{"id":3667,"date":"2018-06-10T08:45:31","date_gmt":"2018-06-10T12:45:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalmattersjournal.ecdsdev.org\/?p=3667"},"modified":"2018-09-12T16:23:02","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T20:23:02","slug":"encountering-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/2018\/06\/10\/encountering-others\/","title":{"rendered":"Encountering Others Through Compassion: Tough Values, Moral Challenges, and Religious Education"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Download PDF: Park, Encountering Others Through Compassion<\/a><\/h5>\n
\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

The purpose of this article is to propose a pedagogy of compassion based on a reinterpretation of historical and contemporary understandings of compassion and on critical dialogues between three education philosophers and a practical theologian: John Dewey, Paulo Freire, Henry A. Giroux, and Mary Elizabeth Moore. This article is composed of four sections. The first two parts build upon the critical dialogue between historical works of compassion and contemporary perspectives on the ethics of compassion and present five ways of defining compassion: as suffering with, as resistance, as reconciliation, as forgiveness, and as peaceful co-existence. The third part provides concepts from critical pedagogy by engaging three education philosophers: Henry A. Giroux, John Dewey, and Paulo Freire. The fourth section provides pedagogical wisdom to embody such critical pedagogical concepts by introducing Mary Elizabeth Moore\u2019s process-relational insights. Based on the critical dialogue between these three education philosophers and a practical theologian, I conclude that a pedagogy of compassion is about cultivating a way of being in the world with critical awareness of power-differential, unique histories, and political differences.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Through the cultivation of compassion, religious education can contribute to resolving conflicts caused by differences.[1]<\/a> Historically, the scholarly literature on compassion tends to take a compartmentalized approach by characterizing compassion as either a virtue, an emotion, or a duty\/obligation.[2]<\/a> Although each concept is grounded in historical, philosophical, and theological metaphors, no individual concept adequately addresses the issues that emerge in intercultural encounters with the Other, such as those that occur through transnational migration.[3]<\/a> A compartmentalized approach limits the embodiment of compassion in the classroom. Contemporary studies on compassion tend to resist monolithic descriptions and instead view compassion as a holistic process that encompasses emotional, behavioral, psychological, social, ethical, physical, and religious components.[4]<\/a> In this article, I redefine compassion as a holistic way of being in the world and participating in others\u2019 suffering through an ongoing process of openness and mindfulness towards the other<\/em>\u2014socially, psychologically, spiritually, and ethically<\/em>. Based on this revised definition of compassion, I propose two key issues in the pedagogy of compassion: (i) how we expand the circle of compassion and (ii) how we embody compassion by integrating its psychological and behavioral aspects.<\/p>\n

The primary purpose of this article is to propose a pedagogy of compassion based on a reinterpretation of historical and contemporary understandings of compassion and on critical dialogues between three education philosophers and a practical theologian: John Dewey, Paulo Freire, Henry A. Giroux, and Mary Elizabeth Moore. This article is composed of four sections. The first two parts build upon the critical dialogue between historical works of compassion and contemporary perspectives on the ethics of compassion and present five ways of defining compassion: as suffering with, as resistance, as reconciliation, as forgiveness, and as peaceful co-existence. The third part provides concepts from critical pedagogy by engaging three education philosophers: Henry A. Giroux, John Dewey, and Paulo Freire. In particular, I draw on three theoretical concepts developed by educators: Henry A. Giroux\u2019s border pedagogy, John Dewey\u2019s intersubjective transformation in learning, Paulo Freire\u2019s understanding of Conscientization. The fourth section provides pedagogical wisdom to embody such critical pedagogical concepts by introducing Mary Elizabeth Moore\u2019s process-relational insights. Based on the critical dialogue between these three education philosophers and a practical theologian, I conclude that a pedagogy of compassion is about cultivating a way of being in the world with critical awareness of power-differential, unique histories, and political differences.<\/p>\n

A Brief Overview of Historical Views on Compassion<\/h3>\n

Although compassion is at the heart of the Christian tradition, the ways Christians have articulated compassion throughout history differ and contain some ambiguity.[5]<\/a> The Oxford English Dictionary<\/em> defines compassion as \u201csuffering together with another, participation in suffering.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a> The linguistic root of compassion is cum<\/em>–passio.<\/em> Passio<\/em> means \u201cto suffer\u201d and cum<\/em> means \u201cwith.\u201d Put together, compassion means \u201cto suffer with<\/em>.\u201d The early Christians viewed compassion as morally ambiguous because many of them believed that relating compassionately to the suffering of others required feeling emotion passionately<\/em>.[7]<\/a> This emotional aspect of compassion was considered a serious threat to the ascetic ideal exemplified by the \u201cmonks, nuns, and spiritual elite\u201d who dedicated themselves to the pursuit of \u201cemotional tranquility,\u201d whether in isolation or in religious communities.[8]<\/a> The idealization of their emotional tranquility therefore produced a tension between the virtue of compassion and Christian life. Among those influenced by this view of the passions was Augustine (d. 430).[9]<\/a> Ambivalence between asceticism and compassion, passion and Christian life, and emotion and action is reflected in his early writings in the Confessions<\/em>.[10]<\/a> After 40 years of grappling with the tension, however, he came to believe that because Christians feel the passions in the context of God, they are not distracted by the passions as pagans are.[11]<\/a> The passions in Christian contexts lead to the practice of virtue and should be cherished for their ethical purpose.[12]<\/a> Augustine writes: \u201cBecause such a Christian morality was inherently different from that of the Stoics; the emotions the Christian experienced served a specific ethical purpose.\u201d[13]<\/a> These emotions allow us to be responsible to Christian life as long as they arise in the context of Christian love.[14]<\/a> How, then, did Augustine turn from avoiding emotions to acknowledging the key role emotions play in compassion and Christian life? Scholars believe that this shift occurred after he made peace with his grief over the deaths of his friend and his mother.[15]<\/a> This grief, he concluded, had shaped him in an essential way. In contrast to the ideal of the passionless wise man who was unaffected by grief, Augustine had learned to embrace emotion.[16]<\/a> Augustine\u2019s turn from emotionless tranquility to affective compassion can be viewed as an \u201caffective transformation.\u201d[17]<\/a> The definition of compassion we see in the City of God\u2014<\/em>\u201ca kind of sympathy in our heart for the suffering of another that surely compels us to help as much as we can\u201d\u2014was the next development of compassion after Augustine\u2019s \u201caffective transformation.\u201d[18]<\/a> The Stoic ideal of the emotional tranquilly no longer seemed desirable or even possible to attain. Specifically, the idea of the impassive wise man failed because \u201c[h]is refusal to engage emotionally signaled his unwillingness to offer aid to the afflicted.\u201d[19]<\/a>  Feelings in the Christian life should be \u201cthe virtuous motivation for ethical deeds.\u201d[20]<\/a> Therefore, in the City of God,<\/em> Augustine suggests that \u201c[t]he sympathy (\u2018compassio\u2019) we feel for another human being motivates us to act compassionately to alleviate suffering.\u201d[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

