Future-readiness and its educational implications: A Daoist interpretation

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which our past and present knowledge can help us to be future-ready, and suggests a theoretical basis for future-readiness. Drawing on the thought of the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi, it is argued that future-readiness is primarily about having an open and flexible mindset where one responds appropriately to emerging realities and challenges. Two salient key Daoist principles that underpin the notion of future-readiness are ‘walking two roads’ (liang xing) and ‘rightness of the present this’ (yin shi). The former is about going beyond shi/fei distinctions – ‘this/right’ versus ‘not-this/wrong’ – to consider and harmonise alternatives to achieve the best possible outcome. The principle of ‘rightness of the present this’ refers to making the most appropriate response based on situational constraints. The major educational implications are a rejection of limiting teaching and learning to skills-centred education; an emphasis on unlearning; and the promotion of self-transformative education.

Keywords

Course Daoism future-ready education Zhuangzi

Introduction

The notion of future-readiness is increasingly featured and advanced in global educational research and practice. An internet search of this term produces over 100,00 results while a similar search on Google Scholar generates more than 3000 hits. In the educational arena, universities have promoted this concept through courses for students and symposiums for academics. Examples are ‘future readiness online courses’ developed by The University of Hong Kong (2023), and a colloquium on ‘future-readiness in education’ organised by the National Institute of Education in Singapore (Ng and Chua 2023). Asia Pacific Journal of Education has also devoted a special issue on this topic (see the collection of articles in volume 43, issue 3, 2023).

Despite the expanding programmes, activities and publications on future-readiness, this term has remained unclear, multifarious and contested. There is scant attention on what it means to be future-ready, apart from the broad and nebulous understanding that it revolves around the anticipation of changes and preparedness for emerging realities (Chang, 2021; Remes, 1993; Tan, 2023a). But what does it mean to anticipate and be prepared for evolving and fluctuating developments and circumstances, and how can this be achieved? There is therefore a need for researchers to analyse, clarify, rethink and (re)conceptualise the notion of future-readiness. What is called for is not a unified and reified definition of future-readiness, given that this construct is multidimensional and context-specific. Rather, more scholarly explorations and conversations are needed on the various possible understandings of future-readiness from diverse cultural and philosophical traditions, worldviews and resources. A survey of the conceptions, presuppositions and practices of future-readiness shows that they rest on and are dominated by developments and experiences in the Global North. What is still lacking in the existing literature are alternative formulations, worldviews and applications of future-readiness that are based on or inspired by sociocultural traditions and scholarship from the Global South.

Aimed at providing an interpretation of future-readiness that is derived from Chinese intellectual traditions, this paper sketches a Daoist interpretation of this concept and explicates its major educational implications. The reason why Daoist philosophy has been selected for this study is that it provides a fresh perspective of future-readiness that sets it apart from the prevailing understanding of this concept. The existing constructs of future-readiness converge on skills and competencies that are tied to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with an accent on information and communications technology (Geertshuis and Lewis, 2020; Tan et al., 2017). The overall orientation of future-readiness is functionalist and pragmatic, with future-readiness often used interchangeably with digital-preparedness against the backdrop of breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence. In contrast to the ‘skills and competencies’ agenda, Daoist theories are more concerned with epistemological issues, such as questioning what we know and assume to be true. This does not mean that Daoist thinkers disparage technical and professional expertise; the Daoist classic Zhuangzi records and praises the exemplary skills and personal attributes of craftsmen such as butcher and woodworker (Ziporyn, 2009). The point here, rather, is that Daoist teachings go beyond the narrow interpretation of future-readiness as revolving around practical knowledge and technological competency to larger epistemic matters, such as casting doubt on what we claim to be knowledge and revising our taken-for-granted perspectives (Tan, 2020a, 2020b).

The focus of this paper is fourth century B.C.E philosopher Zhuangzi, whose ideas are recorded in a classic that bears his name. Zhuangzi has been selected for our examination as he has much to say about issues surrounding future-readiness. In particular, he sheds light on the question of the extent to which our past and present knowledge help us to be future-ready; his ideas also provide a theoretical basis for future-readiness. At the outset, it should be noted that Zhuangzi was not the product of one person as it was written by a group of unknown writers over a long period (Graham, 1986; Tan, 2023b, 2023c). Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that Zhuangzi provides a coherent and valuable source on the philosophies of Zhuangzi (Xu, 2011). I shall therefore use the name ‘Zhuangzi’ throughout this essay to denote all the writers of the text rather than the historical figure of Zhuangzi.

This paper is organised as follows: An introduction to the concept of future-readiness, Zhuangzi’s views that pertain to knowledge and future-readiness, and the major educational implications for future-ready education arising from his thought.

The concept of future-readiness

In the academic discourse, the term ‘future-readiness’ was first mentioned in a journal article by Remes (1993), who defines it as ‘the anticipation of changes in the lives of individuals, organisations and societies, and of the direction of activities’ (206). Remes’ research was grounded in the work of Bjerstedt (1986) who highlights the ‘cognitive readiness, attitudes, values, lines of action and course of action’ of future-readiness (Remes, 1993: 206). Expanding the idea of anticipating changes, Ng et al. (2020) posit that future-readiness is about aligning learning outcomes to ‘new realities that emerge over time’ (9). Other researchers underline the need to create, shape and determine one’s future by upgrading oneself and enhancing one’s employability (Barrot, 2021; Chang, 2021; Ng and Chua, 2023; Ng and Ku, 2023; OECD, nd). Ng and Ku (2023) identify six habits of practices for future-ready outcomes: inquisitiveness, ideation, prototyping, entrepreneurship, inter-cultural acumen and passion. The ultimate outcome is to ‘help individuals navigate an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world’ (Pretti et al., 2021: 370).

