Logos Review · Issue 1 (Spring 2026) · Special Topic: Education — Editorial Introduction
Yingquan Song, Yajun Zheng
Abstract：This editor’s note to the education special issue synthesizes the contributors’ main arguments: on the one hand, it directly confronts the systemic predicaments and individual tragedies produced by the instrumentalization of education under the dual logics of state and market; on the other, it discerns, from ongoing educational innovations, feasible pathways toward de-instrumentalization and grounds for hope.
https://doi.org/10.64053/SLEO1385
Since ancient times, education has been the embodiment of people’s hope for beauty, goodness, and happiness. There is no shortage of discussions on education. The Book of Learning states, “ If jade is not polished, it will not become a useful tool; if people do not learn, they will not know.” Today, education is widely regarded as a basic citizen’s right, a reasonable means of allocating social status, and a public project for inheriting culture and cultivating talent, from developing science and technology to national prosperity, from cultivating morality to achieving success, and so on.
Whether for countries or individuals, education carries many dreams and promises. In reality, we find that today’s education seems to be drifting further and further away from people’s expectations.
On the one hand, at a macro level, education is entrusted with the mission of cultivating successors and builders.
Students — as the subjects of education — become objects of discipline and governance. The function of education is to safeguard and pass on specific, recognized core values. On the other hand, at the individual level, education is increasingly viewed by individuals and families — consumers of educational products — as a private good, a key tool for employment and social mobility. The public mission of cultivating civic responsibility has become less critical. In particular, China, which once had a millennium-old tradition of selecting officials through the imperial examination system, has now established the world’s most extensive education system. Within this system, the talent selection mechanism centered on the college entrance examination is considered by many to be the fairest and most transparent institutional design. However, the school education system, guided by the college entrance examination, has been criticized for stifling students’ creativity, imagination, and critical thinking. When education becomes an “arms race” between different social classes for social status, and when unequal competition from kindergarten to university is exposed, education’s function as a “social equalizer” seems to have been eliminated. In today’s era of rapid change driven by artificial intelligence, technology — from intelligent teaching tools to automated assessment systems, from remote classrooms to online self-study systems—has profoundly transformed the structure and methods of education. The education system, traditionally prone to inertia, is facing unprecedented challenges and inquiries from this new wave of technological revolution. In the increasingly urgent pursuit of efficiency driven by technology, will the inherent needs of individuals — emotional, cognitive, value-building, and spiritual growth—be overlooked? Can education still focus on and respect the uniqueness of the individual?
As education is increasingly viewed as a tool for achieving specific social goals, transitioning from social class to national strength, can it still cultivate independent individuals, rather than simply a tool for adapting to social competition? Can education still provide students with freedom of thought, emotional expression, and space for personal growth? When artificial intelligence and data become core tools of education, does education itself retain its deep and irreplaceable value? It is against this backdrop that we propose the need to reexamine the issue of education. Our children have been in school since childhood, and schooling occupies the most significant portion of childhood and adolescence for most people. Today, when schools are surrounded by technological rationality and data-driven frameworks, we need to ask a series of questions. For example, to what extent does our education promote the holistic development of students? To what extent does education fulfill its promise of happiness to people? People also lack systematic questioning of some significant issues related to education.
For example, what is the essence of education? What is a good education? What is the true purpose of education? When is there tension between educational goals under the grand narrative and individual stories? How can individuals act? In this uncertain future, are the hopes once attached to education still possible? Alternatively, we need to reconsider the meaning of education to humanity.
Beyond the problems of schooling, we also see that in the modern education system, the transfer of knowledge has increasingly become a subsidiary function of market-driven competition. The rise of human capital theory has driven education’s shift from its essential function of “cultivating the human spirit and personality” to a purely economic and social tool. However, when education becomes overly instrumentalized, the value dimension and humanistic spirit it should carry are gradually weakened, and its core mission — helping individuals achieve freedom, understand the world, and shape themselves — is marginalized. This issue of the Journal of Chinese Studies explores the reflections of scholars from various fields on these predicaments through eight articles, ranging from research papers and academic journals to book reviews and interviews. What is moving is that these observations and reflections consistently point to a strong concern for the subjectivity of the educated. In these studies, educated people are no longer cold statistics but real, living, concrete, unique, and limited individuals. Through these articles, we gain a deeper understanding of the systemic dilemmas and individual tragedies brought about by the instrumentalization of education, and we also find some reasons for hope in the continuous advancement of educational innovation and practice.
