宋映泉 , 郑雅君
摘要
本文为教育专题编者按，综述各篇要义：一方面直面教育工具化在国家与市场双重逻辑下引发的系统性困境与个体悲剧；另一方面从持续推进的教育创新中，分辨去工具化的可行路径与盼望。
自古以来，教育便寄托着人们对美善和幸福的盼望。在各大文明经典中，都不乏对教育的论述。《 学记 》有云：“玉不琢，不成器；人不学，不知道”。时至今日，教育被广泛地视作一项公民的基本权利，一种分配社会地位的合理手段，以及一种传承文化培养人才的公共工程。从发展科技到国家繁荣，从立德树人到出人头地，不一而足。无论是对国家还是个人，教育似乎都承载了许多梦想与承诺。然而，当我们望向现实，却会发现今天的教育似乎已经与人们对她的盼望渐行渐远。
https://doi.org/10.64053/SLEO1385
一方面，在宏观层面，教育被赋予培养接班人和建设者的使命。学生 —— 作为被教育对象 —— 成为被规训和被治理的对象。 教育的功用在于守护和传承某些被认定的核心价值。 另一方面，在个人层面，教育越来越多地被个人和家庭—教育产品的消费者 —— 视为私人物品， 作为就业和阶层跃迁的核心武器，而培养公民责任的公共性使命，变得不再那么重要。 特别地， 在曾经拥有科举制度选拔官吏千年传统的中国，如今已经建立起世界上规模最大的教育系统。 在这个系统中，以高考为核心的人才选拔筛选机制被很多人认为是最公平最透明的制度设计。然而，以高考为指挥棒的学校教育系统因扼杀学生的创造力、想象力和批判性思考能力而饱受诟病。当教育成为社会各阶层争夺社会地位的“军备竞赛”，当幼儿园到大学各环节的不平等竞争被暴露出来，教育作为“社会均衡器”的功能似乎已经消解。
在今天这个人工智能带来快速变化的时代，从智能教学工具到自动化评估系统，从远程课堂到在线自学系统，技术的介入深刻改变了教育的结构与方法。一向富有惰性的教育体系，正面临新一轮技术革命前所未有的挑战与诘问。在技术导致的对效率愈发迫切的追求中，个体的内在需求 —— 情感、认知、价值观的塑造和精神成长，是否会被忽视？教育是否还能够关注和尊重个体的独特性？当教育逐渐被视为实现具体社会目标、阶层跃迁、甚至国家强盛的工具，教育是否仍然致力于培养独立的个体，而不仅仅是训练适应社会竞争的 “工具”？教育是否还能够为学生提供思想的自由、情感的表达以及人格的成长空间？当人工智能和数据成为教育的核心工具时，教育本身是否还保持着其深层的、不可取代的价值？
正是在这样的背景下，我们提出：必须重新审视教育的问题。我们的孩子从幼年起就在学校里长大，学校教育占用了绝大多数人的童年和青少年时期最长的时间。在学校被技术理性和数据驱动的框架所包围的今天，我们需要追问一系列问题。 比如，我们的教育，究竟在多大程度上促进了学生的全人发展？在多大程度上，教育兑现了对人们对幸福的承诺？人们对一些教育相关重大问题上也缺少系统追问。比如，教育的本质何在？什么是好的教育？ 教育的真正目的是什么？ 在宏大叙事下的教育目标与个人微观层面的期盼出现张力时，个体可以如何行动？那些曾经被附着在教育之上的盼望，在这个充满不确定性的未来，还有没有实现的可能？抑或，我们需要重新考虑教育之于人类的意义之所在。