Although the term ‘future-readiness’ was coined a few decades ago, it only became popular in the last 10 years, due in part to the educational initiatives launched by the U.S. Department of Education. Through a series of policy papers and action plans, the education department in the U.S. advocates the idea of Future Ready Schools (FRS) and associated terms such as Future Ready Leaders and Future Ready Pledge (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2014, 2016). Future-readiness, in this context, is predominantly about equipping learners and educators with digital skills, and providing schools with technological infrastructure and resources (Barrot, 2021). As stated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2016): ‘To help support leaders’ move toward creating the technical infrastructure and human capacity necessary to fully implement this vision for transformative learning enabled by technology, the U.S. Department of Education partnered with the Alliance for Excellent Education and more than 40 other partner organisations to launch Future Ready in November 2014’ (42, italics added). Sheninger (2020) summarises the policy aims of FRS:

FRS is a free, bold new effort to maximise digital learning opportunities and help school districts move quickly toward preparing students for success in college, a career, and citizenship. Future Ready provides districts with resources and support to ensure that local technology and digital learning plans align with instructional best practices, are implemented by highly trained teachers, and lead to personalised learning experiences for all students, particularly those from traditionally under-served communities (para 7, italics added).

It is noteworthy that FRS is aligned with the ideal of ‘Schools of the Future’ proposed by the World Economic Forum. Accordingly, the attribute of future-readiness is needed to meet the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0. In an influential publication titled ‘Schools of the Future: Defining New Models of Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic Forum (2020) identifies eight critical characteristics in learning content and experiences to achieve high-quality learning in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (p. 4): Global citizenship skills, Innovation and creativity skills, Technology skills, Interpersonal skills, Personalised and self-paced learning, Accessible and inclusive learning, Problem-based and collaborative learning, and Lifelong and student-driven learning. Complementing the initiative of the World Economic Forum is a project on ‘The Future of Education and Skills 2030’ by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The goal is to ‘help education systems determine the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values students need to thrive in and shape their future’ (OECD, nd, para 1). Barrot (2021) elaborates on the future-ready qualities identified for students:

By 2030, it [OECD] envisions learners who are equipped with skills, knowledge, values, and attitude that will help them thrive in a rapidly changing society. To achieve this vision, the project advocated for education that is transformative, flexible and personalised, contextualised, collaborative, process-oriented, and outcomes-based, engaging, and authentic. It also emphasises the need to develop students’ life skills, cognitive and metacognitive skills, attitudes and values, 21^st century competencies, and the ability to reconcile tensions between local and global ideals (3).

A critique of the prevailing understandings of future-readiness, as mentioned at the beginning of the paper, is a lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical justification. For a start, the concept of future-readiness overlaps with related terms such as 21st century skills and generic competences. But what makes the former unique is its pivot on the future, that is, on what has yet to take place. But future-readiness is not – and cannot be – about knowing the unknown, as this would require the supernatural powers to foretell what is to come. It is also difficult to predict accurately what is to come, given that the future is volatile and marked by uncertainties. Rather, the general understanding of future-readiness, informed by the existing literature, is that it is about expecting changes and preparing oneself for likely developments in accordance with what we already know (Chang, 2021; Ng, 2021; Remes (1993). The essence of future-readiness, to put it simply, is a forward-looking mindset where one makes preparations for emerging realities based on past and present knowledge and experiences.

The emphasis of future-readiness on anticipating changes (Remes, 1993), being in charge of one’s future (Chang, 2021; Ng, 2021; OECD, nd) and possessing the ‘cognitive readiness, attitudes, values, lines of action and course of action’ (Remes, 1993: 206), presupposes a connection between past, present and future knowledge. However, to what extent can our past and present knowledge help us to be future-ready? Relatedly, there is limited exploration on the theories that underpin and justify future-readiness. Put otherwise, what is the theoretical basis for future-readiness? Zhuangzi responds to these two questions in many passages of the Zhuangzi. This shall be elaborated in the next section.

Zhuangzi on knowledge

On the first question regarding the extent to which our past and present knowledge can help us to be future-ready, Zhuangzi stresses that knowledge itself is contingent and uncertain, and therefore we need to question what we know. Zhuangzi asserts, ‘For our understanding can be in the right only by virtue of a relation of dependence on something, and what it depends on is always peculiarly unfixed’ (6.4, all quotations of Zhuangzi are adapted from Ziporyn, 2009, unless otherwise stated). Zhuangzi’s point is that our ‘understanding’ (zhi), also translated as ‘knowledge’, relies on information and contingent factors that are themselves tentative and changeable. What is ‘right’ today may not be so tomorrow. Hence, we need to be careful about making knowledge claims about the future and getting ready for the future based on existing beliefs.

That we can be wrong about our foreseeable future is illustrated in the example of Lady Li (2.14). A daughter of the border guard of Ai, she cried bitterly when she was captured and brought to the palace of Qin. Her responses were based on her knowledge of her forced separation from her family members and reluctance to live with the king in a foreign place. But she regretted her tears when she subsequently enjoyed sleeping on the king’s luxurious bed and indulging in the finest meats. Lady Li exemplifies a person whose understanding is dependent on her prior knowledge claims about her future life. What she did not know earlier was how well she would be treated in the palace and how much she would enjoy a life of luxury. Her past knowledge claims, in other words, are not false per se, but rather incomplete. That we could reject our past or current judgement entails that ‘we can never be sure of our knowledge even of what is right and wrong for ourselves’ (Kjellberg, 1994: 121). Zhuangzi reiterates this point in the following passage (chapter 17):

What a person knows is far less then what one does not know. The time one exists is insignificant compared to the time one does not exist. It is because one tries to exhaust this vastness with this meagreness that one bewilders and frustrates oneself.