Augustine\u2019s affective turn, as I have described above, parallels a contemporary movement toward holistic approaches to compassion. Augustine\u2019s effort to consolidate feelings and actions (i.e., to produce compassionate behavior) have moral implications for education today because the kind of compassion we need does not involve a separation between how we feel and how we act, but is an embodied <\/em>compassion, or a praxis <\/em>that connects the emotional aspect of compassion (i.e., feeling other people\u2019s suffering) and the behavioral component (the action that follows the feeling). This affective turn is also expanded by contemporary scholars who strive to find ways to enlarge the scope of compassion to include cultural, geographic, and religious others. In the following section, I discuss how contemporary scholars express this continuing effort to (i) embody compassion and (ii) expand compassion.<\/p>\n

Five Contemporary Themes of Compassion<\/h3>\n

Despite differences in nuance, the Christian theological vocabulary of compassion has five recurring themes: compassion as suffering with, compassion as resistance, compassion as reconciliation, compassion as forgiveness, and compassion as peaceful co-existence. First, many contemporary theologians, including feminist, process, and Latin American liberation theologians, describe compassion as suffering with<\/em>.[22]<\/a> In this understanding, God is portrayed as a loving God who suffers with humans and is moved by their suffering, as opposed to what Aristotle calls an \u201cunmoved mover.\u201d For example, Elizabeth A. Johnson depicts the Creator Spirit as participating in the creation\u2019s suffering:<\/p>\n

Love who is the Creator Spirit participates in the world\u2019s destiny. She can be grieved (Eph 4:30); she can even be quenched (1 Thes 5:19). When creation groans in labor pains and we do too (Rom 8:22-23), the Spirit is in the groaning and in the midwifing that breathes rhythmically along and cooperates in the birth. In other words, in the midst of the agony and delight of the world the Creator Spirit has the character of compassion.[23]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The theme of compassion as suffering with <\/em>is explored in the description of the divine-human relationship. In his investigation of the Hebrew words and etymologies related to compassion in the Old Testament, Oliver Davies argues that \u201ccompassion as a unified concept, unequivocally implying \u2018suffering with,\u2019 is more modern in kind.\u201d[24]<\/a> Building upon Davies\u2019 analysis, Sung-jin Yang explains that \u201cthe meaning of compassion<\/em> in the OT is also associated with the present meaning of the word \u2018compassion,\u2019 meaning \u2018to suffer with.\u2019\u201d[25]<\/a> Yang expands the analysis to show that references to God in the Old Testament reveal the compassionate and merciful attributes of God, whose compassion resembles that of \u201ca father or mother for his or her children.\u201d[26]<\/a>   <\/p>\n

Second, contemporary theologians understand compassion as resistance<\/em>.[27]<\/a> Wendy Farley, for example, argues that God is present and active through divine compassion that empowers human beings to resist radical suffering. Participating in the compassion of God, humans experience God\u2019s love as a power or a force that empowers people to resist injustice.[28]<\/a> Compassion is manifested as an active resistance to evil and suffering that strives for healing and God\u2019s communion with the world. Attesting to the power of compassion in history, Farley points out the moments of effective compassion in history\u2014occasions of redemption, healing, and empowerment: \u201cCompassion is love as it encounters suffering.\u201d[29]<\/a> Divine compassion is to be found wherever compassion resists radical suffering. In this sense, interhuman compassion is intimately related to divine compassion because it is the source of interhuman compassion.<\/p>\n

Third, the theme of compassion as reconciliation for communal healing <\/em>is promoted by many contemporary theologians, including Latin American liberation theologians and Asian feminist theologians. By arguing that God is a compassionate liberator of the oppressed, Gustavo Guti\u00e9rrez perceives Christ as the one who brings liberation from the sin of all kinds of injustice and oppression.[30]<\/a> The Asian feminist theologian Kwok Pui-lan argues that in Asia, \u201cwhere many people are struggling to acquire basic necessities and human dignity, God is often seen as the compassionate one, listening to the people\u2019s cries and empowering them to face life\u2019s adversities.\u201d[31]<\/a> God\u2019s love is shown in the embrace of human beings for who they are regardless of their location, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, or originality. <\/p>\n

