Scholarlink

<p>Building on the theoretical work initiated by Komatsu and Rappleye (Comparative Education Review 61:269–297, 2017), this paper turns to the East Asian and Japanese theories of bodymind (body-mind unity) and learning as a possible theoretical resource for a new appraisal of East Asian pedagogy. To this end, the paper will first delve into the East Asian and Japanese theories of bodymind and learning, drawing on scholarship of comparative philosophers Thomas Kasulis and Robert Carter, Japanese philosopher Yasuo Yuasa, and educational philosopher Tadashi Nishihira. The theoretical account, assembled from these scholarly works, is then deployed in rereading three recent studies on Confucian pedagogical thoughts and practices, based in Edo-Japan, Taiwan and China, that cut across time and space in East Asia. Aligned with Chen’s (Asia as method, Duke University Press, 2010) call for ‘Asia as method,’ this cross-temporal and -regional inquiry is intended not only to solidify the theoretical account of East Asian bodymind and pedagogy but also to suggest a comparative methodology that foregrounds reginal inter-referencing as a mode of theorisation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An invitation to theorise East Asian pedagogy: bodymind, dark consciousness, kata, and self-cultivation

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Keita Takayama

摘要

Building on the theoretical work initiated by Komatsu and Rappleye (Comparative Education Review 61:269–297, 2017), this paper turns to the East Asian and Japanese theories of bodymind (body-mind unity) and learning as a possible theoretical resource for a new appraisal of East Asian pedagogy. To this end, the paper will first delve into the East Asian and Japanese theories of bodymind and learning, drawing on scholarship of comparative philosophers Thomas Kasulis and Robert Carter, Japanese philosopher Yasuo Yuasa, and educational philosopher Tadashi Nishihira. The theoretical account, assembled from these scholarly works, is then deployed in rereading three recent studies on Confucian pedagogical thoughts and practices, based in Edo-Japan, Taiwan and China, that cut across time and space in East Asia. Aligned with Chen’s (Asia as method, Duke University Press, 2010) call for ‘Asia as method,’ this cross-temporal and -regional inquiry is intended not only to solidify the theoretical account of East Asian bodymind and pedagogy but also to suggest a comparative methodology that foregrounds reginal inter-referencing as a mode of theorisation.