural world-views, by the manifold ways of diverse peoples to look at the world, and by the eminent wisdom inherent in their heritages. Would not such a utilization of cultural diversity, in fact, foster the identity of these cultures and, indeed, add to their uniqueness and simultaneously integrate them into a world community? Cultures, instead of being isolated entities preserving statically their identity in a struggle against alien influence, are interrelated dynamic scenes of human development, and, although their heritages have traditionally satisfied the needs of their respective societies, they could also immensely contribute to the evolution of a new world order (cf.: Honigmann, 1963, p. 313).
Viewed from this perspective 'globalism' does not seem such a bad idea after all. It is just that we human beings tend to first misuse a wonderful thing before we learn to use it as it is supposed to be used. As a stubborn growing child often fails to welcome his maturation, likewise, humankind is persistently clinging to its childish tenets: its fragmented world-view, its obsolete modes of interaction, its outdated social structures, its immature political organization. Also, like an adolescent at the peak of his physical development, humankind is physically and materially highly advanced: scientific accomplishments, technological achievements, communication and transportation networks, economic efficiency, organizational performance, systematic planning -- all these are more advanced than ever before; they are the perfect machinery for the needs and life of a mature humanity. Now, it is maturity itself that has to be attained. (Cf.: Kurtakko & Izadi 1991, p. 39.)
The watchword for humanity's global maturity, and its touchstone, is the principle of unity in diversity. This principle presupposes that the diversity of humankind is fundamental to the social reality and is also a valuable resource for the entire humanity; it also insists that unity is needed in matters that are intrinsically universal or global. Unity of purpose, unity of vision, unity of core values, unity of law and of principles of global governance are, not only practically indispensable for the management of human affairs, but also sit at the heart of humanity's identity in its new global attire. This principle denotes a synergic socio-political quality where cultural, mental, individual or situational diversity is not a social barrier but, rather, the very substance of unity, and provides the resources for the dynamic and proper functioning of society. This interpretation denotes diversity as an organic and integral quality of society, not an atomistic and stochastic and corrosive social wildcard that we, today, call "pluralism".
Such maturity, while it seems far from our present state, is now within the reach of humankind. We have learned from our mistakes. Today, world order is under constant reform and the very agitations of human affairs contribute to its maturation and emergence. Regardless of what sceptical observers may conclude, a need for a global system of governance based on some universal code of law has, during the past century, been slowly but irresistibly forcing itself on the minds of the world's peoples and has been reinforced by establishment and expansion of the United Nations Organization. Event such as the terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, and its still-continuing aftermath, only help to reinforce this influence and impress it on the consciousness of humankind. The fact that practical effects and results have, for the most part, been modest and even disappointing does not in any way nullify the historic and irreversible change of direction in the way human affairs are being organized. World order is on a no-return road to its next evolutionary leap. Success in efforts towards global governance will emerge from the realization that fatal conflicts and catastrophes are unavoidable in a world society that is organically interdependent but has no system of collective security, upheld by well-informed international legislation and an effective executive system (backed by credible judiciary powers and law enforcement). (See: Commission for Global Governance 1995; Universal House of Justice 1986.)
Should such epoch-making events take place on the level of world order, yet, on the level of ordinary lives of individual citizens, their effects may not appear, after all, that dramatic. They may brighten our future perspective but do not solve our deepest concerns. For, attaining a new world order through global structural rearrangements is, mainly, within the power of decision-makers and politicians. Short of a basic reorientation of people's lives at the grass-roots level, it will remain an outward force to prevent mankind from destroying itself. As marvellous an achievement as this would be, yet even a world without war will have only marginal effect on the social and personal concerns of people (with the exception of those who are actually under the spectre of war). For, what agitates us most in our daily existence are issues in our own community and personal lives: maintaining harmony in our family life, educating our children, finding our place in the society, maintaining a means of livelihood, protecting ourselves and our families against the ills of a collapsing society, coming to peace with our own selves, healing our broken human relationships, finding some meaning in our lives, and so forth. Such aspirations are hardly answered by renewing humankind's socio-political structure, important as that is. These are matters more of ethical and moral integrity, character training, social ties, etc. In other words, these are matters of world-view.