Fourth, contemporary theologians understand compassion as forgiveness<\/em>. Marjorie Suchocki maintains that forgiveness is \u201cwilling the well-being of victim(s) and violator(s) in the context of the fullest possible knowledge of the nature of the violation.\u201d[32]<\/a> Forgiveness is an essential form of compassion because \u201cforgiveness holds the possibility of breaking the chain of violence.\u201d[33]<\/a> Defining compassion as a wish for the well-being of the other, Suchocki connects it to the Christian interpretation of passion:<\/p>\n

This is compassion, a \u201cfeeling with\u201d that at the same time longs and works for the well-being of the other and therefore the self. Such a dynamic may well underlie the Christian interpretation of Christ on the cross identifying with all sin and sinners, and therefore able to redeem all sinners from sin. Conformity with the sin is an essential step in transformation.[34]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For Suchoki, the notion of forgiveness as compassion corresponds to the Christian understanding of sin.<\/p>\n

Lastly, Christian theologians also understand compassion as a peaceful co-existence<\/em> that incorporates a radical inclusion of the marginalized, including the natural world. Citing Albert Einstein, Frank R. Ascione and Phil Arkow emphasize the task of widening the circle of compassion to all living beings: \u201cOur task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion<\/em> to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.\u201d[35]<\/a> Johnson also argues that the Creator Spirit encourages humans to be \u201cco-creators\u201d of compassion.[36]<\/a> \u201cMoved by this Spirit [of compassion],\u201d Johnson writes, \u201chuman beings are similarly configured to compassion, taught to be co-creators who enter the lists on behalf of those who suffer, to resist and creatively transform the powers that destroy.\u201d[37]<\/a> Expanding the circle of compassion would \u201crejoin us to the cosmic covenant made after the biblical flood \u2018between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth,\u2019 and whose sign is the rainbow (Gen 9:8-17).\u201d[38]<\/a> Widening the circle of compassion to all creatures is one of our responsibilities as co-partners with the Creator Spirit. Likewise, Carter Heyward connects the themes of sexuality, love, and justice: \u201cOur passion as lovers is what fuels both our rage at injustice\u2014including that which is done to us\u2014and our compassion, or our passion, which is on behalf of\/in empathy with those who violate us and hurt us and would even destroy us.\u201d[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

These five themes of compassion not only describe the human finitude and vulnerability (compassion as suffering with) but also promote the sense of justice and moral obligation by describing compassion as resistance and reconciliation. They also underline the task of forgiveness and present a social vision of peaceful co-existence. Such tasks of compassion are particularly urgent in context of transnational migration where there are increasing contact with social, religious, and cultural others<\/em>. In the following section, I make a transition to further explore compassion from pedagogical perspectives.<\/p>\n

Border Pedagogy, Education, and Social Justice<\/h3>\n

Border pedagogy, according to Giroux, aims to develop a public pedagogy that \u201crespects the notion of difference as part of a common struggle to extend the quality of public life.\u201d[40]<\/a> Giroux believes that the concept of border \u201csignals a recognition of those epistemological, political, cultural, and social margins that structure the language of history, power, and difference.\u201d[41]<\/a> Such recognition implies that \u201cexisting borders forged in domination can be challenged and redefined.\u201d[42]<\/a> The notion of border, in this sense, indicates pedagogical processes in a society where members of a community become \u201cborder crossers\u201d to understand each other\u2019s differences and embrace otherness. For example, a Muslim refugee who is a lower class, religious and racial minority can become a cultural worker who expands the existing values of an individual from a middle class, suburban neighborhood. In this context, the strengths and limitations of socially constructed values become visible.[43]<\/a> Citing Richard Kearney, Giroux argues: \u201c[Border pedagogy] highlights the ethical by examining how the shifting relations of knowing, acting, and subjectivity are constructed in spaces and social relationships based on judgments that demand and frame \u201cdifferent modes of response to the other.\u201d[44]<\/a> Students, as border-crossers, engage in knowledge  \u201cas people moving in and out of borders constructed around coordinates of difference and power.\u201d[45]<\/a><\/p>\n

Emphasizing the task of challenging \u201cmystifying ideologies that separate culture from power,\u201d Giroux presents three tasks of \u201ccritical educators.\u201d[46]<\/a> The first task of critical educators is to uncover the political implications of cultural differences. By doing so, critical educators challenge belief systems that confuse convenient racial and ethnic categories. The second task of critical educators is to resist the view that considers education as taking place in a \u201cdecontextualized site free from social, political, and racial tensions.\u201d[47]<\/a> Interpreting issues of voice, language and culture in education requires the awareness of the political power at work. The third task of critical educators is to critically evaluate theories of education that \u201csmother the relationship between difference and power\/empowerment under the call for harmony and joyful learning.\u201d[48]<\/a> Critical educators need to facilitate the advancement of theories on difference that considers the issues of struggle, domination, and power. Giroux argues that in addition to reconceptualizing \u201cthe political and pedagogical struggle over race, ethnicity, and difference as merely part of the language of critique,\u201d an anti-racist pedagogy needs to \u201cretrieve and reconstruct possibilities for establishing the basis for a progressive vision that makes schooling for democracy and critical citizenship an unrealized yet possible reality.\u201d[49]<\/a> Such task makes it possible to develop foundational principles for an anti-racist pedagogy.<\/p>\n

As a prominent philosopher in critical pedagogy, Giroux is influenced by John Dewey and Paulo Freire, among many others. As a pragmatist, Dewey was keen in reading the reality that influences educational processes in his own time. In his 1934 article, he writes:<\/p>\n