1. When Values Are Absent: The Disappearance of the Subject and the Alienation of Life
The first tragedy of instrumentalized education is the disappearance of the “person.” When the goal of education is reduced to utilitarian knowledge indoctrination and standardized talent screening, students, as living beings with inherent value and soul, are reduced to mere receivers of knowledge. In “Seeing Children as Cognitive Subjects,” Xu Jing penetratingly reveals the beginnings of this alienation. Critically criticizing Turing’s “blank notebook” theory, she argues that children’s cognitive abilities are far from blank; they actively construct and explore the world. However, in the current education system, this innate nature of children is suppressed. They are forced to adapt to a learning model centered on standardized answers.
This disconnects learning from children’s life experiences, turning it into a utilitarian act of “rote memorization” rather than true exploration and growth. Education abstracts children’s cognitive subjectivity, denying them the space for free exploration and intellectual development they should have.
This loss of subjectivity reaches its extreme in university.
In “Trapped in Secondhand Time,” Liu Yunshan portrays the “test-takers” of elite Chinese universities, revealing the “success” they achieve within the exam-oriented education system and the resulting hollowing out of their souls. Despite their seemingly academic excellence, these students have lost the ability to engage in dialogue with themselves, others, and even the world. Within this system, education not only saps their creativity and individuality but also renders them mere tools for achieving educational goals. Their life experiences are completely squeezed between a “known past” and a “predicted future,” completely depriving them of a sense of present existence. The utilitarian nature of education strips the soul from the meaning of life, ultimately leaving students with a sense of self-awareness that is empty and lost.
2. When Means Are King: Emotional Repression and Structural Violence
The second tragedy of the instrumentalization of education is the suppression of emotions and the violence of structures. The modern education system is centered on standardized tests and ignores the diversity and complexity of students’ emotions and spiritual world.
When education is viewed as the only narrow path to success, the high-pressure, test-oriented environment of the educational system reduces students’ emotions to mere “problems” that need to be managed and corrected. In “Fragile and Uneasy Youth,” Wang Pengkai deeply analyzes the emotional politics of county middle schools, revealing the emotional repression and psychological difficulties faced by adolescents in this environment. Wang Pengkai argues that schools are no longer places for the cultivation of emotional and intellectual freedom, but rather treat adolescent emotions as “consumables” to be manipulated, thus creating a structural violence against students’ emotional lives. This violence is not simply a result of mismanagement. Still, rather than violence internalized by the culture and educational system, a system that prioritizes academic achievement over spiritual growth inevitably suppresses students’ emotions to the extreme.
This violence manifests itself differently across different social classes. In “Similar in Form but Different in Spirit,” Zheng Yajun analyzes the educational experiences of different social classes, revealing how the education system shapes students’ subjectivity based on family background and social class. She points out that urban middle-class students typically have greater access to educational resources and greater choice. In contrast, students from less privileged backgrounds are more dependent on the educational system, lacking autonomy and space for individual development. The instrumentalization of the education system not only exacerbates social inequality but also imposes mental constraints on everyone within it.
