Ben Buursma

Professor Ferkany
TE 818
3/22/2015

The Case for Justice-Centered Flourishing in Education

Every day teachers make thousands of decisions about curriculum, instruction, discipline,
and the like. From fine-grained choices about the structure of a lesson to macro decisions about
the structure of a school, educators must first respond to the question What is the primary goal
of education? The response to this foundational inquiry forms a lense through which educators
then examine the wide spectrum of todays educational issues and choices. Building on the work
of Harry Brighouse, I argue that student flourishing should be the animating goal of education.
Brighouse, however, centers his conception of student flourishing on the ideal of student
autonomy. While autonomy is an important aspect of flourishing, I argue that justice and
community serves as far more foundational aspects for flourishing. Nicholas Wolterstorffs
Educating for Shalom informs my depiction of justice, where the flourishing of an individual is
dependent on their relationships and community. Brighouse, and scholars like him, might raise
concerns about the religious basis of shalom, but I show that such principles are compatible with
Brighouses norm of reciprocity. Finally, my view of student flourishing centered in justice as
the primary goal of education begs the questions, How then should we teach? The answer,
interestingly, is not a list of dos and don'ts, but rather two additional questions that guide and
focus discussions around flourishing: How do we teach justly? and How might we teach
justice? I examine these questions in the context of two of Brighouses key tenets for an
autonomy-facilitating education: school composition and curriculum.

Education has long been an arena marked by debate and competing views, in part
because of the variety of groups with a stake in the outcome. Policymakers run for office with
platforms built on education; parents weigh educational options with the same intensity as
stockbrokers investing in stocks; employers consistently call for highly skilled laborers to
compete in a global marketplace. In this somewhat divisive and stratified landscape, Harry
Brighouse brings the conversation back to students themselves. Above the imperatives of the
economy, or even those of parents for that matter, Brighouse maintains a student-centric
approach to the question What is the primary goal of education? As he himself puts it,
...education should aim at enabling people to live flourishing lives, and the argument that
education should facilitate autonomy depends on the idea that autonomy plays an important role
in enabling people to live flourishing lives (Brighouse, 2006, p. 15). The essence of Brighouses
(2006) argument is that students are entitled to an education which will enable them to reflect on
a range of ways of living, in order to make well-informed decisions about how to live their own
lives (p. 14). While I fully endorse Brighouses call for an education animated by student
flourishing, I do not share his narrow focus on student autonomy. By focusing on autonomy,
Brighouse overlooks the role justice and community play in human flourishing.

Brighouses insistence on autonomy is far from a novel ideal, and one that is deeply
embedded within American culture and western thought. Brighouse himself, however,
acknowledges that the principle of autonomy is a controversial one, especially with those who
have a particular vision of childrens moral development. Christian philosopher, author, and
educator Nicholas Wolterstorff is such a person. In Educating for Shalom, Wolterstorff sets forth
a vision of human flourishing very different from that of Brighouse. For Wolterstorff, human

flourishing is best captured in the biblical idea of shalom, where people are in right relationships
with God, themselves, each other, and nature. What is more, shalom is a vision for flourishing
predicated on justice, and realized in an ethical community where all members have a full and
secure place (Wolterstorff, 2004, p. xiii). It is hard to overstate the importance Wolterstorff places
on justice and worth noting that its centrality to flourishing is at odds with Brighouses depiction
of autonomy. Wolterstorff (2004) writes, The modern Western liberal notion, that a society is
just when each person is free to exercise his or her own will, provided only that no one harms the
will of another, is most emphatically not the biblical notion of justice (p. 143). Wolterstorffs
point is that justice and flourishing are all about honoring the rights of individuals, not in
isolation, but in right relationship. It is this expanded, communal view of justice and flourishing
that I believe Brighouse misses in his focus on autonomy. It would be unfair to say Brighouse
(2006) completely fails to acknowledge community; he writes, Individuals do not flourish
separately from others; their interests are bound up with those of other people, and their
reflection takes place within a given social context (p. 19, 20) Unfortunately, Brighouse does
not elaborate on this sentiment, and the implications of the social context of individuals remain
unaddressed. He simply acknowledges that peoples flourishing is somehow connected to others.
I, on the other hand, am claiming that our flourishing is, not only connected to, but dependent
upon the flourishing of others. Brighouses conception of flourishing is individualistic and
centered on autonomy, where my conception of flourishing is communal and centered on justice.
Such a vision of flourishing pushes past simple democratic participation or civic self-interest and
instead asks students to consider themselves as integral, interdependent pieces of their
community. It asks that students reflect on their own way of life in light of their rights and the

rights of others. It demands that students evaluate what is good for them by examining what is
good for all.