The world is being rapidly industrialized. Individual groups, tribes and races, once living completely untouched by the economic regime of modern capitalistic industry, now find almost every phase of their lives affected by its expansion . . . The other especially urgent need is connected with the present unprecedented wave of nationalistic sentiment, of racial and national prejudice, of readiness to resort to force of arms.[50]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the context of rapidly growing industrialization, war, nationalism and prevalent racial and social prejudices, Dewey believes that reconstructing \u201cthe spirit of common understanding, of mutual sympathy and goodwill among all peoples and races\u201d and \u201cexorcise[ing] the demon of prejudice, isolation and hatred\u201d are primary goals of education.[51]<\/a> In order to address the pedagogical task, Dewey gives special attention to the importance of cultivating virtues, calling it \u201cthe social aim of education.\u201d[52]<\/a> Dewey writes:<\/p>\n

The school must make ceaseless and intelligently organized effort to develop above all else the will for cooperation and the spirit which sees in every other individual an equal right to share in the cultural and material fruits of collective human invention, industry, skill and knowledge.[53]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For Dewey, democratic virtues such as \u201cintelligent sympathy\u201d play essential roles in an individual\u2019s life. He writes: \u201cSympathy as a desirable quality is something more than feeling. It is a cultivated imagination for what men [sic<\/em>] have in common and a rebellion at whatever unnecessarily divided them.\u201d[54]<\/a> Intelligent sympathy prepares individuals to respond to the social responsibility by equipping them with inner potential. Although Dewey did not suggest that such democratic virtues, by themselves, are sufficient in promoting the social aim of education, he saw the potential that such virtues contribute to moral responsibility and benevolence.[55]<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite some controversies of Dewey\u2019s philosophies of education, scholars uphold Dewey\u2019s educational theory and find it relevant to today\u2019s educational context.[56]<\/a> Dewey\u2019s concept of educational experience contributes to what Javier S\u00e1enz Obreg\u00f3n calls \u201cinter-subjective transformation\u201d for teachers, which invites both teachers and<\/em> students to the educational experience. As he argues that the goal of education is realizing individuals\u2019 \u201cutmost potentialities,\u201d Dewey implies that this goal could be applied to teachers as well as students. Teachers, like students, are the \u201csubjects of educational experience,\u201d and that we must learn to apply to teachers the same aspirations we have for students.[57]<\/a> In particular, pedagogical practices should promote \u201cinter-subjective transformation\u201d for teachers and students alike.[58]<\/a> Dewey\u2019s emphases on \u201cself-reflection and self-creation\u201d could be applied to teachers who are also participants of the learning processes.[59]<\/a><\/p>\n

Overall, Dewey\u2019s goal to develop a peaceful and democratic culture is still an enduring task in our present time. As Andres English argues, Dewey\u2019s concept of \u201cstruggle in learning\u201d has influenced definitions of learning and of learning\u2019s beginning point in contemporary education. The condition of \u201cin-between of learning\u201d [60]<\/a>\u2014being beyond ignorance but not yet in possession of full knowledge\u2014is uncomfortable and difficult, but it offers rich possibilities for reflective thinking for learners and teachers who are willing to undertake the \u201cdaunting task of pedagogical reconstruction in the face of changing realities.\u201d[61]<\/a><\/p>\n

Among the educational philosophers who are influenced by Dewey is Paulo Freire who also emphasizes the importance of co-learning and co-creating of knowledge. The traditional \u201cbanking\u201d education\u2014where learners are regarded as passive recipients of knowledge\u2014inhibits the \u201cemergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality\u201d which is required for cultivating compassion.[62]<\/a>  In \u201cbanking education,\u201d learners are \u201cdocile listeners\u201d who mechanically memorize and reproduce information.[63]<\/a> Therefore, Freire promotes the co-creation of knowledge where learners are \u201ccritical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher.\u201d[64]<\/a> In this Conscientization process, \u201cthe teacher presents the material to the students for their consideration, and re-considers her earlier considerations as the students express their own.\u201d[65]<\/a> Students begin to recognize social, political, or economic oppression and act to eliminate it. In this sense, both teachers and learners are active co-participants of the learning process.<\/p>\n

Freire\u2019s movement toward the process of Conscientization\u2014a process in which learners become aware of socio-political and economic oppressions and act to transform it\u2014provides profound insights to critical pedagogy aimed at social transformation. First, Freire maintains that action and reflection should occur at the same time. For him, critical reflection is also action, and vice versa. This is because Conscientization is a continuous process that begins with the recognition<\/em> of oppressive situation which is followed by an<\/em> action<\/em> to transform the oppressive situation. Conscientization requires facing one\u2019s deep-seated prejudice, stereotype, and traumatic memories that hinders one from practicing compassion. Second, Freire emphasizes the \u201csitualitionality\u201d of learners and teachers where they are placed in a particular situation: \u201cHuman beings are<\/em> because they are<\/em> in a situation. And they will be more<\/em> [who they are], the more they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it.\u201d[66]<\/a> The fact that teachers and learners are situated in a particular social historical context does not mean that the relationship between the two is stagnant. Consequentially, Freire believes both teachers and learners should constantly examine their realities. \u201cIn order for the oppressed to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation,\u201d Freire writes, \u201cthey must perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed world from which there is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform.\u201d[67]<\/a> The critical analyses of realities should motivate individuals to resist oppression and create an avenue to participate in social transformation.<\/p>\n

Third, Freire recognizes the value of creative energy to name the wrong and change the world. Freire believe that inculcation of knowledge \u201canesthetizes and inhibits creative power\u201d whereas \u201cproblem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality.\u201d[68]<\/a> This \u201ccreative power\u201d enables learners to critically intervene in reality. This is why Freire believes \u201cto the oppressor consciousness, the humanization of the \u2018others,\u2019 of the people, appears not as the pursuit of full humanity, but as subversion.\u201d[69]<\/a> For Freire, the essential part of the Conscientization process is learners equipping the ability to decode their situations and see themselves as the subject of the learning process.<\/p>\n