除了学校教育的问题，我们还看到，在现代教育体系中，知识的传授越来越成为市场化竞争的附庸。人力资本理论的兴起，推动了教育从本质的 “培养人类精神与人格” 的功能转向了纯粹的经济和社会效益工具。然而，当教育被过度工具化时，其本应承载的价值维度和人文精神逐渐被削弱，教育的核心使命 —— 帮助个体实现自由、理解世界并塑造自我 —— 被边缘化。本期《汉语学志》通过八篇文章集中探讨了不同领域的学者对这些困境的反思，这些文章形式各异，有研究论文，有学术扎记，也有书评和访谈。令我们动容的是，这种种观察和反思不约而同地指向了对受教育者的主体性的强烈关切。在这些研究里，受教育者不再是冷冰冰的统计数字，而是一个个鲜活的、具体的、独特的、有局限的真实的人。透过这些文章，我们得以更深刻地理解教育工具化所带来的系统困境与个体悲剧，也得以从不断前行的教育创新实践中找出些许盼望的缘由。
一、当价值缺位：主体的消逝与生命的异化
被工具化的教育的第一个悲剧便是 “人” 的消失。当教育的目标沦为功利化的知识灌输与标准化的人才筛选时，学生作为拥有内在价值与灵魂的生命体被降格为单纯的知识接收器。许晶在《 看见作为认知主体的儿童 》中以犀利的眼光揭示了这一异化的开端。她批判了图灵提出的“空白笔记本”理论，认为儿童的认知能力远非空白的，它是主动建构和探索世界的过程。然而，在当前教育体系中，儿童的这一天性被压抑，他们被迫适应一个以标准答案为核心的学习模式，这使得学习变得与儿童的生命体验脱节，成为了“死记硬背”的功利性行为，而非真正的探索与成长。教育将儿童的认知主体性抽象化，摒弃了他们本应拥有的自由探索与思维发展空间。
进入大学阶段，这种主体性的丧失被推向极致。刘云杉在《 困于二手时间 》中，描绘了中国精英高校的 “做题家” 群体，揭示了他们在应试教育体系中获得的“成功”与随之而来的灵魂空洞化。尽管这些学生在学术上看似优异，他们却失去了与自我、他人、甚至世界对话的能力。在这个体系中，教育不仅消耗了他们的创造力与个性，反而让他们成为了教育目标的工具 —— 他们的生命体验被彻底挤压在 “已知的过去” 与 “预设的未来” 之间，当下的存在感被完全剥夺。教育的功利化，将灵魂与生命的意义剥离，最终使学生的自我意识陷入空虚与迷茫。
二、当手段为王：情感的压抑与结构的暴力
教育被工具化的第二个悲剧，便是情感的压抑与结构的暴力。现代教育体系以标准化考试为核心，忽视了学生情感和精神世界的多样性与复杂性。当教育被视作通向成功的唯一 “窄门” 时，教育体系中的高压应试环境便将学生的情感世界简化为需要治理和矫正的 “问题” 。王鹏凯在《 脆弱不安的青春 》中，深入剖析了县域中学的情动政治，揭示了青少年在这种环境下的情感压抑和心理困境。王鹏凯指出，学校不再是情感与思想自由的培养场所，而是将青少年的情感视作可操控的 “耗材”，从而形成了对学生情感世界的结构性暴力。这种暴力并非仅仅是管理失当，而是一种文化与教育体制所内化的暴力：一个仅追求学术成绩而忽视心灵成长的体系，必然会将学生的情感压抑到极限。
这种暴力在不同社会阶层中展现出不同的面貌。郑雅君在《 形似而神异 》中通过对不同社会阶层教育体验的分析，揭示了教育系统如何根据家庭背景和社会阶层差异塑造学生的主体性。她指出，城市中产阶级的学生通常具备更多的教育资源和选择性，而非优势阶层的学生则更多依赖于教育体制，缺乏自主性和个性发展空间。教育系统的工具化不仅仅加剧了社会的不平等，还将精神枷锁强加给处于其中的每一个人。
三、当微光亮起：在破碎中重寻意义之源
