A Critique to James Smith's Pedagogy of Desire : The Business of Christian Education XLII

             In his book “Desiring the Kingdom” James Smith spills out the concept of the pedagogy of desire.  His idea is fresh since it puts a new perspective on where to look for the starting point of pedagogy.  He breaks away from the traditional perspective that founded the conception of pedagogy on the idea that human beings are primarily thinking being or even believing being.  Smith argues that humans are not primarily thinking or believing, but that they are primarily desiring.  The drive of desire guides and directs humans to think, believe, and do whatever it is.  This desire is basically love, according to Smith.  Therefore, since humans are primarily desiring being, then the pedagogy must be based on the education or redirection of their desire toward what is ultimately true.  In his contention, Smith points out toward the true God in the Scripture as the aim where human desire must be directed.

As much as his theory brings a refreshing look toward pedagogy, I can’t help but critiquing his anthropology.  For me his concept fails on three accounts.  The first is that whereas his theory is a correction to the western idea of what a human being is, his theory fails to correct the eastern idea of what a human being is.  The eastern philosophy of man is quite different than the western philosophy of man.  When the west defines man the way it is, the east can’t find a comfortable agreement on the definition.  The point is, the correction Smith makes might not be applicable to all humans, but only to the conception of man in the west.  So, on cultural level, Smith’s theory falls short.  In my Asian background, I have seen and experienced firsthand the shortcomings of looking at human being as primarily desiring.  When I was growing up in Asia, human desire/love/passion/feeling is what defines a man.  The way we speak shows how much we
emphasize the affective part.  In contrast to the west that always starts with “I think”, we in the east always starts with “I feel” and many times “we feel” due to the communal bonding culture.  If a human being is first and foremost a desiring being, then the west must be cautious that they are importing an old idea from the east.  I need to caution the west to study the east and how the east falls miserably due to putting desire as the primary.

Chinese philosopher like Confucius was trying very hard to teach the world how to govern one’s life through governing our desire by our mind.  His “Way of Humanity – Ren Dao” puts a heavy emphasis on the “Ritual - Li”.  Li is not a disorder ritual that sparks out of human desire, but Li is more of a rule of appropriate conduct/ethics/morality, which must follow the Law of Heaven.  Confucius knew the destruction that would come if humans were to be allowed to freely use their desire.  The proof of the destruction can be found easily in the history books about Asia in general or China in particular or even the world as a whole.  So Confucius had to teach people how to govern the “wild” desire within us in order to fulfill our duty as man under heaven.  And the way to govern our desire is by the transformation of our mind through following the ritual.  Confucius knew that thinking alone, or desiring alone, or feeling alone, if left without the guidance of the ritual, will be extremely dangerous.  All of them together put into the highest level possible without following the ritual will only prove devastating.  Take for example Chin Shi Huang Di, the first emperor of China.  He was a brilliant man, excellent politician, instinctively sharp, and extremely ambitious.  But his “way” is not governed by the ritual, so he brought destruction to China.  His empire crumbled as soon as he died.  For during his lifetime he ruled with cruelty.  With his brilliance he supported his desire with reasonable cause.  His contention was to unite China and his ultimate desire is peace on earth “he ping tien xia”, but his way was by demolishing all other kingdoms so that China would only have one kingdom under heaven.  He started his first step to fulfill his desire of peace on earth by first murdering his own father.  Then he began his journey by warring other states tirelessly.  One story about his cruelty was that in order to smooth his way and win fast, he had an entire city submerged underwater killing all the inhabitants of the city.  He showed no compassion at all while his advisor disagreed strongly against his strategy.  After Chin Shi Huang Di destroyed the city using water, his most valued advisor resigned and left him.  Confucius knew the danger of desire.  So, in his philosophy, human desire can’t be primary.  It must be made secondary, secondary to the ritual, and ritual is learned through the transformation of the mind.  Thus the mind must govern the desire.

The second failure is right at the heart of anthropology.  For me Smith fails to see man as a united being, a holistic being.  Our mind affects our behavior, the same way our behavior affects our mind.  Our feeling affects our thinking, and our thinking affects our feeling as well.  Our desire affects our thinking and modifies our behavior, but doesn’t our thinking also affect our desire and modify our behavior as well?  So which one comes first?  We can’t really be certain.  And I don’t believe we can confidently say, 100% without any doubt whatsoever, that our desire is the primary drive that guides our thinking and our action.  Aren’t we at the same time thinking when we desire?  Aren’t we also at the same time desiring when we think?  I believe so.  Let us ponder further: How can we love what we don’t believe to be real?  How can we love our spouse if our spouse isn’t real?  Can we desire something that we don’t think would fulfill our desire? Would we think hard for something that does not relate to our desire whatsoever?  So in our loving there stands our believing and in our desiring there stands our thinking, all present at the same time.  We are a holistic being.