Noting that we can be mistaken about what we know, Zhuangzi writes, ‘How could I know that what I call “knowing” is not really “not-knowing?” How could I know that what I call “not-knowing” is not really “knowing?”’ (2.38). Zhuangzi notes that people of his day contrast their life span with Pengzu, a historical figure who famously lived for several hundreds of years (1.6). But these people forget that Pengzu’s achievement is insignificant when compared to trees that live up to thousands of years. Zhuangzi’s conclusion is that human beings tend to accept what they are told as knowledge without question or self-reflection. It needs to be clarified that Zhuangzi is not advocating a rational or scientific investigation of phenomena based on a set of objective truth standards. Rather, he is critiquing the prevalent tendency of people to accept their perceptions at face value and subject themselves to endless comparisons among themselves.

Accepting knowledge claims and conventions unquestioningly may result in what Zhuangzi calls a ‘fully formed mind’ (cheng xin) (2.11). As Zhuangzi puts it, ‘If you regard what you have received as fully formed (cheng) once and for all, unable to forget it, all the time it survives is just a vigil spent waiting for its end’ (2.10). The term ‘cheng’ (‘fully formed’) can also be translated as fixed, opinionated, ingrained, complete, structured and pre-established, among others. The central idea is a mindset that is rigid, narrow-minded and presumptuous. Characterised by ‘recalcitrancy and inflexibility’, a fully formed mind is comprised of ‘a set of beliefs, experience and knowledge, [that] inevitably determines how we respond to things and thus constraints our sensitivity to other and more appropriate ways of responding’ (Machek, 2016: 58).

A fully formed mind is a socially constructed self that predisposes a person to impose one’s standards and actions on others (Xu, 2011). Such a mental model imprisons a person to predetermined outcomes that are manifested in the form of shi/fei judgements (Lai, 2022; Raphals, 1994). Denoting ‘this/right’ (shi) and ‘not-this/wrong’ (fei), the shi/fei worldview was commonly adopted by proponents of various schools of thought in ancient China (Fraser, 2015). In a fictitious account, Zhuangzi criticises Confucius for making a shi/fei judgement (5.12):

There was an ex-con in Lu, named Toeless Shushan, whose feet had been mutilated as a punishment. He heeled his way over to see Confucius, who said to him, “You were careless in your past behaviour and thus have ended up in this condition. Isn’t it a little late to come to me now?”

Toeless said, “I just didn’t understand my duties and undervalued my own body, and so I now lack a foot, but I come to you with something worth more than a foot still intact. Heaven covers all things. Earth supports all things. I used to think that you, Sir, were just like Heaven and earth – I never imagined you would instead say something like this!”

Confucius said, “It was rude of me. Won’t you please come in and teach me what you’ve learned?”

Confucius is presented in the above passage as embodying a fully formed mind that is marked by conventional prejudices. Confucius demonstrated shi (what is right) by rejecting Lu due to the latter’s fei (what is wrong) – past mistakes and deformed body. But Confucius’ self-righteousness was challenged by Lu who countered that he should not be judged and condemned based on his past. That Confucius was remorseful and asked to be taught by Lu is Zhuangzi’s way of foregrounding the folly of Confucius’ shi/fei judgement.

Zhuangzi is also using the above passage to spotlight on the obsession of Confucianism and Mohism – the two dominant philosophies during his time – with shi/fei judgement. According to Zhuangzi, Confucians are fixated with ensuring that actions conform to ritual (li), whereas Mohists insist on the utmost need to act according to standards (fa) (Chiu, 2018). The different and competing visions of dao (Way) result in endless debates and disputes among the philosophers, further entrenching their uncompromising views of what is right and wrong (Chong, 2006). Slingerland (2000) observes that Zhuangzi ‘perceived the pernicious influence that conventional values and standards exert upon the human spirit: enslaving it to the pursuit of artificial goals, wearying it with the petty logical quibbling of the mind (xin), and cutting it off from any sort of genuine fulfilment’ (308).

It needs to be clarified that Zhuangzi is not against making judgements per se. Rather, what he objects to is shi/fei judgement that is satiated with dogmatism, a false sense of security and a divisive spirit. Zhuangzi stresses the need for humans to free themselves from preconceptions (5.5) and forgone conclusions (chapter 22). The presumption of certainty in knowledge vitiates a person’s future-readiness as it hinders one from considering alternatives and responding to changes with an open mind. Helsing (2019) elaborates on the danger of shi/fei judgement, what he terms ‘a fixation on judgement’:

Fixation on judgment (affirmation and negation) leads to both endangering one’s self and escalating conflict with others. In regard to the self, fixed judgment leads to an inability to engage one’s current situation, to observe and react to conditions in a manner conducive to survival or well-being. In regard to others, fixed judgement leads to an inability to understand the perspectives, needs, and values of others (653).

Zhuangzi on future-readiness

The preceding has sketched Zhuangzi’s arguments on the fallibility and limitation of human knowledge. This does not mean that Zhuangzi rejects all knowledge claims and using what we know now to prepare us for the future. Future-readiness, based on the Zhuangzi, is primarily about having an open and flexible mindset where one responds appropriately to emerging realities and challenges. Turning to the second question on a theoretical basis for future-readiness, Zhuangzi’s two broad principles are salient: ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’. Both principles are illustrated in a story known as ‘Three in the Morning’ (2.23):

What is this Three in the Morning? A monkey trainer was distributing chestnuts. He said, “I’ll give you three in the morning and four in the evening”. The monkeys were furious. “Well then,” he said, “I’ll give you four in the morning and three in the evening.” The monkeys were delighted. This change of description and arrangement caused no loss, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight. He just went by the rightness of the present “this” (yin shi). Thus the Sage uses various rights and wrongs (shi fei) to harmonise with others and yet remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter’s Wheel (tian jun). This is called ‘Walking Two Roads” (liang xing).