One of the most firmly established and globally propagated assumptions of our faulty world-view is the prevailing cult of individualism. Although rooted in the Western philosophy, this perception of human reality has spread to most parts of the world. The foundation of this view is a belief in the unbridled and unchallenged right of the individual for the "pursuit of happiness" -- a conviction that has been further amplified and intensified by political ideology, academic elitism and the widespread consumer economy. This belief has become the overriding criterion for much of the morals of the modern human being, arousing an aggressive and almost limitless sense of personal entitlement. The effect has been the corrosion of the morals of both the individual and the society. The consequences have been visible in terms of the disintegration of families, the loss of sense of community, the feeling of aimlessness and bewilderment felt especially by youth and children, disease, drug addiction and other all-too-familiar ills of present-day life. (Cf.: Bahá'í International Community 1999.) Emancipation from such misleading assumptions will mean questioning some of the twentieth century's most deeply rooted conceptions about human reality. It is a hopeful sign that visionary educationalists are awakening to these contemplations. For instance, Buchen (1974, pp. 135-136.) observes:
"One basic reason why the humanities did not honor the past legacy of educating the whole man is that they turned, instead, to educating the individual; and the concept of individuality and that of the whole man are not synonymous. The individual man is stirred by independence, autonomy and self-reliance; the holistic man by interdependence, collectivism and reliance. And if one views the history of the presumptuous century as essentially the history of individuality, then what perhaps becomes clear is that individuality is the great overreacher, the lovely presumption. Indeed, we may have reached a point in history when individuality, traditionally conceived, may have gone as far as it can go. What we need today is not merely traditional means for multiplying or extending individuality, but also nontraditional ways for surrendering part of it.
For the humanist the idea of 'surrendering' even a fraction of one's individuality will no doubt seem like heresy. Perhaps this alarm can be reduced, however, if we dispose immediately of a misconception.
There may be a direct correlation between our present contemplation of the limits of individuality. But just as the concept that growth has limits need not necessarily signify the end of growth, so, too, the notion that individuality may have limits need not signify the end of individuality. Understanding the limits of any system is the first step toward expanding or transcending these limits. In short, the real conflict we face now is a conflict not between the old and the new, but between the new and the futuristic, between what is known and what is emerging, between the individual and the new, emerging image of that might be termed the collectivized individual. The whole person is not and cannot be totally individual; part of the whole -- today more than ever -- must be nonindividualized, communal, or 'collectivized'."
This call for a sense of community is raised even on the level of educational methods. In the words of Ingram (1979, p. 53): "It is ironic that while subject teaching fosters individualism through group learning, integrative teaching encourages cooperation through individualized teaching. Yet, while excessive subject teaching discourages cooperation, excessive integration teaching does not necessarily exclude competition. Clearly, teaching and learning should provide opportunity for both, but what we are particularly concerned to demonstrate in this section is the closeness of integration and cooperation." Morris & Krajewski (1980, p. 132) nicely summarize the cooperative and communal aspect of educational aspirations: "If the biggest problem facing the future of education is how to motivate youth to feel that life is worth living or that it can be satisfying, it follows that we can only solve this problem by helping youth to develop a spirit of community -- a blend of social cohesion, purpose, and moral commitments that draws people together, builds their sense of identity, and creates mutual loyalty. This kind of humanistic socialization should become the major objective for education."
Given the current global scale of humanity's paradigm, this sense of community must include the entire human race. In other words, a fundamental ingredient of the identity of every human being, today, must be an awareness of being a citizen of the world, not only of one's country or nation. This concept of world citizenship is no longer a mere expression of vague brotherhood; it has become a necessary aspect of learning to live as a competent inhabitant of this planet. The cause of global education -- basic education meant for every child in the world -- has already enlisted in its service an army of dedicated people from every nation, culture and faith. It deserves the utmost support that the governments of the world can lend it. But it deserves also the full attention of scholars of education.
I find it unnecessary to argue for the view that global change is a fact of our current historical paradigm. What can be meaningfully discussed are the basic futuristic choices that this paradigm presents the human race: do we want to be only reactive pawns drifting in the flow of global change, or do we want to have, at least, some control over our futures and manage change towards a desirable and sustainable paradigm of globalization. If we choose the former, there is little point to discuss various alternatives of human action and socio-political behaviour; if, however, we choose the latter, education comes to the centre of attention and its reform a strategically relevant focus.