At this point, some might disagree with me on the grounds that my revised, justicecentric vision of flourishing is rooted in biblical understandings. They might ask why decisions
concerning the education of everyone should stem from a biblical understanding of justice, when
it is reasonable to assume that many people do not believe in God at all. Brighouse himself
speaks to this objection when he addresses the norm of reciprocity. He writes that ...we should
not make claims and arguments that cannot be accepted by others unless they already hold
fundamental moral commitments about which we expect reasonable people to disagree
(Brighouse, 2006, p. 67). Is my vision of flourishing such that it can only be endorsed by those
who already share my understandings about right relationships between God and man? Although
the concern is legitimate, the answer is no. While my personal conviction prioritizes a right
relationship with God, my vision of flourishing emphasizes the ideal of right relationships in
general. The broader principle of right relationships, where the rights of everyone are honored,
not only abides by the norm of reciprocity, but holds reciprocity central. The flourishing of one is
dependent upon the flourishing of others.

Claiming flourishing as the primary goal of education answers one question, but raises
another; how then should we teach? Brighouse responds by examining school composition,
ethos, and curriculum -- his key tenets to an autonomy-facilitating education. Yet as I have
shown, my vision of flourishing is one built upon justice, not autonomy. What then does a
justice-facilitating education look like? Where Brighouse limits his argument to three specific

areas of education, I intend to broaden my argument. Because my vision of flourishing is

communal (and there are a wide variety of communities), it follows that I would expect a wide
range of school compositions and curriculums. Prescribing a particular vision of school
composition or curriculum fails to account for the great diversity that exists of students, families,
and communities. Conversations around flourishing in education must go beyond three limited
areas of education and extend to every detail of schooling. Obviously it would not be feasible to
attempt to do so here. Instead, we are better served by considering two additional questions that
might guide and focus discussions around flourishing: How do we teach justly? and How
might we teach justice?

Consider school composition: Brighouses (2006) claims that a school with Muslim,
Hindu, atheist, Roman Catholic, and Jewish children will do better, other things being equal, than
one in which all the children are Roman Catholic (p. 21). But in what real-life scenario are
other things equal? And what are those other things? What does Brighouse mean when he says
that children in the former scenario will do better? Simply urging educators to fill their schools
with diverse children misses the mark. In order to work towards authentic student flourishing,
educators must consider the complexities of school composition in light of the question, What
does it mean to teach justly? What does just school composition look like? Reflect on these
questions in regards to schools that focus exclusively on serving disadvantaged inner-city
populations. Such programs are often entirely, or majority, students of color. As Brighouse
suggests, we might criticize these schools for their lack of diversity and inability to respond to
diverse learning style, but I am suggesting that we instead ask, is this just? To be sure,
diversity is a justice issue, but these same schools often apply their no-excuses approach to

education with the single-minded goal of graduating students from college in order to break the
cycle of poverty. This is a justice issue as well. Conversations about school composition have to
move from Are we diverse? to Are we just? in order to address the primary goal of
flourishing.

The second question of How might we teach justice? has less to do with the grammar
of school and pertains more to issues of curriculum and pedagogy. As such, we can compare
components of a justice-facilitating curriculum to the components Brighouse recommends for an
autonomy-facilitating curriculum. Brighouse (2006) advocates for a traditional, content-based
curriculum that teaches student to identify fallacious arguments, as well as exposing them to a
range of ethical views and diverse ways people have dealt with moral conflicts (p. 23,24).
Wolterstorff (2004), in contrast, asserts that teaching justice involves having students reflect on
their own social ethic, engaging in a structural analysis of current world systems, and finally
putting together their social ethic and societal analysis to form a sound critical consciousness of
the world around them (p. 145-148). While the curricular aspects laid out by Brighouse and
Wolterstorff are not in conflict with each other, it seems that a justice-facilitating curriculum
demands a deeper level of engagement from students. A justice-facilitating curriculum highlights
the importance and quality of relationships learners have with themselves, each other, and the
content. It goes beyond asking what students know or can do, and instead asks them how they
intend to live in the world.

In summary, I have responded to the question, What is the primary goal of education?
by endorsing Brighouses call for student flourishing. I have, however, also shown that

Brighouses depiction of flourishing focuses too narrowly on autonomy, and in so doing, fails to
incorporate the essential aspect of justice and community in right relationships. The implications
of such a revised view of flourishing permeate every aspect of schooling. Rather than a list of
examples of what justice-centric flourishing looks like, I have suggested two questions to
consider when examining education: What does it mean to teach justly? and What does it
mean to teach justice? It is my hope that these questions might serve as a starting point for
educators in the pursuit of fostering student flourishing.

Works Cited

Brighouse, H. (2006). On education. London: Routledge.

Wolterstorff, N., & Joldersma, C. (2004). Educating for shalom: Essays on Christian higher
education. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.