Freire introduces three elements of critical pedagogies: critical re\ufb02ection, dialogue and action. Freire believes that the goal of critical pedagogy is to encourage learners to challenge social inequalities and ultimately transform the oppression. In order to achieve these goals, Freire believes that dialogue and subsequent action should be rooted in critical reflection, which involves active participation, ethical passion toward common human flourishing, critical insight that penetrates surface meanings, and compassion towards humanity. \u201cDialogue with the people is radically necessary to every authentic revolution. This is what makes it a revolution, as distinguished from a military coup.<\/em>\u201d[70]<\/a> Ira Shor aptly summarizes critical pedagogy as \u201cHabits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clich\u00e9s, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse.\u201d[71]<\/a><\/p>\n

Essentially, Freire\u2019s contribution to the contemporary education can be summarized in the following concepts: praxis<\/em> and radical love<\/em>. According to Freire, praxis<\/em> is a \u201creflection and action upon the world in order to transform it\u201d and radical love<\/em> is a \u201ccommitment to others.\u201d[72]<\/a> In order to resist oppression, the \u201cact of love\u201d is essential because it is a \u201ccommitment to their cause\u2013 the cause of liberation.\u201d[73]<\/a> Through this process of intervention and re-intervention, human beings can participate in the betterment of the world through education. <\/p>\n

Embodying Compassion: Towards Pedagogy of Compassion<\/h3>\n

 The three figures in critical pedagogy\u2014John Dewey, Paulo Freire, and Henry A. Giroux\u2014contribute to expand pedagogical wisdom to the social and public realm outside the classroom. This section further explores the theme of social justice and education, focusing on the practical ways to embody the pedagogical concepts proposed by the three philosophers of education. Maxine Greene argues that teaching for social justice entails teaching \u201cenhanced perception and imaginative explorations\u201d that enables recognizing social wrongs and sufferings.[74]<\/sup><\/a> It is to teach a way of being in the world with an increased sense of \u201cthe joy of working for transformation in the smallest places, so that they [students] may become healers and change their world.\u201d[75]<\/a> As a practical theologian and a religious educator, Mary Elizabeth Moore provides practical and concrete ways to embody the critical pedagogical concepts of social justice teaching. Throughout her scholarship, Moore shows the praxis of compassion based on the process-relational assumption that people are always in process. Moore proposes imagination as one essential way to cultivate compassion.[76]<\/a> In her essay \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d Moore provides five ways to cultivate imagination: Seeking Goodness, Seeking Transcendence\u2014Seeking Goodness, Touching the Unknown, Intimate Knowing, Knowing the Stranger and the Unfamiliar, and Imagining and Responding to the Possible.[77]<\/a> With \u201cseeking goodness,\u201d Moore refers to the teleological direction of educational practices that \u201cenable people to discover and analyze forces of goodness and evil, and those practices that stir vision and equip people with skills to enhance the common good.\u201d[78]<\/a> Moore\u2019s search for goodness in education resonates with the work of Paulo Freire, which I explore in more detail later. By \u201cseeking transcendence\u2014touching the unknown,\u201d Moore refers to \u201ctranscending limits of an evil social system, transcending narrow understandings of humanity (and \u2018we-ness\u2019), and transcending one way of living in order to dwell in transition and emerge in a new way.\u201d[79]<\/a> Practices of \u201cintimate knowing\u201d refers to practices that lead people to \u201cengage deeply with the fullness of other individuals and communities, other parts of the cosmos, empirical data, and complex ideas.\u201d[80]<\/a>  \u201cKnowing the stranger and the unfamiliar\u201d refers to \u201cencouraging people to know the stranger and the unfamiliar.\u201d[81]<\/a> Finally, \u201cimagining and responding to the possible,\u201d refers to the educators\u2019 duty to \u201cengage students in envisioning alternate futures.\u201d[82]<\/a> For the purposes of this article, I discuss the practices of \u201cintimate knowing\u201d and \u201cknowing the stranger and the unfamiliar\u201d in detail. These two ways to cultivate imagination will ground my discussion of Moore\u2019s process-relational theology of compassion.<\/p>\n

When Moore argues that \u201cintimate knowing\u201d is a requirement for cultivating imagination, she understands that intimate knowing requires \u201cattendances to particularity, to relationships within the web of life, and to the cultivation of appreciative consciousness.\u201d[83]<\/a> This definition of \u201cintimate knowing\u201d shows practical and concrete ways to embody the praxis of compassion. Moore believes that traditional educational methods tend to \u201cneglect to strengthen habits of concrete appreciation of the individual facts in their full interplay of emergent values\u201d as well as \u201cengagement with particular people, beings, observations, and ideas.\u201d[84]<\/a> These emphases on particularity and local contexts are discussed in her essays \u201cImagine Peace: Knowing the Real-Imagining the Impossible\u201d and \u201cEthnic Diversity and Biodiversity: Richness at the Center of Education.\u201d[85]<\/a> In \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d Moore expands Whitehead\u2019s emphases on the balance between \u201cintellectual analysis\u201d and argues that \u201c[intimate knowing] includes relating with others from the deep marrow of human experience.\u201d[86]<\/a> Moore explains that \u201cthe creation of safe spaces\u201d is necessary for people to experiment with new relationships and new ideas within small communities so that these new way of being can be embodied in larger communities.[87]<\/a><\/p>\n

