Speaker: Dr. Tian Ling (the Graduate School of Education, Peking University)

How should we decide which issue is a key factor for China’s education in the process of globalization? In my opinions, we should choose a theoretical framework at a macro level that can integrate many individual factors together and allows people from different backgrounds and with different perspectives to reach a agreement. Because the globalization refers to many aspects of a society or a country, such as social, economic, political, environmental, and educational dimensions, etc. Without the theoretical framework, people holding different standpoints would fall into a conflict and cannot find the relationships among different perspectives, eventually they would lose the enthusiasm to continue seeking the solutions to many social problems or issues.

I am extremely sure that the modernization in spiritual or psychological level is the most important issue for both China’s educational and social development. Without question, I may draw this conclusion from several theoretical frameworks in sociology, for examples: 1) theory of modernization, 2) structure of knowledge, 3) theory of capital, and 4) hierarchy of values. I even can put them into a correlated framework or set up a corresponding relationship among them in the following table. Just like a popular saying says: Every road leads to Rome. Many great thinkers may draw the very similar, even the same conclusion in exploring the relationship among complex social issues. I not only found that there is a corresponding hierarchical relationship among different elements in different theories, but also that there is a similar organic relationship among them. Furthermore, I discover that there is also a corresponding relationship between these macro-level theories and social structures.

Just like a doctor tries to use some normal standards or healthy indicators to judge a patient’s disease, I apply these theories as references to analyze the complex problems in China’s educational and social development. First, I have found that most of people in China have paid much attention to the things at the lower levels, such as, money, institutional arrangement, etc. However, they have neglected those issues at the higher levels including the way of thinking, common values, rational and so forth. Second, few of Chinese people at different levels or in different lines have considered both the educational and social issues from a holistic or systematic view. Third, they seldom have an insight on the core or top factor among different educational and  social aspects. Finally, not many people in China, including the scholars in the universities and other lines, have convinced such a corresponding relationship between the disciplines and social sub-systems. Therefore, it is difficult for us to reach a common sense or a basic agreement that will definitely and negatively influence us to take any action or find operational solution to those problems before us.

I also would like to give some basic reasons for this situation. One is derived from the cognitive perspective and the other originates from the economic background. Both of these two reasons might be detected from China’s history and culture. We have a several-thousand-year agricultural history that isolated people from one another and that lacked the religious tradition. Our ancestors did develop a dialectic philosophy but could not set up a continuity between a practical life and theoretical thinking. We did not develop both our spiritual or mental structure and social structure fully and correspondingly. After the adjustment of Chinas’ higher education in 1952, many social sciences and some humanities were canceled that lead to stagnation in these areas. 

The recommendations to solve this above-mentioned core issue: first of all, just like the people at this workshop who are from different professional backgrounds, scholars and professionals from different disciplines and different professions should come together more frequently to share our academic achievements and build up the connections among our disciplines and professions. Second, all of us have a common recognition and carry out some common actions in disseminating the research findings related to the development in social system and the function of the core factor in the system, namely the modernization in spiritual or psychological level in the whole society by using different public media in order to let both ordinary people and national leaders at different levels and in different lines to understand the reasons. Third, in the process of developing more comprehensive universities, we suggest them to supplement some critical but neglected disciplines, for example, religious research that has was shown at the highest level in both hierarchies of values and disciplines. Fourth, for a healthy development in China’s education and society, as social scientists,   we should help our national leaders develop an inner sense of security and based on this effort suggest them to consider the religious issues from the scientific view rather than from superstitious view and give more space for the development in religion. At the practical levels, religion has developed very quickly. Some faculties of several departments at Peking University also have offered some religious courses. Both governmental churches and house churches in both urban and rural areas have grown rapidly. But not many researchers or professionals in both education and other social fields have realized this reality. When they hear the view, they even doubt the possibility. If we only hold the from- top-to-bottom way of thinking, we would never have any confidence to take any action to solve the urgent issues. We should also add the from-bottom-to-top way of thinking to our mind. If so, we can immediately and always do many things to help solving the complex educational and social issues. China’s government encourages us to build up a society in harmony. These measurements will make this goal come true eventually not immediately.

(1139 words)
       types of contents  theory
of a theory    theory of modernization theory of capital structure of knowledge
(hierarchy of disciplines in a comprehensive university) hierarchy of values A poem
researcher Many (Jin Yao-ji, Luo Rong-qu, Zhang Yan-xiang) Bourdieu,
Fukuyama Francis Richard R. Dunn & Mark H.  舍勒 （a German thinker ）  anonymous
Levels of each theory (from high to low levels Spiritual or psychological modernization,

Institutional Modernization,

Material Modernization Social Capital

Cultural Capital

Economic Capital Theology
Literature & Philosophy
Political Science
Sociology
Social Psychology
Psychology
Biology
Chemistry
Physics Absolute value

Aesthetic value

Life value

Utilitarian value
Material value Kind hearts are the gardens

Kind thoughts are the roots

Kind words are the blossoms
Kind deeds are the fruits

Relationship of different levels From deep level to superficial level; from longer time to shorter time   Economic capital is a basis and social capital is a core factor in the social reproducation. From integrative explanation to elemental explanation The higher, the more comprehensive; less
dependence on material, less quantitative 
the longer, the deeper, more integrative