Walking two roads

The principle of ‘walking two roads’ (liang xing) is about transcending two options – shi or fei – to consider and harmonise alternatives to achieve the best possible outcome in a given situation. Also translated as ‘letting both alternatives proceed’ (Chong, 2006) and ‘proceeding in two ways’ (Fraser, 2006), the ‘two roads’ refers to the two options available to the monkey trainer in distributing chestnuts to the monkeys: three in the morning and four in the evening, or four in the morning and three in the evening. Instead of clinging to his own idea of what is right, the monkey trainer accepts the ‘right’ judgement of the monkeys, at no extra cost to himself. He is future-ready in the sense of using ‘various rights and wrongs to harmonise with others’ (as mentioned in 2.23), that is, in accord with the monkeys by using what is ‘right’ in the eyes of the monkeys. It is noteworthy that the monkey trainer succeeds in responding judiciously to the problem-situation because of his past and present knowledge about the chestnuts and monkeys. Rather than being guided by a fully formed mind, such as rejecting the demands of the monkeys and even punishing them, the monkey trainer expresses the ‘pragmatic harmonising of the contextual particulars to see which alternative works best in this situation’ (Callahan, 1998: 185).

The reason why the monkey trainer is able to walk two roads is because he ‘remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter’s Wheel (tian jun)’ (2.23). The Chinese word for ‘the Potter’s Wheel’ is ‘jun’, which suggests equality, stability and balance. The message here is ‘the even distribution of clay made possible by the constant spinning of the wheel: the potter’s wheel’s very instability, its constant motion, is what makes things equal’ (Ziporyn, 2009: 14). Residing in the middle of the potter’s wheel enables one to go beyond the shi/fei binary to a third position – one that opens up new options, possibilities and solutions. The sage-potter is calm, non-confrontational and unbiased, like the monkey trainer who responds with equanimity and openness to the agitated and uncompromising monkeys (De Reu, 2010). Wang (2013) extrapolates the significance of resting in the middle of Heaven the Potter’s Wheel:

This ability to follow two courses at the same time and thus to bring the freedom to turn to either the left or the right depending upon the circumstances demonstrates a deep insight into the ways things are in the bigger picture and goes beyond the confinement of either right or wrong. When dualism is transcended, the tensionality of conflict is pulled back into the whole to bring peace to turbulence. The situation is solved with a shift of the lens, a lens that sees through problems to bring clarity and open alternatives (74).

Walking two roads or dualism represents a cognitive shift that liberates humans from a fully formed mind. An outlook of dualism enables a person to see shi and fei not as opposites and unrelated but as complementary and inter-connected (2.16). Such cognitive flexibility enables a person to go beyond simplistic dichotomies to expand one’s perspectives and adopt creative responses (Tan, 2023d; Wong, 2005). In contrast to an earlier description of Confucius as a person with a fully formed mind, Zhuangzi portrays Confucius, in the passage below, as demonstrating cognitive flexibility (chapter 27):

Confucius went along for sixty years and transformed sixty times. What he first considered right he later considered wrong. He could never know whether what he presently considered right was not fifty-nine times wrong.

To conclude this section, ‘walking two roads’ enables a person to eschew a fully formed mind and shi/fei judgement. Such a person does not view a decision or other people as strictly or permanently right or wrong, choosing instead to consider and adopt alternative and novel options. It is like the monkey trainer who skilfully harnesses the available knowledge to bring about a harmonious future for himself and the monkeys.

Rightness of the present this

Closely related to ‘walking two roads’ is the principle of ‘rightness of the present this’ (yin shi). With reference to the monkey trainer, 2.23 states: ‘He just went by the rightness of the present “this” (yin shi)’. The expression ‘rightness of the present this’ refers to the ability to make the most appropriate response based on situational constraints. Zhuangzi exhorts all to ‘follow the rightness of the way each thing already is without allowing yourself the least bias’ (7.4, also see 5.23). We have seen how the monkey trainer does not show any bias towards the monkeys, opting instead to go along with the demands of the latter. Fraser (2006) describes ‘rightness of the present this’ as ‘adaptive shi’ which means ‘adaptive rightness’, to underscore the readiness of a person to respond with agility and innovation. Contrasting ‘adaptive shi’ with ‘deeming shi (wei shi)’, the former is ‘following “this is”’, that connotates flexibility and openness, whereas the latter means ‘making “this is”’, which signals rigidity and closed-mindedness (Slingerland, 2004).

Zhuangzi describes a person who adheres to ‘rightness of the present this’ as follows: ‘now a dragon, now a snake, changing with the times, unwilling to keep to any exclusive course of action’ (chapter 20). By ‘responding to things with no fixed method’ (chapter 22), such a person ‘makes no definition of what is right but instead entrusts it to the everyday function of each thing’ (2.28). The ‘everyday function of each thing’ refers to the natural disposition of a thing, in this case, the inclination of the monkeys to desire four chestnuts in the morning and three in the evening. The decision made by the monkey trainer is the right one in that particular situation. This is evident in the passage: ‘This change of description and arrangement caused no loss, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight’ (2.23).

The principle of ‘rightness of the present this’ requires humans to attain ‘the Course as Axis’ (2.16):

When “this” and “that” – right and wrong – are no longer coupled as opposites – that is called the Course as Axis (dao shu), the axis of all courses. When this axis finds its place in the centre, it responds to all the endless things it confronts, thwarted by none. For it has an endless supply of “rights” (shi), and an endless supply of “wrongs” (fei).