Practices of \u201cknowing the stranger and the unfamiliar\u201d help to enlarge the circle of compassion in practice.[88]<\/a> This practice presupposes \u201ccrossing cultural, geographic, religious, and age boundaries.\u201d[89]<\/a> Encounters with the neighbor and stranger, the familiar and unfamiliar, according to Moore, are an essential part of education because such encounters \u201cstir imagination by opening new windows of experience from which people can draw as they face the particularities of their own lives and their participation in the larger world day by day.\u201d[90]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is important to note here that Moore bases this practice on the notion of intersubjective relationship. Moore believes that knowing the unfamiliar requires \u201cgenuine, life-changing interactions and the deep knowing that emerges from them.\u201d[91]<\/a> To elaborate this point, Moore provides three potential dangers of encountering the unknown. First, Moore warns of the danger of collecting otherness as an object to be accumulated, admired, laughed at, or pitied. Objectifying the other is dangerous because such encounters often ignore power differentials.[92]<\/a> This attitude can end up externalizing others and taking agency away from them. Therefore, Moore points out the danger of \u201cboundary-crossing education\u201d as the second potential danger in encountering others: \u201cIf knowing has to do with relating with the world in a deep and responsive way, then our relationships need to be permeated with awareness and critical response to differentials in power, as well as differentials in language, style, arts, and rituals.\u201d[93]<\/a> Building such relation-based knowing is possible when we ask \u201cmuch of the knowers and<\/em> the known, including a redress of inequalities and a movement toward equality and interdependence.\u201d[94]<\/a> These questions include asking about \u201creal people\u201d who are affected by religious and cultural traditions, worldwide political and economic patterns, and multifaceted web relationships.[95]<\/a> Third, Moore warns of the danger of teaching people that encountering the stranger and the unfamiliar involves \u201can encounter with a radical other, which may or may not affect learners.\u201d[96]<\/a> This disengaging way of thinking otherness, according to Moore, is based on the assumption that otherness is a \u201csubstantive, nonchanging, and external\u201d entity.[97]<\/a> Instead, borrowing Carl Sterkens\u2019 argument, Moore maintains that we should approach the other by \u201crecognizing that diversity exists both within and beyond individuals\u2019 experience.\u201d[98]<\/a><\/p>\n

For Moore, these practices of cultivating imagination can contribute to igniting an imagination of global peace and justice. To this end, Moore provides four aspects of Whiteheadian cosmology: visions of peace, inheritance and novelty, open future, and overcoming dualisms\u2014converting opposition into contrast.<\/p>\n

[Peace] is a broadening of feeling due to the emergence of some deep metaphysical insight, unverbalized and yet momentous in its coordination of values. Its first effect is the removal of the stress of acquisitive feeling arising from the soul\u2019s preoccupation with itself. Thus peace carries with it a surpassing of personality \u2026 It results in a wider sweep of conscious interest. It enlarges the field of attention. Thus Peace is self-control at its widest\u2014at the width where the \u201cself\u201d has been lost, and interest has been transferred to coordinations wider than personality.[99]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Moore\u2019s Whiteheadian analysis of peace recalls our definition of compassion as a holistic way of being in the world and participating in others\u2019 suffering with an ongoing process of openness and mindfulness towards the other<\/em>\u2014socially, psychologically, spiritually, and ethically<\/em>. First, Moore encourages teachers to cultivate \u201cexpectation and wonder\u201d because \u201cPeace is not a thing to be taught, but a gift to be expected and received.\u201d[100]<\/a> Moore implies that cultivating peace is about cultivating a way of being in the world, rather than teaching knowledge about peace. Moore in this sense resists relying on human reason and control.[101]<\/a> She believes that, and Freire would agree, the inculcation of information itself, for example on the cultural values of ethnic minorities, will not change people\u2019s attitude of racial prejudice.[102]<\/a> Second, Moore suggests that Peace \u201ccan be actively cultivated through active engagement with the world.\u201d[103]<\/a> When Moore describes teaching \u201cactive engagement with the world,\u201d she does not simply mean teaching students about justice and peace<\/em>; she demands change in \u201chow<\/em> we teach\u201d[104]<\/a>: \u201cEducation thus needs another kind of commitment, namely to embrace chaos, to risk destabilization, and to teach skills for living with the instability that emerges in the natural flow of life or in the intentional disruptions aimed at reshaping a stable but destructive situation.\u201d[105]<\/a> Third, Moore points out the realities of tragedy and the sensitivity to other\u2019s suffering in practicing Whiteheadian Peace: \u201cEach tragedy is the disclosure of an ideal\u2014What might have been, and was not: What can be.\u201d [106]<\/a> Moore believes that the tragedy was not meaningless as long as \u201cthe inner feeling belonging to this grasp of the service of tragedy is Peace.\u201d[107]<\/a> Fourth, Moore suggests \u201cdiscerning, analyzing, and even provoking destabilization\u201d as concrete ways to practice peace in education.[108]<\/a> It is important to note that Moore emphasizes the balance between \u201csome degrees of stability\u201d and \u201csome degrees of social change\u201d in order to promote global peace and flourishment.[109]<\/a> Through the balance and tension between the visions and skills that enable social change, one can cultivate  \u201ca broadening of feeling\u201d with the wider world. [110]<\/a><\/p>\n

Moor\u2019s attention to process-relational thought and imagination undergirds her commitment to pedagogies concerned with justice, peace, and compassion grounded in the particulars of practice and everyday life. To be specific, Moore fundamentally believes that the person is constantly changing. Her process view of the person does not mean, however, that the person is situated outside a particular social, cultural, economic context. Rather, the fact that a person is constantly changing requires attention to the interconnectedness of contexts. She calls for educators to build compassionate relationships with learners, embodying justice, peace, and compassion in the classroom, rather than focusing on the inculcation of knowledge. Moore calls this \u201cteaching from the heart.\u201d[111]<\/a><\/p>\n

