The Pedagogy of Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education

Part one

In Chapter 1 of this section, Roland White focuses on the philosophical discussion of compassion by thinkers such as Seneca, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and the Dalai Lama. He contrasts the largely negative view of compassion in Western philosophy with non-Western perspectives which affirm its positive value in a life well-lived. He then goes on to examine the place of compassion in education arguing for its recovery. This is a helpful review which argues for a return to “the intimacy of the student–teacher relationship”, focusing on the particularity of the student and his or her needs. White recognizes that compassion is usually connected to response to suffering, which of course may not be evident in any particular student. Nonetheless, student life precisely involves personal growth, and therefore over three years or so may involve struggle or suffering. This raises issues about the integrity of HE familial and community care, not least how teaching and research connect to student support services.

In the next chapter, Bruce Maxwell focuses on the educational goal of fostering compassion and cognate “traits”. This fits naturally with professional and practical ethics where compassion is a professional attribute, not simply a personal, focused in care and also a key element in ethical sensitivity and judgement. The impetus for this can be seen as emerging from the work of Martha Nussbaum with a range of educational approaches ranging from the study of novels and poems, role playing and drama, interactive perspective-taking exercises, direct contact with stakeholders, video games and reflective writing. The chapter argues that empathic disposition is assumed in most pedagogic theory, and the focus on this theory corrects forms of empathic décalage (involving consistently weak of over emphasized empathy).

The final chapter in this section from Kathryn Waddington goes deep and takes us beyond simply pedagogy. The key idea is the importance of critical reflexivity and the part that self-compassion plays in this. This forms the basis for a strong sense of compassion focused in self-kindness, common humanity and mindfulness. This provides a clear basis for pedagogy to be seen as a practise of care and for the university community as focused in a culture of care. Waddington is particularly interested in exploring how critical reflection can open up the “dark side” of university life.

The Section 1 provides a good starting point for reflecting on the meaning of compassion and how this might apply to the educational experience. Its biggest problems are around precise definition, not least a lack of clarity about how compassion relates to cognate terms. The rather narrow focus leads to terms such as “compassionate empathy” requiring attempts to distinguish the following two elements: compassion as involving actual response to suffering and empathy as simply fellow feeling. It is not clear what this adds to because the practise of empathy is assumed in compassion. Perhaps, more importantly it raises more questions than it answers. How, for instance, does compassion relate different kinds of love, not least agape, eros, philia or storgē (Tillich, 1954). The last of these involves familial love, which relates strongly to Newman’s views of the community of the university (Megone, 2005). Tillich notes the importance of all of these strands, something which reflects on HE. The familial is in one sense set in the context of eros which is focused in the attraction of research, learning, practise and creation. Hence, Florman (2013) can write about the existential pleasure of engineering. This provides a sense of identity, worth and purpose which forms the frame of the familial. The danger with compassion as a singular idea is that it becomes too general with development and learning as general activities. Hence, it becomes important for the idea to nestle in the particular meaning and worth of learning. The other problem with the discussion here is the little sense of compassion as a virtue, as distinct from simply goodness. Montaigne (2003, and see Shakespeare’s Tempest) argues that compassion is a virtue and that a key aspect of virtues is that they are practised in the context of a struggle, involving competing narratives and ends. There is something of this in Waddington’s piece. Hence, while I do not find the conceptual work totally convincing, it raises important questions, which means it has done its job. This applies especially to Waddington’s contribution. The psychological focus forces us to look at the dynamics of learning as directly related to personal growth and the development of the virtues and to the integrity of the university as a whole.

I found the Part 2 as less compelling. Irena Papadopoulos, Derek Maher, Labby Ramrathan, Kar-wai Tong and Abudullah Sahin do a good job in exploring different cultural views of compassion. The danger, however, is that such writing ends up focused largely on the justification of the faith in question being at the educational table. I would like to have seen more comparison between these faiths and non-faith views, precisely to show clearly what is brought to the table and a slightly more critical approach to the faiths in question. How, for instance, does the hierarchical view of Confucianism relate to the development of autonomy? Also it seems odd that there is no systematic review of a Judeo Christian position. Gibbs suggests that this is implicit in Part 1, but it is not clear. Nonetheless, there are some jewels amongst these chapters. I would highlight Sahin’s views on Islam and transformational pedagogy. This breaks through old stereotypes of Islamic education as indoctrination. Also Ramrathan extends the cultural focus to the social, political and cultural context of students, in this case, in South Africa. It is precisely in such context that the meaning of compassion emerges as part of engaging diverse narratives in practise. Papadopoulos locates her chapter in nurse education. It is less about particular culture and more about inter-cultural engagement, with interesting use of Nussbaum.