The ‘Course as Axis’ (dao shu), also translated as the axis, hinge or pivot of dao, represents a hub where the axis can rotate freely, unbounded by any particular perspectives or doctrines (Fraser, 2014, 2015; Lai, 2022). It is a central position with no limit to one’s responses to shi (right, this, what is it) and fei (wrong, that, what is not) (Graham, 2001). The ‘Course as Axis’ is ‘that state of mind in which we embrace the continuing process of discovery and the questioning of each point of view, without asserting our possession of final and ultimate truth, with no final declaration of what we can know to be it or what is not’ (Wong, 2005: 101). Returning to the passage about the monkey trainer, his action of giving what the monkeys want exemplifies the practice of doing what is right at that particular point in time. Zhuangzi’s position is that there is no fixed formula to giving the chestnuts to the monkeys; there are many possible permutations to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome. What makes the act of giving four in the morning and three in the evening right in this instance is based on ‘the everyday function of each thing’, in this case, making the monkeys satisfied at no cost to the monkey trainer.

The Course as Axis brings clarity (ming) to a person by opening up possibilities of a multitude of options, the wisdom to switch between viewpoints and modify one’s judgements based on contextual needs (De Reu, 2010). Applying the Course as Axis to the earlier principle of walking two roads means that a person does not need to literally proceed on two paths, and is instead open to many other options. In addition to ‘this’ and ‘that’, other alternatives are ‘this’, ‘that’, and neither ‘this’ nor ‘that’ (Sturgeon, 2015). What constitutes the best judgement ultimately depends on ‘the rightness of the present this’.

To sum up, abiding by ‘rightness of the present this’ requires one to adapt and change oneself according to the demands of the situation. Zhuangzi describes such a person as one who ‘constantly changes together with all things’ (chapter 25). Yet such a person remains ‘one and unchanging’ by resting in the middle of Heaven the Potter’s Wheel (2.23). A critique of Zhuangzi’s philosophy is the question of relativism: is his argument on the tentative nature of knowledge and corresponding call for humans to use ‘various rights and wrongs to harmonise with others’ tantamount to relativism or scepticism? It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed philosophical analysis to this question (for philosophical discussions and debates on this topic, see Chiu, 2018; Cook, 2003; Ivanhoe, 1993; Kjellberg, 1994; Raphals, 1994). For the purpose of this article which focuses on future-readiness, it suffices to note that Zhuangzi is not a relativist in the sense of denying that objective knowledge exists. He would contend that his principles of ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’ are correct at all times, although their specific application is dependent on the context and other contingent considerations. As for whether Zhuangzi supports scepticism, some scholars have maintained that he is sceptical about propositional knowledge but not practical knowledge (Chiu, 2018). The Zhuangzi is replete with accounts of people who have mastered diverse competence, such as cooking and butchery. Zhuangzi is unequivocal about propounding a dao (Way) that combines expertise and virtue through the examples of these craftmen.

Implications for future-ready education

The foregoing has elucidated Zhuangzi’s refutation of an uncritical reliance on past and present knowledge to prepare one for the future. Informed by Zhuangzi, future-readiness is fundamentally about possessing an open and flexible mindset where one (re)acts appropriately to changes and new developments. Being future-ready, from a Daoist viewpoint, is predicated upon the two principles of ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’. This last segment of the paper delineates three major educational implications for future-ready education arising from Zhuangzi’s ideas: a rejection of limiting teaching and learning to skills-centred education; an emphasis on unlearning; and the promotion of self-transformative education.

A rejection of limiting teaching and learning to skills-centred education

The first implication is a need to (re)conceptualise future-ready education as a form of teaching and learning that is not confined to the acquisition of skills. As noted earlier, a prominent orientation in the extant literature is to connect future-readiness to Education 4.0 competencies, particularly digital skills. Zeehan et al. (2020) observe that ‘“Future Ready” is a free, bold word to represent new efforts to maximise digital learning opportunities’ (14).

For Zhuangzi, skills-centred education is analogous to ‘walking on one leg’: it is inadequate to prepare learners for the future as it does not prevent them from being trapped in a fully formed mind and shi/fei judgement. A person may be well-versed in technological skills but enslaved by pre-existing worldviews, logics, presuppositions and practices that foster narrow-mindedness, dogmatism and division. Such a person will not be future-ready in the holistic sense of approaching changes with a non-judgemental and agile outlook, and appreciating alternatives, especially those that one tends to overlook or dismiss. Pertinently, the idea of ‘skills’, from a Zhuangzian viewpoint, encompasses more than technical competency. As pointed out by Lai and Chiu W-w (2019), the skill masters, whether in catching cicada, wheel making or ferrying, demonstrate ‘exemplary ways to tread the fine line between engagement and detachment’ (viii) and ‘offer insights into a process of transformation and personal satisfaction’ (ix).

In addition, a skills-based approach to future-readiness downplays the dispositions, values and attitudes needed by future-ready learners. Fraser (2006) points out that Zhuangist normative vision is about human flourishing through practical wisdom rather than training. The cultivation of wisdom circles around habituation and application of concepts in diverse settings. Dufresne (2017) posits, ‘While a teacher cannot make a student understand something in the same way they understand it, they can place the student in an appropriate setting where they can begin cultivating habits associated with what it is they are trying to learn’ (1213). An example is an activity where multiple perspectives of an issue are presented to students, who are invited to put themselves in the shoes of different actors and dialogue with each other. The instructional objective is to inculcate perspective-taking, empathic concern and open-mindedness in everyday life. In a nutshell, a Daoist orientation to future-readiness advocates a more balanced and holistic approach to education as compared to one that revolves around the acquisition of technical skills (Tan, 2021).