A critical conversation between Moore and three philosophers of education (Dewey, Freire, and Giroux) provides crucial insights for pedagogy of compassion in the context of transnational migration. First, applied to the context of transnational migration and practice of compassion, the move towards compassionate society does not begin from the policies and legal changes that are aimed at diversity; it begins from the mind-changing love. Second, practicing compassion requires revisiting the convenient value systems and cultural norms that one unconsciously use without any fundamental questioning. For example, in the context of transnational migration, dismantling the binary view of hospitality that views migrants only as passive recipients of hospitality can empower the migrants to become the agents of hospitality. One needs to realize that refugees and asylum seekers who are settling down in a country can also be the agents of compassion, not just passive recipients of it. Pedagogy of compassion in contexts of transnational migration denotes embodying the concepts of \u201cborder crossers\u201d in order to ethically examine one\u2019s own cultural locations, history, power and difference. It emphasizes looking at the dangers of \u201cliberal\u201d multiculturalist attitude that brackets the power-differential. Cultivating compassion in context of transnational migration is not<\/em> about making differences ahistorical or apolitical. Pedagogy of compassion is about cultivating the awareness to be<\/em> in the world as border crossers while engaging others with the deep understanding of one\u2019s own vulnerability and locationality.<\/p>\n

Feature photo by Creative Commons, CCO Public Domain.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Notes<\/h4>\n

[1]<\/a> Various religious educators have discussed the interconnection between religious education and compassion: see Courtney T. Goto, \u201cTeaching Love: Embodying Prophetic Imagination Through Clowning \u201c Religious Education<\/em> 111, no. 4 (2016): 398\u2013414; Frank Rogers, Jr., Practicing Compassion<\/em> (Nashville, TN: The Upper Room Books, 2014); Janet W. Parachin, \u201cEducating for an Engaged Spirituality: Dorothy Day and Thich Nhat Hanh as Spiritual Exemplars,\u201c Religious Education<\/em> 95, no. 3 (June 2000): 250\u201368. This article expands upon the existing research on compassion in practical theology and in particular, religious education.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Eric J. Cassell, \u201cCompassion,\u201d in The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology<\/em>, ed. Shane J. Lopez and C.R. Snyder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 394. <\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> This article follows Frantz Fanon\u2019s definition of the Other. See Black Skin, White Masks<\/em> (New York: Grove Press, 1967).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Despite some variations in language, researchers agree that compassion involves at least the following five aspects: cognitive (recognizing suffering), affective (a sense of concern), aspirational or motivational (a wish to relieve the suffering), attentional (focus and attention), and behavioral (an action that stems from compassion). See Paul Ekman, Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion: A Conversation between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman<\/em> (New York: Times Books, 2008); Paul Gilbert, Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy <\/em>(London: Routledge, 2005); Kristin Neff, Self-Compassion: The Proven Power of Being Kind to Yourself<\/em> (New York: HarperCollins, 2011); C. Daniel Batson, Nadia Ahmad, and David A. Lishner, \u201cEmpathy and Altruism,\u201c in The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology<\/em>, 417-426.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Susan Wessel, Passion and Compassion in Early Christianity<\/em>, 1st ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 2.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> \u201cCompassion,\u201d in The Oxford English Dictionary,<\/em> 2nd ed., J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1340.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Wessel, Passion and Compassion, <\/em>2.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography<\/em>, 45th anniversary ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 9-10.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Wessel, Passion and Compassion,<\/em> 121. <\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Augustine, The City of God<\/em> 9.5<\/em>, trans. Marcus Dods (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishing, 2009).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Augustine, The City of God 9.4.<\/em><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Augustine, The City of God 9.5.<\/em><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> On the bond among human beings as articulated in Augustine, see Raymond Canning, The Unity of Love for God and Neighbor in St. Augustine <\/em>(Leuven: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1993), 42-43.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> On the discussion of Augustine\u2019s \u201caffective turn,\u201d see Wessel, Passion and Compassion, <\/em>115-120.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> James Wetzel, Augustine and the Limits of Virtue <\/em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 110.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Ibid., 115; Wessel, Passion and Compassion.<\/em><\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Augustine, The City of God 9.5.<\/em><\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Wessel, Passion and Compassion,<\/em> 114.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Ibid, 118.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> See Swinton, Raging with Compassion<\/em>: Pastoral Responses to the Problem of Evil<\/em> (Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007); Carter Heyward, Our Passion for Justice: Images of Power, Sexuality, and Liberation<\/em> (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984); Elizabeth A. Johnson, Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit<\/em> (New York: Paulist Press, 1993); John Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality<\/em> (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Johnson, Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit, <\/em>59.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Oliver Davies, A Theology of Compassion: Metaphysics of Difference and the Renewal of Tradition<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 108.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Sung-Jin Yang, \u201cCultivating Compassionate Living Grounded in a Christian Approach for a Korean Congregation\u201d (PhD diss., Claremont School of Theology, 2014), 113.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: A Contemporary Theodicy<\/em> (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990); Virginia Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye eds., With Passion and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology <\/em>(Eugune, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006).<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion.<\/em><\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Ibid., 79.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Gustavo Gutie\u0301rrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation<\/em> (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), 4.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Kwok Pui-lan, Introducing Asian Feminist Theology<\/em> (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2000), 66.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Marjorie Suchocki, The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology<\/em> (New York: Continuum, 1994), 144.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Ibid., 111.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Frank R. Ascione and Phil Arkow eds., Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention<\/em> (Purdue University Press, 1999), 7.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Johnson, Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit.<\/em><\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Ibid., 59.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Ibid., 49.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Heyward, Our Passion for Justice, <\/em>87.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Henry A. Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 1992), 28.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Ibid., 28-29.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> Ibid., 29.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Henry A. Giroux, \u201cPostmodernism as Border Pedagogy: Redefining the Boundaries of Race and Ethnicity,\u201d in Postmodernism, Feminism, and Cultural Politics: Redrawing Educational Boundaries<\/em>, ed. Henry A. Giroux (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1991), 217-256.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Ibid., 226. <\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> Ibid. <\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> Dewey, \u201cThe Need for a Philosophy of Education,\u201d Schools<\/em> 7 (1934): 244.<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> Ibid., 245.<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> Ibid., 244\u201345.<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> John Dewey, Democracy and Education<\/em> (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, INC, 2004), 116.<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> Steven C. Rockefeller, John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism<\/em> (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1991).<\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> David L. Hildebrand, Beyond Realism and Antirealism: John Dewey and the Neopragmatists <\/em>(Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2003); Thomas M. Alexander, \u201cDewey, Dualism, and Naturalism\u201d in A Companion to Pragmatism<\/em>, ed. John R. Shook and Joseph Margolis (Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 184\u201392; Eric Thomas Weber, \u201cDewey and Rawls on Education\u201d Human Studies<\/em> 31 (2008): 361\u201382. <\/p>\n

