E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself ThroughPhilosophy of Education

Liz JACKSONUniversity of Hong Kong

Introduction
The themes for research and related questions posed for this conference, on
globalisation, internationalisation, and universality in philosophy of education, are criticalto consider in higher education and research. Given the polarisation of conversations
across the world and within many societies today, these questions help us to explore our
responsibilities as educators and academics, to understand diversity, and to enable others,
our colleagues and students, to do the same. This work involves cultivating and sustaining
dispositions of open-mindedness, as well as tolerating awareness of the ‘known
unknown’.
In this paper, I share some anecdotes, or vignettes, to stimulate discussion aroundsome issues faced when grappling with diversity, language, and cultural difference inphilosophy of education. These problems, as revealed within my ‘case studies’, are notparticular to philosophy of education, but the stories expose some concerns relevant to
our work, as international and cross-culturally engaged scholars. They are based on myexperiences as a scholar in different parts of the world. I will conclude by discussing somepoints related to philosophy of education in the Asia-Pacific region.
I start with real-life stories rather than abstract theories for a few reasons. First, I do
not want a reader’s experience of my story to be made distant and foreign, due to the useof a specific theorist or theory. I do not want to distract from our capacity to understandeach other, by focusing on a third party, which we may understand differently. I also do
not want to rely on a philosophical argument that involves understanding a concept
according to a particular thinker. Such a style is used in analytic philosophy and pragmaticDiversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

61

philosophy. However, it is likely across language communities that we will learn more
about our differences, than about any idea, by following such a strategy. Here I am
inspired by Ono Fumio’s writing on philosophy in the age of globalisation (2018), andNaoko Saito’s work on the difficulties and impossibilities of translation (2016; 2018;
Jackson, 2016). In this paper, I do not want to needlessly confuse, by presenting a
sophisticated argument that may not be useful to people. Therefore, I ask you to consider
my perspective in the following stories, and see if you have similar experiences, of crosscultural differences in life and philosophy. Readers may ask if telling stories is a good
methodology for philosophy, since they are not generalizable, and not framed by logic or
analysis. I leave it up to others to respond to this, based on their views of this work.

1. We see what we look for
After earning my PhD and before moving to Hong Kong, I worked for two years
in international development in South Africa. I worked with the United States Peace
Corps, one of the largest international aid organisations. The Peace Corps aims to build
capabilities in disadvantaged areas, in line with nations’ own priorities (Jackson, 2013).
It also works to promote the United States, through its presence in a country, and the goodintentions of the volunteers. I worked to support the volunteers in training anddevelopment in the country. The volunteers were mostly young Americans, with little
international experience, who wanted to make a difference in the world.
In my work I found that Paulo Freire was beloved by volunteers. They particularly
liked his view that a community must decide dialogically what matters to it, in education
as praxis (theory/practice). Volunteers were passionate about this justice-based approach.
In their spare time they would organize to study Freire (1989). In formal trainings, theyalso learned how to facilitate open, dialogic “community needs assessments.” They
would learn how to discuss what people in the local area wanted, their needs, threats, andchallenges, and then collectively decide on ways to fix community problems. They took
several months of language training and lived in rural areas of the country before entering
their work sites, to prepare to do this work effectively.
However, at their sites, the volunteers did not have an easy time. They found that
dialogue for praxis is difficult, even when both parties apparently intend to engage, andseem to have a nice time talking to each other. In an article, a former volunteer discusses
that she “had lengthy, optimistic conversations with a village chief about starting acommunity garden only to discover that I misread his reaction and that he was, in fact,
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