尽管当前教育体系面临种种困境，体制外的民间探索为我们提供了宝贵的 “微光”。傅国涌的 “国语书塾” 与梁俊的 “诗性教育” 便是这种探索的代表。傅国涌通过关注母语教育、经典阅读和人文学科的培养，尝试在现代教育的框架下为学生提供一个超越功利的成长空间。傅国涌在访谈中提到，教育不仅仅是传授知识，而是通过启发学生的审美力与思想力，帮助他们建立自主的思维模式。他强调，母语教育不仅是语言的学习，更是心灵与世界对话的起点。这种基于人文关怀的教育理念为学生提供了超越知识工具的深度，帮助他们在内心深处获得真正的自我。而梁俊在大花苗社区的支教实践更让我们看到，即使在乌蒙山这样的穷困高寒之地，只要孩子们获得了自由且真实爱的浇灌、被给予了充分的阅读和写作机会，也依然保持着旺盛的生命力、情感和创造力。他个人在这段实践过程中经历的个人蜕变，也见证了一场去工具化的、真正的 “教育” 的发生：
“直到我放下实现个人价值的疯狂追求，进入乌蒙山，在那个几乎被忽视的族群中工作与生活，我才第一次强烈地感受到：原来我的学识和能力可以直接服务一个真实的社区，并在这个过程中释放出真正的能量。这种价值感，不是对成就的夸耀，而是对生命的滋养。这份体验，改变了我，也成为我后续人生的根基。”
张军对乔丹·彼得森的《 意义地图 》一书的评论，为我们提供了另一个重要的教育反思视角。 “教育的目标，不仅在于知识的传递，更在于思维模式和能力的培养。而教育的最高目标，则在于人格和心灵的塑造”。 张军通过对乔丹·彼得森《 意义地图：信念的架构 》一书的解读，从认识论角度，指出教育使人寻找人生永恒意义的可能契机。文章指出，教育的根本目的是帮助个体解答 “为何生存” 的哲学问题，而不仅仅是教会他们 “如何生存”。他认为，教育的目标应当是人格和心灵的塑造，是帮助学生寻找生命的意义和存在的价值。无论现代科技如何发展，教育始终需要关注人的内在世界，帮助学生理解他们的存在为何具有意义，这一思考为未来的教育指明了方向。
宋映泉则在对高等教育的批判中，明确提出了以人力资本理论为代表的工具理性与 “人类繁盛” 概念之间的对立。他通过列举中国大学在人才培养上的诸多挑战指出，今天教育所面对的许多问题都与对教育价值的工具性理解有关，而教育的最终价值不应仅是为社会提供“工具”或是为达成一己私利服务。宋映泉回溯至古希腊哲学与犹太-基督教智慧传统，强调教育的核心目标是促进人的繁盛，帮助学生走向更加充实、自由的生活。这种生活不是以自我为中心的，而是关系性的 —— 个体与其环境之间存在着和谐、成长与充满意义的互动。良好的教育促进人类繁盛，使拥有幸福的人可以成为家庭、社区、社会和世界之祝福。
结语：AI时代的教育母题
当下的教育系统充斥着矛盾——它既是阶层流动的阶梯，也是结构性暴力的载体；既许诺幸福未来，又制造现实痛苦。要打破这一困境，或许需要重新审视教育的本质：它不是知识的灌输，而是生命的对话；不是标准的达成，而是可能性的开启。
教育的重负，源于人们对教育的过度索取——既要充当社会竞争的裁判，又要担任个体幸福的担保。然而，真正的教育或许更应像一泓静水：不承诺即刻的功利，却滋养生命的根系；不制造喧嚣的胜利，却守护心灵的深邃。或许，在这个人工智能当道、技术理性高歌猛进的时代，真正无法被算法和机器替代的，是看见和尊重人的主体性的教育，是把教育者和受教育者当作真实的、有限的人，致力于发展其生命潜能，发现其人生使命，发挥其生命影响的教育。正如傅国涌所言，教育是 “有限的人在有限的时间中求问确定不变之价值的管道”。唯有回归对人的尊重，才能让教育从重负变为翅膀，承载个体飞向更辽阔的天空。
教育如何在承担社会功能的同时，避免成为压迫个体主体性的工具？只有当教育不再单纯服务于功利目标，而是帮助个体找到内在的平衡与繁盛时，它才能真正成为塑造有意义人生的力量。或许到那时，人的盼望才不会落空。
<全文完>
Education is overwhelmed
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.