If the first two parts provide excellent scholarship and form the basis of a rich discussion about compassion and pedagogy, the final part brings it all together in practise, and this I think is the major contribution of this book. Some chapters broaden the focus and others go deep. The first two examine governance and leadership in higher education focused in a culture of compassion. At the heart of Nancy Billas’s chapter is the Charter for Compassion, a global movement which links compassion to human rights and peacebuilding (https://charterforcompassion.org/). She explores how this charter has been applied in different HE institutions in the States, and she also helpfully shows how the focus has to be worked out over the long term and in relation to the different stakeholders and disciplines. This is the basis for institutional as well as personal transformation and it raises the most important challenge of all. How can HE compassion-focused pedagogy be developed without a supportive community which understands the meaning and practise of compassion in relation to learning? Moreover, how can this community be supported by the institution of HE. This takes us into Barnett’s (2013) distinction between the idea and the institution of HE. This focus on complexity might well be tied to ideas of compassion.

Marilee Ludvik focuses on leadership and holism. Her integrative inquiry programme is focused in mindfulness and links to neuroscience. This importantly begins to engage underlying attitudes hinted at in White’s chapter, not least the assumption that compassion itself constitutes weak leadership. Ludvik valiantly engages this dispute, not least in her argument that compassion sets a positive attitude that radically affects how others are perceived. This in turn affects how possibilities are viewed. This is not the last word and needs to be linked into dialogue about servant leadership and leadership formation (Western, 2013). The theoretical underpinning also links back to the issues such as the relationship between eros (with a focus on creativity) and compassion and a focus on responsiveness. It also begins to challenge many of the assumptions underlying the modern university not least about leadership as focused in “the great man” (sic) rather than across the community.

Michalynos Zembylas then develops an interesting pedagogical framework which brings together these elements in the idea of critical compassion. Importantly, this reminds us that any sense of our own compassion may be based in worldviews or relationships which are problematic. It is perfectly possible for perceived compassion to be abusive (Robinson, 2007). Hence, the need to distinguish compassion from sentimentality and to critically examine the power relations in any expression of compassion.

Mary Koustelini then argues for the relevance of this to the development of learners as moral citizens. This is all part of critical reflection on the self in relationship be it personal, professional, political and so on. If that encourages us to look outwards then Theo Gilbert asks us to look what is under or in this case above, our noses and eye contact in teaching. This should really stop us teachers in our tracks. How do we and our students use eye contact? Gilbert notes the way in which eye contact and other body language is used in seminars and tutorials both to dominate and deny. This skilfully takes compassion from its one to one paradigm to a group. The role of the tutor then becomes quasi therapeutic, involving both awareness of how body language reflects the power dynamics of the group and the capacity to enable power to be shared. Once more, the experience of learning does not take place to part relationships and the development of psychological skills needed to develop these. Life skills are intimately involved in learning skills and can be used positively or negatively to affect the learning experience of all in the group. This reinforces the dictum that dialogue is not about discussion of propositions per se (what Bakhtin takes to be dialectic) but is rather ontological, involving whole relationships. This does two things. First, it reminds us that all teaching is “real life”. The assumption that learning is always abstract has little basis to it. In any seminar or tutorial, there is formation not just skills but of the capacity to build and maintain relationships including challenge, reflection and resilience. Gilbert has also developed research which examines the link of compassion on pedagogy.

For me, this is the big message of this book that pedagogy is not simply about the transmission of ideas but about enabling right relationships. These are the learning relationships which enable the person to take responsibility for ideas and values, and how they connect to the self and beyond and therefore to global responsibility.

In the end, I am left with a particular question. Is the focus on compassion in HE an important side show or is it central? Chapters such as Waddington’s and Gilbert’s show that it is not a side show, not least because effective learning at university inevitably involves personal engagement. Is it therefore central? The book makes an excellent case for this and therefore demands to be read. Compassion is viewed as central to the experience of learning and connects personal and wider social and citizenship development. This sets the base for significant dialogue which takes learning beyond integration and into inclusion.

For the wider community, I have a feeling the jury is still out, and this brings me back to questions around the Part 1. In sense, the focus on compassion relies upon assumptions about a number of different dispositions or virtues and how these relate to it. I suggest that it is these assumptions that need testing and explicating, allowing compassion to be seen as part of a wider approach to learning.