62

L. JACKSON

against the whole endeavor” (Lau, 2011). Such challenges are common. The Peace Corps
warns volunteers about this, as a ‘cross-cultural challenge’. Yet the volunteers werealways surprised, after months (and sometimes years) of cultural and language training,that they lacked basic cultural understanding needed to do their work. Local people would
not be aggressive in the way they expected, using a passive-aggressive manner, as theyoften found it offensive for young people from the United States to enter their space, fullof complaints, and obsessed with local problems. In the local view, this was adisrespectful way of behaving to generous hosts, especially as the volunteers also claimed
they wanted to learn from local people.
In this case, the volunteers were not listening, because they did not know how tohear. They did not see signs of disagreement. The late African HIV/AIDS activist David
Ross Patient, wrote that in cross-cultural work, responses are prescribed by questions: “Ifyou communicate, then the response (or lack thereof) is simply a reflection of yourcommunication. If you communicate differently, you will get different results. Examine
their map of the world again” (2012). In an article reflecting on this challenge, I notedthat this problem is not only faced by young volunteers (Jackson, 2013). Wealthy
benefactors face the same challenge. Melinda Gates made it her goal to provide millions
of women in Africa with contraception. To justify her view, she relied on statistics onmaternal and infant mortality, and the voices of African women. She noted that “We have
100,000 women who didn’t want to get pregnant who die in childbirth. We have 600,000
babies, where mothers say they didn’t intend to get pregnant and their child dies—every
single year” (Hultman, 2012). Various African leaders, as well as the Pope, contend
that contraception goes against their faiths. Others are suspicious of Gates, respondingthat “African babies are not the threat” (Wirnkar, 2012). Gates ignored the fact that
contraception is available all over Africa. She herself stated in 2006 that condoms were
not making a major impact on HIV/AIDS in Africa because of stigma, “cruel” and“irrational.” Gates did not think about if stigma would be associated with other forms ofcontraception.
In South Africa I participated in a workshop on HIV/AIDS with local community
members. The community members were school principals, health department officials,
clinic managers, and health teachers. When they were asked if they knew how HIV was
spread, they all knew. They all knew that condoms can prevent sexual transmission. Yet
when they were asked if they used condoms, they all said no. Finally, we asked what weshould have asked in the first place: Why don’t people use protection? To have children
is essential in their communities, they said. To use a condom would offend a partner,
because everyone wants children. In their view, it was deviant to not want children. Then
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

63

they asked the Americans: Why don’t you want children? Why would you want to avoid
having children?
This experience taught me that people have very different concerns across culturaland social contexts. People assume that they have the same values, concerns, and hopes
and fears, but this is not necessarily the case. Sadly, these situations often end negatively.
Everyone feels confused and disheartened, challenged by the lack of commonality oruniversality of experience, helpless to benefit others. Such experiences can make people
fear difference, and feel cynical about helping others, but such experiences should
educate people. People should not be disturbed to learn that other people are different
from them. This means that they themselves are a certain kind of way, not universal
subjects themselves.

2. Happy classrooms
When I moved to Hong Kong, I had some challenges with teaching, since I camefrom the United States (via South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries).
I knew the students wanted me to act in a way that seemed, from an American perspective,
to be like a ‘serious authority figure’: Not smiling, serious, hierarchical, possessing all theknowledge. Since the University wants to Americanise the campus and globalise students,
I was encouraged to be ‘myself’ and teach my own way. In the United States, I would
want students to feel free to smile, laugh, and have fun in the classroom.
Yet I realised that my requests for students to act more relaxed and equal to me inthe classroom were hopeless. The more I wanted them to relax, to be casual andcomfortable, to treat me like a friend, and to say their opinions, the less they appeared torelax. My requests resulted in them becoming more serious, less smiling, more dedicated,and more respectful and hierarchical. Despite the view in the United States that professors
and students act like friends and act like they are equal, there is still a kind of respectdemanded. In this regard, I felt disrespected that the students did not trust my judgment,
and act more friendly and casual. After the class, I realised they were doing everything intheir power, based on their life experiences, to respect me, and learn from me. Yet it is notprofessional or intelligent in Hong Kong to act casual, and smile and be informal inclassrooms. The more I wanted them to respect me—by being casual—the more they
worked hard to respect me—by being formal. We all had a painful experience with eachother.
Of course, not all Hong Kong students are the same, and I am not a typical American.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

64

L. JACKSONWith time, I am a part of Hong Kong culture. Now I go to the United States, and I remind
myself to smile and act casual. New colleagues to Hong Kong from the United States are
surprised I am formal and follow conventions.
Some people hold the idea that all happiness is the same, and seen the same aroundthe world. But smiling is not the same in Hong Kong and the United States. The best
smile is toothy in the United States, which is not the same in Great Britain. In Hong Kong
and China, happiness is found more, according to research, in the wellbeing of one’s
community, rather than as individual pleasure (Ho, Duan & Tang, 2014). While people
may have the same emotions in a basic sense, they make sense of them in different ways,
based on language and conventions of relationships. To the extent that emotions are
cognitive, this means the emotions have different flavours across contexts. Many people
observe that they ‘feel different’, or their personality changes, when they speak in asecond language. Words and concepts, and feelings about relationships, are different
around the world. This adventure is ignored in the quest for universal understanding, orthe embrace of global homogeneity.