3. When the Light Shines: Rediscovering the Source of Meaning in Brokenness
Despite the numerous difficulties facing the current education system, grassroots exploration outside the system offers valuable glimmers of hope. Fu Guoyong’s “Mandarin Private School” and Liang Jun’s “Poetic Education” exemplify this exploration. By focusing on mother tongue education, classic reading, and the cultivation of the humanities, Fu Guoyong attempts to provide students with a space for growth beyond utilitarianism within the framework of modern education. In an interview, Fu Guoyong stated that education is not simply about imparting knowledge, but about inspiring students’ aesthetic and intellectual capacities, helping them develop independent thinking patterns. He emphasized that mother tongue education is not just about learning a language, but also about the starting point for a dialogue between the soul and the world. This humanistic approach to education provides students with a depth beyond the tools of knowledge, helping them to discover their true selves deep within. Liang Jun’s volunteer teaching experience in the Dahua Miao community further demonstrates that even in impoverished and high-altitude areas like the Wumeng Mountains, when children are nurtured with free and genuine love and given ample opportunities to read and write, they can maintain a vibrant vitality, emotion, and creativity. His personal transformation during this experience also bears witness to the emergence of a truly de-instrumentalized “education”: “It wasn’t until I gave up my frantic pursuit of personal fulfillment and ventured into the Wumeng Mountains, working and living among a largely neglected ethnic group, that I felt strongly for the first time: my knowledge and abilities could directly serve a real community, unleashing real energy in the process. This sense of value isn’t a boast of achievement, but rather a nourishment of life. This experience transformed me and became the foundation of my subsequent life.”
Zhang Jun’s review of Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning provides us with another critical perspective for reflection on education. “The goal of education is not only to impart knowledge, but also to cultivate thinking patterns and abilities. The highest goal of education is to shape personality and mind.”
Jordan Peterson’s interpretation of his book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief suggests, from an epistemological perspective, that education offers a potential opportunity for people to find the eternal meaning of life. The article argues that the fundamental purpose of education is to help individuals answer the philosophical question of “why do we exist?” rather than teach them “how to exist.” He argues that the goal of education should be to shape character and mind, helping students find the meaning of life and the value of existence. Regardless of how modern technology advances, education must always focus on the inner world of the human being, helping students understand the meaning of their existence. This reflection points the way forward for future education.
In his critique of higher education, Song Yingquan explicitly posits the tension between instrumental rationality, as exemplified by human capital theory, and the concept of “human flourishing.” Citing the numerous challenges facing Chinese universities in talent development, he argues that many of the problems facing education today stem from an instrumental understanding of its value. Education’s ultimate value should not be to provide a “tool” for society or to serve self-interest. Drawing upon ancient Greek philosophy and the Judeo-Christian wisdom tradition, Song emphasizes that the core goal of education is to promote human flourishing and help students lead more fulfilling and liberated lives. This kind of life is not self-centered but relational—a harmonious, nurturing, and meaningful interaction between individuals and their environment. A good education fosters human flourishing, enabling happy individuals to be a blessing to their families, communities, society, and the world.
Conclusion: Educational Themes in the AI Era
The current education system is rife with contradiction—it serves as both a ladder for social mobility and a vehicle for structural violence; it promises a happy future while also creating real suffering. To break this dilemma, perhaps we need to reexamine the very nature of education: it is not about imparting knowledge, but about engaging in a dialogue with life; it is not about achieving standards, but about opening up possibilities.
The burden of education stems from people’s excessive demands on it—it must serve as both a judge in social competition and a guarantor of individual happiness. However, perhaps true education should be more like a still pool of water: not promising immediate gains, but nourishing the roots of life; not creating a clamorous victory, but safeguarding the depths of the soul. Perhaps, in this era of artificial intelligence and the rapid advancement of technological rationality, what truly cannot be replaced by algorithms and machines is education that recognizes and respects human subjectivity, an education that treats educators and learners as real, finite people, committed to developing their potential, discovering their purpose, and exerting their influence. As Fu Guoyong put it, education is “a channel for finite people, within a limited time, to seek certain and unchanging values.” Only by returning to respect for human beings can education transform from a burden into wings, carrying individuals to a broader sky.
How can education avoid becoming a tool to oppress individual subjectivity while fulfilling its social functions?
Only when education no longer serves purely utilitarian goals and instead helps individuals find inner balance and flourishing can it truly become a force for shaping meaningful lives. Perhaps then, people’s hopes will be fulfilled.
This is the English version of an article published in Chinese in Logos Review (汉语学志). Read the Chinese original (中文原文) · All English articles