[57]<\/a> Javier S\u00e1enz Obreg\u00f3n, \u201cDewey and the Teaching Experience\u201d in Dewey in Our Time: Learning from John Dewey for Transcultural Practice<\/em>, ed. Peter Cunningham and Ruth Heilbronn (London: University College of London Institute of Education Press, 2016), 96.<\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> Jim Garrison, Stefan Neubert, and Kersten Reich, John Dewey\u2019s Philosophy of Education: An Introduction and Recontextualization for Our Times<\/em> (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 173-174.<\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> Andrea English, \u201cThe \u2018in-between\u2019 of Learning: (Re)valuing the Process of Learning\u201d in Dewey in Our Time: Learning from John Dewey for Transcultural Practice<\/em>, ed. Peter Cunningham and Ruth Heilbronn (London: University College of London Institute of Education Press, 2016), 129.<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> Christine E. Park, Review of Dewey in Our Time: Learning from John Dewey for Transcultural Practice<\/em>, by Peter Cunningham and Ruth Heilbronn, August 2017.<\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition<\/em> (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2014), 81.<\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> Ibid.  <\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[65]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[66]<\/a> Ibid., 109.<\/p>\n

[67]<\/a> Ibid., 49.<\/p>\n

[68]<\/a> ibid., 81.<\/p>\n

[69]<\/a> Ibid., 59.<\/p>\n

[70]<\/a> Ibid., 109.<\/p>\n

[71]<\/a> Ira. Shor, Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change<\/em> (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 129.<\/p>\n

[72]<\/a> Ibid., 51, 89.<\/p>\n

[73]<\/a> Ibid., 89.<\/p>\n

[74]<\/a> Maxine Greene, \u201cIntroduction: Teaching for Social Justice,\u201d in Teaching for Social Justice<\/em>, ed. William Ayers, Jean Ann Hunt, and Therese Quinn (New York: Teachers College Press, 1998), xiv.<\/p>\n

[75]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[76]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagine Peace: Knowing the Real-Imagining the Impossible\u201d in Handbook of Process Theology<\/em>, ed. Jay B. McDaniel and Donna Bowman (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2006), 201-307.<\/p>\n

[77]<\/a> Mary Elizabeth Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center: Identity on the Margins\u201d Process Studies<\/em> 34, no. 2 (2005): 192-210.<\/p>\n

[78]<\/a> Ibid., 201.<\/p>\n

[79]<\/a> Ibid., 204.<\/p>\n

[80]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[81]<\/a> Ibid., 205.<\/p>\n

[82]<\/a> Ibid., 207.<\/p>\n

[83]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[84]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 213.<\/p>\n

[85]<\/a> Moore, \u201cEthnic Diversity and Biodiversity: Richness at the Center of Education\u201d Interchange<\/em> 31 (2000): 259-78; Moore, \u201cImagine Peace.\u201d<\/p>\n

[86]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 213. Whitehead\u2019s critique of the imbalance between intellectual analysis and individual facts in traditional education can be found in Whitehead, Science and the Modern World <\/em>(New York: Free Press, 1925).<\/p>\n

[87]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d 205; Moore \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 213.<\/p>\n

[88]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d 205-207; Moore \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 213-215.<\/p>\n

[89]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 213.<\/p>\n

[90]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[91]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d 206.<\/p>\n

[92]<\/a> Ibid., 214.<\/p>\n

[93]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[94]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[95]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[96]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[97]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[98]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[99]<\/a> See Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas<\/em> (New York: Free Press, 1933), 285-86. Recited in Moore, \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 204.<\/p>\n

[100]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d 205.<\/p>\n

[101]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[102]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[103]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagine Peace,\u201d 204.<\/p>\n

[104]<\/a> Claire Bischoff and Mary Elizabeth Moore, \u201cCultivating a Spirit for Justice and Peace: Teaching Through Oral History\u201d Religious Education<\/em> 102, no. 2 (2007): 153.<\/p>\n

[105]<\/a> Moore, \u201cImagination at the Center,\u201d 200.<\/p>\n

[106]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[107]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[108]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[109]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[110]<\/a> Ibid., 205.<\/p>\n

[111]<\/a> See Mary Elizabeth Moore, Teaching from the Heart: Theology and Educational Method<\/em> (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Download PDF: Park, Encountering Others Through Compassion Abstract The purpose of this article is to propose a pedagogy of compassion based on a reinterpretation of historical and contemporary understandings of compassion and on critical dialogues between three education philosophers<\/p>\n

Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":3671,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,623,21],"tags":[53,625,70,608,639],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/hand-1549399_640.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3667"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3667"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3667\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3777,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3667\/revisions\/3777"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}