3. Is it logical?
Based on experience writing philosophy of education in different parts of the world,
I have learned that what is prized as intelligent, clever, rational, and logical changes acrosscontexts. In a simple way, this can be seen in relation to the Philosophy of Education
Society (PES), and the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain (PESGB). There
are differences among American styles, British analytic genres, and European continental
styles. I trained for my Master’s work at Cambridge in England, where I did an analysis
of liberal political philosophy, and the work of Kant and Rawls. I am only fluent in the
English language, but I realised in England that my English was not ‘English’ English. I
had to learn English grammar anew, as much as possible. Grammar is important toarguments: for example, if you are saying concepts are like each other, the same, or one
is required for the other, or vice versa. At the same time, there are argument conventions,like saying what one is going to say before they say it in the introduction, or showing thearguments against one’s view before giving arguments one prefers. English theorists
argue in a subtler way, I learned, while American scholars tend to value arguments thatare more obvious and politically oriented.
I learned these things not when I went to England, but when I returned to the states,for my PhD. At Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where Dewey and pragmatism are valued,
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

65

I discovered many professors there found English philosophers ‘snobby’, ‘elitist’, or notinterested in real-world issues. This surprised me, because I found that are equallyconcerned with real-life issues, but these issues vary across societies, while the way toexpress concern is not the same. This can be seen in the way emotions are treated acrossthe two countries generally. Americans are usually more dramatic and emotionally showy
than English people. To not be emotionally showy is not to lack concern, among theEnglish.
I knew cultural logics were different when I worked in Africa and the Middle East,and I expected them to be different in Hong Kong and Chinese society. Indeed, I learned
how the language itself is different, and how this changes perception. To use tones toconvey meaning is different in Chinese languages than in English—while there are also
differences in how to inflect tones properly in American versus British English, and in
Cantonese in Hong Kong and in Mainland China. Meanwhile, those who use tones tochange words seem to speak English less emotionally. I learned that categorising things
for the purposes of grammar is quite different in Cantonese. Learning Cantonese gave
me a new way of seeing the world.
I heard that Chinese and Asian philosophies were more holistic than western ones,
which are more binary, either/or, and categorising, with more emphasis on yes/no, one or
the other. I learned how this made a difference for conducting philosophy of education at
a seminar in the United States. At the seminar, most of the people were Americans, butthere were a few Chinese and Japanese participants. The seminar was focused on
responding to one Chinese woman’s paper. The paper was about her perception of asituation, and a memory she had, from the past. In my understanding, her view was thatmemory changes perception, and made it difficult to describing the situation as being one
kind of situation, or another. In the example, she wondered whether she had experienced
discrimination, due to her identity in the United States as a Chinese woman, or whether
she was too sensitive. Her point was that there was no way to make a conclusive judgment.
I thought it was a very provocative educational argument, and a strong piece of writing.
However, most of the Americans there expressed that they did not think she was not
telling her story properly. They wanted her to give more details, and to say that things
were either one way, or the other: that she was discriminated against, or that she was not.
They acted as if she was failing to do what she was supposed to do. However, she
explained that this was the point of her paper: that perception could be faulty. I was
astonished to see in this case how colleagues treated this senior woman, as if she needed
help to write a paper like a student, because they did not understand that things do notalways fit into their categories.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

66

L. JACKSON

After the event, I spoke with another American woman, and I told her that I did notunderstand her concern. I told her that I thought the paper was a brilliant example of how
memory and perception are subjective. She replied to me just as she did to the author of
the paper, saying that the story was ‘not clear’. When I asked what was ‘not clear’, I did
not understand her reply. It may be part of pragmatism that one is always convincing
others about strong views—I cannot say this with certainty, because I never studied
pragmatism. However, I later discussed it with other Asian participants in the seminar,
who all agreed there had been an uncomfortable misunderstanding.
I later had a conversation with another Asian scholar, in a different context, whoremarked, ‘Americans have to put everything in boxes’. Now I tend to agree. I have also
had experiences where I feel that American editors want me to make my point more
dramatically, or make recommendations about things I do not have expertise or
knowledge about. The way to do philosophy of education is at debate here.