If humans primarily are desiring being, then thinking becomes just as a tool to be used at liberty for the purpose of gratifying our desire.  This condition is utilitarian in nature, which allows our desire to use our thinking for the fulfillment of our desire.  The problem is that we need to understand the nature of our desire.  Human desire is somehow in contrast with our constraint in space and time.  Human desire wants immediate or instant result or fulfillment.  In our constraint in space and time we can never get the instant fulfillment.  There is always a delay here and there.  The delay is what often gives us problems.  The longer the delay, the greater the problem, since our desire will force harder.  Thinking, on the other hand, is more in line with our constraint in space in time.  Thinking by nature requires process.  Process requires time.  So in thinking, delay is not an enemy, but instead delay is a good friend.  Time is an essential element to complete thinking.  Now, by nature humans think because it is in line with their being in space and time.  The two together, both thinking and desiring, make a good combination, only if we know how to harmonize them.  Giving the primary to thinking will shut down the desire.  Giving the primary to desiring will destroy many things.  The thing is, for me, Smith is missing the point.  It is not about which comes first, but more about whether our thinking tends toward good or evil, and in the same way whether our desiring tends toward good or evil.  Here I agree more with Nicholas Wolterstorff’s idea of education that we need to educate human tendency.  Our tendency resides in all parts of us, be it in our thinking, desiring, loving, believing, etc.  Our tendency is in our core being.  It is a question of position – of place.

One theologian from Indonesia, Stephen Tong, once mentioned that humans turned their position upside down in the Fall.  The proper position that they had are now in chaos.  The move causes an anthropological breakdown which leads to the cosmological problem ever since.  The tendency of the heart of man is no longer toward God, but toward self.  Therefore, contending which comes first, desiring or thinking or believing, does not solve the problem.  Pedagogy of desire as proposed by Smith does not even come close to the solution of human problem.  The liturgy that follows human desire will only enhance the destruction of the world.  This phenomenon is actually hinted in Smith’s book when he talks about the liturgy of the mall.  The liturgy of the world in fact is to gratify the tendency toward self.  The problem is that the position of man is not in the right place.  Asian is particularly keen in understanding place.  Through the teaching of Confucius, we are striving to find our proper place in every sector of our life, be it at home, in the community, in the nation, and in the world.  A son is always a son to the father, even though he will be a father one day, he will always be a son to his father.  He must know his place as a son.  A king is a king under the mandate of heaven and placed on earth to serve the people.  A tyrant king is a king out of place.  The people must honor the king for it is proper under the law of heaven.  But if people dishonor the king, then they are violating the law of heaven.  Everything must be in its proper place.  Only then we can function accordingly as man under heaven.  So again, the problem is not which comes first.  The problem is the tendency of human heart.  The problem is where the human heart is placed.  Human is simultaneously thinking and desiring and believing and loving at the same time.  We only ask which comes first because we are constrained in space and time.  So we try to apply our linear concept of time into something that doesn’t move in linear path.  We are a holistic being after all.

The third failure is when seen from the theological perspective.  Smith’s observation that man is primarily a desiring being is based on the everyday life that we all go through.  The problem with the conclusion is that “what it is” is not “what it ought to be.”  While it might be the case that man operates their day to day life more on following the drive of their desire primarily, that doesn’t mean that the phenomenon is what man ought to be.  The Fall has caused a massive destruction to the being of man.  The confusion of what is true, what is good, what is wrong, what is evil, has been continuously bringing troubles in our life.  Even the apparent drive by human desire as the primary might as well be the consequence of sin or what allows sin to breach in.  I would suggest that when Eve decided to pick up the forbidden fruit, it was because she gave in to her desire.  Instead of governing her desire to abide to God’s command, she was lured by her own desire to be as wise as God.  The battle of words within her thought was confusing for her because of the contradicting information regarding the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.  On the one hand God said that the day they eat they will surely die.  On the other hand the serpent said that when they eat they will not die, but their eyes will be opened and they will be like God knowing good and evil.  Eve couldn’t resolve the tension.  But instead of resorting to her faith in God, she retreated to her desire as the basis of her decision.  In any case her mind becomes the key.  The mind is the entrance of words, good or evil, true or false, and thus the reorganization of the order of words that govern her behavior is determined by what kind of words that enter into the mind.

The problem is Eve knew that she made the wrong decision by following her own desire too late.  She couldn’t come back to the way she was.  The depravity has set in, and sin and death reigned over man ever since.  If desire is again be given a throne to govern human life, the world will be in a complete disaster.  Again and again we have witnessed that great people fell because they followed their desire.  We cannot be naive to assume that our desire is not contaminated by sin.  The fact of the matter is that human desire is badly corrupted.  Human desire is wild that it always attempts to break away from human thinking.  Thinking is an important part of us that can govern our desire so that we won’t roam the earth like the beasts of the field.  But, by this I don’t mean that thinking is the primary.  I still think that man is a holistic being that we think and desire at the same time.  The nature of desire, however, is different from the nature of thinking.  The government of our desire naturally comes from our thinking, and not just thinking but thinking through the right words.  Paul said in Romans 12:2: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”  Thus it is important not to follow the pattern of the world, which is driven by the unbridled desire, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind.  The mind is key in Paul’s theology, for through our mind the true words of God may come in.  Once our mind is renewed by the word of God and be reformatted according to the true pattern of the LOGOS/WORD of God (cf. John 1:1-3), then our life can be transformed accordingly.  So giving desire the driver’s seat in our being is not what the word of God suggests.

