Working From Within for a Curriculum of Nonviolence: Shadow Work and Daoist Interdependence

• In Event: Theorizing Nonviolence and Peace in Curriculum Studies: International Conversations on Interdependence in a Worldwide Pandemic

Abstract

Purpose:
This presentation draws upon the notion of Daoist interdependence and the Jungian notion of integrating shadow to transform the inner landscape of curriculum for, about, and through nonviolence. By negotiating a dialogue between Daoism and Jungian theory, curriculum scholars/practitioners can reach in-depth and international understandings of psychosocial dynamics towards a curriculum philosophy of nonviolence. This work from within is essential for cultivating inner and outer peace and working for equity in education.

Perspectives
Jungian theory and Daoism are doubled lenses for this presentation. They offer complementary and intersecting pathways for curriculum work from within for nonviolence. The shadow work is about integrating both the individual and the collective unconscious through individuation. Daoist interdependence provides a stronger framework for interconnectedness as the basis for personal cultivation, while the Yin-Yang dynamics is also about integrating opposites in an ongoing process.

Nonviolence is used as an educational concept here, rather than a political concept, and thus it centers personal cultivation as the site of curriculum to ground curriculum studies in its root.

Modes of inquiry
This is a philosophical inquiry.

Point of view
Daoist interdependence exists both at the individual and cosmic levels through Yin-Yang dynamics. The interactive and interconverting relationships between Yin and Yang unsettle any dualism and situate personal cultivation in the interdependence between the self and the universe. This worldview of interconnectedness cannot make enemies out of others and split the world. Daoist personhood, however, must also question the official ideology and transcends the self. While the shadow is not a Daoist language, the work of the Daoist self is rigorous in unlearning the mechanisms of control and domination through meditation and aesthetics. Francis Hsu’s (1983) discussions of repression and suppression will be discussed to demonstrate both the connections and differences between the Daoist and Jungian psyche.

Jung (1953) defines the shadow in a multiple sense: “By shadow I mean the ‘negative’ side of the personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide, together with the insufficiently developed functions and the contents of the personal unconscious’ (p. 66). Becoming aware of such multiple dimensions requires multiple types of nonviolence work: withdrawing shadow projections onto others; uncovering the potential often pushed away by social norms; and developing weaker functions to achieve balance. Implications here are for both individual persons and collective bodies. The contemporary post-Jungian theories address the complex of racism or sexism as cultural shadows; police brutality against Black lives is a good example.

Daoism explicitly discusses inner peace and nonviolence while Jung focuses more on lifting repression. Beyond the intellect, working from within transforms curriculum including the content and the process as well as uniting the end and means towards nonviolence.

Scholarly significance of the study
The combination of Chinese philosophy and European analytic psychology reminds us of the importance of inner and outer interdependence. Addressing the inner landscape of curriculum is imperative in today’s education, because shadow withdrawal through interdependence is the key for forming compassionate self-self and self-other relationships.

Author

• Hongyu Wang, Oklahoma State University - Tulsa