An emphasis on unlearning

The second implication is the necessity for future-ready learners to ‘unlearn what they “know”’ (Ivanhoe, 1993: 646). This involves questioning taken-for-granted beliefs, presuppositions and perspectives. Zhuangzi avers that learning does not make one knowledgeable (chapter 22) and that we should raise questions about what we already know (chapter 13). In his words (chapter 24):

The subserviently compliant are those who learn the words of one teacher and then, secretly pleased with themselves – so subservient! So compliant! – remain partial to their own theory, regarding it as quite sufficient, without realising there has never been anything to possess there or anywhere. Thus, they are called the subserviently compliant.

Realising that knowledge is uncertain, evolving and contingent should make humans eschew a ‘fully formed mind’ (cheng xin) and shi/fei judgement that produce and fortify biases and preconceptions (Helsing, 2019). The process involves ‘an unlearning of one’s own shifei distinctions’ (De Reu, 2010: 49), by subjecting one’s judgement to continuous questioning by considering new ideas and counter-arguments (Wong, 2005).

The unlearning applies to the previous point on the current emphasis on practical and digital skills in the future-readiness discourse. It is essential for policymakers and educators to unlearn by rethinking and reconstructing the ideal of future-ready schools and related educational models (Ng et al., 2020). As noted earlier, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2014) has launched Future Ready Schools (FRS), and the World Economic Forum (2020) has proposed ‘Schools of the Future’ as a new model of education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These initiatives are certainly commendable and necessary for the young to survive and thrive in a competitive world. But applying Zhuangzi’s unlearning entails challenging the dominant view that the function of school and aim of education is solely or mainly about equipping students with vocational and professional skills and competencies. What is also needed – and more important, I would argue – is to envision future-ready schools as learning sites for the all-rounded development and flourishing of all learners. What ‘the all-rounded development and flourishing’ comprises of is not standardised but depends on the setting and other contingent factors such as the location and type of schools, profile of students and sociocultural conditions. School leaders, teachers and other educational stakeholders therefore need to unlearn by rejecting the neoliberal policies and presuppositions that drive the skills and competencies agenda for future-ready education.

The act of unlearning is also applicable in an increasingly polarised world that is characterised by political, social and cultural divisions, strife, discrimination, and hate crimes. A main reason and catalyst for polarisation among humans is their dogmatic judgements and taken-for-granted beliefs surrounding knowledge, truth, morality and personal identities. It is therefore critical for humans to unlearn by stripping away ‘the layers of socialisation that construct their ways of thinking, perceiving, behaving and feeling’ (Singh, 2014: 223). In the school context, teachers can encourage students to examine knowledge claims as well as uncover and assess assumptions and worldviews. Doing so helps the learners to develop ‘fully formed minds’ that are free of biases and dogmatism. Topics for the students’ learning include social norms such as gender bias, racism and religious indoctrination. The unlearning agenda can be achieved through pedagogical approaches such as Socratic dialogue and creating a culture of reflection (Tan, 2020a).

The promotion of self-transformative education

The third implication is to engender a form of self-transformative education that draws upon the principles of ‘walking two roads’ and adheres to ‘rightness of the present this’. This recommendation follows from the previous two points on the repudiation of a skills-centred education and the priority to engage in unlearning. While the previous two implications centre on the misconceptions of and impediments to future-readiness, this point is about achieving future-readiness through self-transformation. The goal of self-transformation is to find and remain at rest in the Course as Axis, where one rises above shi/fei distinctions and a fully formed mind (Singh, 2014). The desired outcome is for the self to become ‘supremely attuned to the complexity of the world and can thus navigate various domains of relationality with extraordinary grace, ease, and efficacy’ (Jiang, 2011: 463).

A self-transformative education is achieved through mastering ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’. The principle of walking two roads is future-oriented as it prepares individuals for uncertain and evolving developments. Alluding to future-readiness, D’Ambrosio (2007) notes, ‘Every situation is new and should be dealt with pragmatically as it presents itself’ and not ‘determined, dealt with or expected to be like any past situations’ (44). Walking two roads is also an effective problem-solving approach and communication model based on flexibility and harmony that benefit oneself and others (De Reu, 2010). In light of ‘the vibrant multiplicity and complexity of the world’, Helsing (2019) points to the need for humans to ‘to operate in circumstances of uncertainty’ by ‘being receptive to the world as an open-ended, multiform process of continually changing possibility’ (571).

The principles of ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’ are not merely skills, competencies or strategies. Rather, it entails a change in one’s total outlook in life and value system. Slingerland (2000) comments that Zhuangzi champions ‘a complete transcendence of the dichotomies inherent in conventional values, displayed in an ability to straddle both sides of any conventional dichotomy pair’ (309, italics in the original). Such a person transcends shi/fei judgement to exemplify clarity (ming) – the disposition to harmonise one’s perspectives, values and practices in diverse settings, thereby enabling all parties to achieve their goals (Fraser, 2006, 2015). Alluding to future-readiness, Helsing (2019) outlines the Daoist importance of opening one’s heart and mind to incompletion and uncertainty:

Unpredictability and doubt illuminate the world by pushing away preconceived frameworks. The constant flux, the incompleteness of experience, keeps the heart-mind active and engaged, receiving the world but not categorizing, wandering but neither affirming nor negating, discerning but not preferring. The heart-mind learns to make temporary distinctions in response to the continually changing conditions of the world. These distinctions are not arbitrary—they occur in response to sense information and the emotions—but they are temporary and may be flawed (571-572).