4. ‘Passive’ Asians
Since I live in Hong Kong, colleagues in North America, Europe, Britain, Australia,
and New Zealand ask me: How do I work with the ‘passive’ Asian students, from Hong
Kong, China, Korea, and Japan? When I entered Hong Kong, I did not assume or expectthat my students would be passive. I have not found them to be passive. There is a culturaldifference, however. It goes back to my ‘happy classroom’ example. My students in Hong
Kong do not think it is intelligent or respectful, to themselves, their peers, or their teachers,
to say their opinions when they feel they have no basis or foundation for them, in theory
or data. As in the last example, my students question that which they do not know, andthey will not assert something for the sake of asserting something. This stance is not
passive. My students have judgments about things. They do not assume the value of alesson where students express baseless opinions, as in some student-centred education(Jackson, 2015). They reject education they disagree with, on the streets in Hong Kong
(Jackson & O’Leary, 2019). They ask me for help with things they do not know about,or feel they understand sufficiently. How it this be passive?
These colleagues are similar to those described in the last example, who feel thatmaking bold claims is better than exploring the complexity and challenges of knowing.
These colleagues do not recognise that there are different logics than the ones they live
with. We are here because we are interested in understanding more about these logics,
and what to do about them. Yet many around us in daily life, our students and colleagues,
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education67

do not recognise that they are particular kinds of people—it is not just others who are‘different’.

Concluding Thoughts: Globalising Philosophy of Education
I find travel to be the best education. One does not understand how they are
American or Japanese, and what that means, until they leave their country. For this reason,
it is heart breaking to me when scholars fail to see differences as different logics, andinstead just see them as failures of understanding, on one side or another.
Besides serving as the President of the Philosophy of Education Society ofAustralasia (PESA), I am the only regular member and conference attendee in the Society
from the United States. Most members of PESA are from Australia and New Zealand,followed by Japan, Korea, and other countries in Asia and Europe. One thing I havelearned in my time at PESA, and other conferences such as PES and PESGB, is thattraditions are important to people. This includes traditions in organising conferences, aswell as scholarly traditions. However, how traditions are conceived in philosophy ofeducation is skewed in some ways, often biased toward western scholars and western
philosophies. At an excellent presentation by Mika Okabe at PESA (2018), I learned thatin Japan there is a focus on western theory, while there are also questions among Japanesephilosophers about how to make philosophy of education more Japanese. These
problems are not unique to Japan. China, Taiwan, and Korea also study western traditionsof philosophy of education. Australia, New Zealand and the United States also follow
European and British ways in part, as traditions.
This is not too problematic, from a certain perspective. All fields have their histories.
These histories can be seen in a political way, and changed, if people desire, or notchanged, while they are reflected upon. However, sometimes it can become a source ofcross-cultural challenges, when Japanese and other Asian scholars interact with western
scholars in relation to these traditions. The problem occurs when western scholars claim
a monopoly on what a scholar from history said, based on linguistic knowledge, or evencultural or historical knowledge. In other words, western primacy is inequitable, if it used
to suggest or imply that Asians know less than westerners do about philosophy. This canhappen if the topic being explored is what westerners, or particular western scholars think.
However, I am not sure these are productive or significant topics in philosophy ofeducation. I am not a Dewey scholar, compared to many people in China, or a scholar of
Derrida, like Ruyu Hung in Taiwan, or Stanley Cavell, like Naoko. In this case, I can
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