Tong argues that after the Fall, man no longer knows their proper position.  Throughout history we have found that man tends to consider God their servant and the world their master.  So every day they would wake in the morning in order to enslave themselves for the gaining of material wealth.  And every day they would pray to their god(s) to bring them success in being the slave of material wealth.  So they “bribe” their god(s) by many rituals, gifts, offerings, so their god(s) would do their bidding.  Humans have abandoned their original position: serving God and ruling the world.  The only way they can make God their servant and the world their master is by turning their selves upside down.  So according to their perspectives, God is now under their feet to be ruled and the world is above them to be worshipped.  Since the Fall, their desire is bonded together wildly with their upside down position, and thus their desire create all the problems in the world.  Only through wise reasoning human may “tame” the desire and bring it into order.  The wise reasoning that resides in many wise people in the world, Christians and non-Christians alike, is what Reformed theology calls as the Common Grace.  God gives wisdom through words to bring order into the world.  His special words and grace remains to be found in the Scripture, but his common grace can be found outside of the Scripture.  For thousands of years God has granted understanding of the mysteries of the universe and of the spiritual realm to many religious leaders and philosophers, so they may “tame” human desire and guide them into order.  So, for me desire is not primary in man, but more accurately, desire only appears primary because desire is wild and would force its way whenever wherever possible to get what it wants.  It might be possible to educate desire to follow the proper order, but focusing merely to it and giving the highest seat in human self to desire is a grave mistake in my estimation.  The education of man must be done thoroughly, for man is a holistic being.  Moreover, if we observe human development we will find out right away that children or immature persons are more driven by desire than their understanding.  Kids would force their desire to their parents and if they don’t get it they would cry and start kicking and screaming.  They are unable to tame their own desire yet.  It is because their mind is still in the process of learning everything they need to learn in order to be mature.  But desire wants instant gratification. The problem is that since birth we are all already under sin, so even our desire is sinful.  Giving in to desire is not the way to go.  For like a child is going wild if given to their desire, giving our primary seat to desire is like “educating” ourselves to become immature children one more time.  This is not going forward.  This is going backward.

God wants us to follow His will, or His desire if I may, and not our own desire.  Contrary to our desire that has been contaminated by sin, God’s desire is pure and holy.  We can only understand this matter by wrestling with God’s true words.  We need to purge our being from the false words the world throws at us and truly fill our hearts with God’s words.  And God’s words enter into us through our mind.  Now, faith is important in this case.  The word of God can’t come in no matter how hard it is thrown at us if faith is not within us.  We are still a believing being, but the direction of our belief is what often the problem.  In this case, we become what we believe.  We believe in the false gods, we become false man.  We believe in money, we become money machine.  We believe in God we become the image of God.  But I agree with Smith that we are not primarily a believing being.  But we are also not primarily a desiring being either.  The same way we are not primarily a thinking being, and thus correcting the rationalism philosophy set by Rene Descartes.  We are primarily a holistic being.  We think when we desire and believe and love at the same time.  We are all of that at once.  Nothing comes first, for they are all there at the same time.  In order for our desire to be in line with God’s desire, we need to learn through all those parts, the mind, the heart, the desire, and all of them altogether learn at the same time in the word of God.  Jesus says: “It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4).

Therefore, instead of over focusing on the education of our desire, pedagogy of desire, we need to educate the entire being holistically.  The education of the mind is as important as the education of the heart, and in the same way the education of our faith is as important as the education of our behavior.  When we think pedagogy, consequently, we cannot and must not think only a part of what human being is and just focus on that, but we must consider the entire being as a whole.  Our being is unique that our desire cannot be separated from our thinking and from our faith and from our love.  Hope this critique can give an important perspective on what has been published and accepted in the world of education, and also present an inherent problem with the thesis proposed by the idea of the pedagogy of desire, and thus get us to rethink what ought to be and not just basing our theory in education on what is.  Honestly, I am greatly concerned with where the direction of our formal education is moving.  Formal education affects the way we do informal education indirectly – and therefore the entire realm of education will somehow be formalized.  And if education is conducted in such a way that is fragmented in nature, then I am worried that humans who undergo such kind of education will become fragmented beings.  Integrating the fragmented pieces are not easy, in fact it is almost an impossible work.  So, we better start thinking of bringing the understanding of integration and holistic education into the discussion of good education.

Here I rest my case.  For now…   Shalom.