Schools could enact self-transformative education by providing real-life learning experiences for students to apply what they have learnt. Examples are project work and service-learning that require students to collaborate, consider contextual needs, consult the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders, be open to diverse alternatives and select innovative solutions.

In summary, the three major educational implications for future-ready education challenge the dominant conceptions, assumptions and practices regarding future-readiness. Instead of tethering future-ready education to utilitarian, economic and technological considerations, the implications that proceed from a Daoist point of view underscore an open and flexible mindset that enables a person to unlearn, learn and self-transform.

Conclusion

Our past and present experiences have a direct bearing on how we construct the future. Our frame of reference or habits of mind determine the way we conceive our life, well-being and future developments. A survey of the existing literature on future-readiness reveals that this term is primarily about anticipating new, emerging and evolving realities and changes. Despite the currency of the notion of future-readiness, what has remained under-explored is the concept of future-readiness itself. To date, there has been limited philosophical discussion of the construct of and underlying theories for ‘future-readiness’; the extant literature concentrates on equipping learners with ‘future-ready’ competencies, such as digital literacy and other soft skills to meet the challenges of Education 4.0. Furthermore, the current future-ready research principally originates from and is anchored upon the histories, needs and intellectual paradigms from the Global North.

Responding to a research gap on the lack of conceptual clarity and insufficient theoretical basis of future-readiness, this article offers a Daoist interpretation of the term and suggests the significant educational implications for future-ready education. This paper has explained that Zhuangzi stresses that knowledge itself is contingent and uncertain, and therefore, we need to question what we think we know. He also accentuates the limitation of our perspectives that results in narrow-mindedness and disagreements. There are two key Daoist principles that are applicable to future-readiness: ‘walking two roads’ and ‘rightness of the present this’. The principle of walking two roads is about harmonising alternatives to achieve the best possible outcomes for all parties. The idea of ‘rightness of the present this’, on the other hand, refers to making the most appropriate response based on situational needs and constraints. There are three major educational implications for future-ready education arising from Zhuangzi’s ideas: a repudiation of confining teaching and learning to skills-centred education; an accent on unlearning; and the furtherance of a self-transformative education.

It needs to be added that the Daoist approach to future-readiness as expounded in this paper – anticipating changes and responding appropriately to emerging realities and challenges – is based on only one Daoist classic, namely, the Zhuangzi. Hence the proposed formulation of future-readiness is not the only Daoist interpretation of the term. For example, Roth (1999) alludes to future-readiness in his exposition of another Daoist text Nei-yeh (Inward Training); this text explains how a Daoist method of inner cultivation enables a person to possess the mystical ability to foretell the future. Likewise, Meyer (2010) concludes from an analysis of the Huainanzi (Master of Huainan) that people who have developed a numinous mind ‘display the same capacities as spirits, as they are able to transcend the ordinary limits of time and space’ (880).

Space constraints do not permit me to discuss and compare the different understandings of future-readiness from various Daoist texts and traditions. This is an important and interesting topic that I would recommend for future inquiry. Other potential explorations include an in-depth analysis of Zhuangzi’s views on skills and their connection to future-readiness, and alternative understandings of future-readiness from other cultural perspectives. Overall, it is hoped that a Daoist construal of future-readiness and related educational implications will stimulate more writings on the diverse conceptualisations of and normative foundations for this term. The plurality of formulations and ideas that are derived from and inspired by a variety of philosophical traditions across cultures has the potential to generate discussions, debates and cross-cultural learning, demonstrating Zhuangzi’s spirit of walking two roads.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Charlene Tan, PhD, is an honorary professor at Life University. Previously, she was a tenured professor of education at the University of Hong Kong, and prior to that an associate professor at National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. She has published widely on ancient Chinese philosophy of education and her latest book is Mindful Leadership: Wisdom from Confucius (Bloomsbury).

References

Barrot

(2021) K to 12 curriculum reform in the Philippines: towards making students future ready. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 1–15. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2021.1973959

Bjerstedt

(1986) Lära för framtid. (Learning for a Future). Stockholm: Liber Utbildningsförlaget.

Callahan

(1998) Cook Ding’s life on the whetstone. In: Ames

(ed) Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi. Albany, NY: SUNY, 175–196.

Chang

(2021) What does future-ready social studies education look like? Insights from teaching and learning geography. The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia 10: 3–11.

Chiu

(2018) Zhuangzi's knowing-how and skepticism. Philosophy East and West 68(4): 1062–1084.

Chong

K-C

(2006) Zhuangzi and the nature of metaphor. Philosophy East and West 56(3): 370–391.

Cook

(ed) (2003) Hiding the World in the World—Uneven Discourses on the Zhuangzi. Albany: State University of New York Press.

De Reu

(2010) How to throw a pot: The centrality of the potter's wheel in the Zhuangzi. Asian Philosophy 20(1): 43–66.

Dufresne

(2017) The illusion of teaching and learning: Zhuangzi, Wittgenstein, and the groundlessness of language. Educational Philosophy and Theory 49(12): 1207–1215.

10.

D’Ambrosio

(2007) Students feed monkeys for education: Using the Zhuangzi to communicate in a contemporary system of education. Kritike 1(2): 36–48.

11.

Fraser

(2006) Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and the paradoxical nature of education. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 33(4): 529 542.

12.

Fraser

(2014) Heart-fasting, forgetting, and using the heart like a mirror: applied emptiness in the Zhuangzi. In: Liu

Berger

(eds) Nothingness in Asian Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 197–212.

13.

Fraser

(2015) Zhuangzi and the heterogeneity of value. In: Kohn

(ed) New Visions of the Zhuangzi. St. Petersburg, FL: Three Pines Press, 40–58.