68

L. JACKSON

learn as much about Dewey from someone in the states or in China, but I am not reallyinterested in what Dewey thought, or the ‘right way’ to think about him. In my view, themore interesting question is how he resonates with scholars, and in what ways.
To me, the interesting topics relate to how similar issues are experienced andunderstood in different parts of the world, by different people. My biggest concern in thecontext of this work is the supremacy of the views of English speakers, who are often
ignorant about different logics in the world, and often lack a sense of other people’s innerworlds, yet attribute this to a failure to understand. This should not be seen as a problem
for which non-native English speakers are to blame. However, in a globalised context
where English is primary, misunderstanding puts an unfortunate burden on non-native
English speakers, who often work and study in other languages, to translate themselves,and educate people who do not know what they do not know. This translation work takes
patience, like working with a student who does not realise the need to study or think aboutsomething they have never thought about. A reward of being bilingual and cross-culturalis that those of us living in a heterogeneous world get to occupy diverse logics and various
worlds, while those in one homogeneous logic are impoverished as humans experiencing
things. How can others see the diversity of the world as a gift? How can we make themsee this is worthwhile, when they feel vulnerable (to misunderstanding, to not being rightor best), in the way that the rest of us are?
Finally, as President of PESA I want to welcome PESJ members into more PESA
spaces. I am afraid that sometimes PESA hospitality does not seem genuine. Hospitality
in Japan is exceptional. Australia and New Zealand are casual by comparison.
Nonetheless, I invite you to take up space, explain what Cavell, Heidegger, Arendt, andTesuro Watsuji mean for you, and in Japanese society. I also encourage moving awayfrom getting logics right, including the logics of PESA. I will never get the logic right,
myself. However, you will gain something from being misunderstood, including a new
vision of yourself. And if you persist, you might just get others to misunderstand alongwith you, in a peaceful and delightful way.
As I write this, China and Hong Kong are in crisis. I am planning the PESA
Conference in Hong Kong in December, and Australians and New Zealanders do notunderstand the crisis, and are afraid to come to Hong Kong, seeing media coverage which
is negative and dramatic, meant to impart fear. In Hong Kong, we pride ourselves on
efficiency, safety, and civility. Here is an example of missing the world. The media is notconcerned with educating, but profits from fear, so people keep watching, dependent on
media for security. Yet security can never come. The world is dynamic and unsafe, froman existential or experiential, emotional view. While I deplore violence, injustice, andThematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

69

oppression, we must think through what is safe or unsafe, when it comes to the logics of
the world. It is not safe to cling to one’s view, and appeal to its correctness. This leads tomore camps against each other. We must share what is human about us, to learn about
ourselves while learning about each other.

References
Freire, P. (1989). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gates, M. (2006). Keynote Speech, XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Aug.
13.
Ho, S. M. Y., Duan, W., & Tang, S. C. M. (2014). The Psychology of Virtue andHappiness in Western and Asian Thought. In The Philosophy and Psychology ofCharacter and Happiness, eds. N. Snow & F. V. Trivigno. London: Routledge.
Hultman, T. (2012). Africa: Beyond Contraceptive Controversy. All Africa, Jul. 23.
Jackson, L. (2016). Education as Finding the Other in Self. In Philosophy of Education
2015, ed. E. Duarte. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
Jackson, L. (2015). Challenges to the Global Concept of Student-Centered Learning with
Special Reference to the United Arab Emirates: ‘Never fail a Nahayan.’
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 47 (8).
Jackson, L. (2013). They Don’t Not Want Babies: Globalizing Philosophy of Educationand the Social Imaginary of International Development. In Philosophy of
Education 2013, ed. C. Mayo. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
Jackson, L. & O’Leary, T. (2019). Education and the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 51 (2).
Lau, M. (2011). What the Peace Corps Taught Me About Failure. Huffington Post, Nov.
17.
Okabe, M. (2018). PESJ: Beyond Colonized Thinking, Philosophy of Education Societyof Australasia Annual Conference, Rotorua, Dec. 10.
Ono, F. (2018). Philosophy in the Age of Globalization, But in Which Language?
Translation, or Loving the Experience of Enduring Pathos. Tetsugaku, Vol. 2.
Patient, D. R. (2012). Empowerment Ethics. DavidPatient.com.
Saito, N. (2018). Preface. Tetsugaku, Vol. 2.
Saito, Naoko. (2016). Gifts from a Foreign Land: Lost in Translation and theUnderstanding of Other Cultures. In Philosophy of Education 2015, ed. E.
Duarte. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

70

L. JACKSON

Wirnkar, G. (2012). African Babies Aren’t the Threat. Washington Times, July 16.

Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education