14.

Geertshuis

Lewis

(2020) Future Ready Graduates Embedding Employability in the Curriculum: Strategies for the Development of Future-Ready Employability Attributes within Advanced and Research Informed Programmes. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa.

15.

Graham

(1986) How much of Chuang Tzu did Chuang Tzu write? In: Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature. Singapore: Institute of East Asian Philosophies.

16.

Graham

(2001) Chuang-tzŭ. 4th edition. London: Allen & Unwin.

17.

Helsing

(2019) The wandering heart-mind: Zhuangzi and moral psychology in the inner chapters. Dao 18: 555–575.

18.

Ivanhoe

(1993) Zhuangzi on scepticism, skill, and the ineffable dao. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 61(4): 639–654.

19.

Jiang

(2011) Two notions of freedom in classical Chinese thought: The concept of hua 化 in the Zhuangzi and the Xunzi. Dao 10: 463–486.

20.

Kjellberg

(1994) Scepticism, truth, and the good life: A comparison of Zhuangzi and Sextus Empiricus. Philosophy East and West 44(1): 111–133.

21.

Lai

(2022) Freedom and agency in the Zhuangzi: navigating life’s constraints. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 30(1): 3–23.

22.

Lai

Chiu W-w (eds) (2019) Skill and Mastery: Philosophical Stories from the Zhuangzi. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.

23.

Machek

(2016) Beyond sincerity and pretence: Roleplaying and unstructured self in the Zhuangzi. Asian Philosophy 26(1): 52–65.

24.

Meyer

(2010) Appendix A: Key Chinese terms and their translations. In: Major

Queen

Meyer

, et al. (eds) The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China. New York: Columbia University Press, 869–913.

25.

DFS

(2021) System leadership for future-ready learners in Singapore. In: Brown

Duignan

(eds) Leading Education Systems. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 111–131.

26.

DFS

Chua

(2023) Future-Readiness in education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 43(3): 633–647.

27.

(2023) School reform: New future-ready quality outcomes and proposed measures. Education Sciences 13(1246): 1–12.

28.

Wong

Liu

(2020) Future-ready learners: Learning, lifework, living, and habits of practices. In: NIE Working Paper Series No. 20. Singapore: National Institute of Education.

29.

OECD (nd) OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Paris, France: OECD, Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project

30.

Pretti

Etmanski

Drewery

(2021) Development and validation of a future ready talent framework. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning 22(3): 369–383.

31.

Raphals

(1994) Sceptical strategies in the “Zhuangzi” and “Theaetetus”. Philosophy East and West 44(3): 501–526.

32.

Remes

(1993) Soft systems approach in creating future readiness for vocational adult education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 37(3): 205–216.

33.

Roth

(1999) Original Tao: Inward training (Nei-yeh) and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism. New York: Columbia University Press.

34.

Sheninger

(2020) Leading Future-Ready Schools. Retrieved from: https://leadered.com/leading-future-ready-schools/ (accessed 19 Apr 2022).

35.

Singh

(2014) Zhuangzi, wuwei, and the necessity of living naturally: A reply to Xunzi’s objection. Asian Philosophy 24(3): 212–226.

36.

Slingerland

(2000) Effortless action: the Chinese spiritual ideal of Wu-wei. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68(2): 293–327.

37.

Slingerland

(2004) Conceptions of the self in the Zhuangzi: Conceptual metaphor analysis and comparative thought. Philosophy East and West 54(3): 322–342.

38.

Sturgeon

(2015) Zhuangzi, perspectives, and greater knowledge. Philosophy East and West 65: 892–917.

39.

Tan

(2020a) Revisiting Donald Schön’s notion of reflective practice: A Daoist interpretation. Reflective Practice 21(5): 686–698.

40.

Tan

(2020b) The learning school through a Daoist lens. Oxford Review of Education 46(3): 393–407.

41.

Tan

(2021) Rethinking the notion of high-performing education system: A Daoist response. Research in Comparative and International Education 16(1): 100–113.

42.

Tan

(2023a) Clarifying the concept of future-ready learning: A Confucian perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 1–12. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2023.2231651

43.

Tan

(2023b) A Daoist interpretation of perspective-taking. Journal of Beliefs & Values 44(3): 349–362.

44.

Tan

(2023c) Daoism, novelty and usefulness: A philosophical exploration of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour 57(2): 237–247.

45.

Tan

(2023d) A Daoist understanding of mindful leadership. Leadership 19(3): 275–289.

46.

Tan

JP-L

Choo

Kang

, et al. (2017) Educating for twenty-first century competencies and future-ready learners: Research perspectives from Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 37(4): 425–436.

47.

The University of Hong Kong (2023) Preparing for Success in Your Future at HKU and in the World. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong: https://fri.hku.hk/

48.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2014) Future Ready Schools: Building Technology Infrastructure for Learning. Washington, D.C.: OET.

49.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2016) Future Ready Learning Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. Washington D.C.: OET.

50.

Wang

(2013) Confucian self-cultivation and Daoist personhood: implications for peace education. Frontiers of Education in China 8(1): 62–79.

51.

Wong

(2005) Zhuangzi and the obsession with being right. History of Philosophy Quarterly 22(2): 91–107.

52.

World Economic Forum (2020) Schools of the Future: Defining New Models of Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Cologny, Geneva: World Economic Forum.

53.

(2011) A different type of individualism in Zhuangzi. Dao 10: 445–462.

54.

Zeehan

Alias

Tasir

(2020) Discovering digital technology training challenges for future-ready educator: A preliminary study from trainer perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(3A): 12–23.

55.

Ziporyn

(2009) Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings with Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.