Janis Talivaldis Ozolins

Education has been widely criticised as being too narrowly focused on skills, capacities and the transference of knowledge that can be used in the workplace. As a result of the dominance of economic rationalism and neo-liberalism, it has become commodified and marketed to potential customers. As a consequence, students have become consumers of an educational product and education has become an industry. This volume draws together a number of different perspectives on what is meant by 'human formation', argues that for a much richer conception of education, and addresses the lack of attention to human fulfilment.

A recurring theme in many places concerns the nurturing and maintenance of a civil society that is committed to justice, to human fulfilment and a community that actively pursues the good of all its members. The creation of a civil society where there is respect for persons and a concern for the good of others is an important social aim and though it is not the sole responsibility of educational institutions, they have a crucial role to play in its development. It also evident that the creation of a civil society includes the family and the wider community and so in order to understand how a civil society is to be fostered, we need to understand relationality, a central concept in both the Western and Eastern understandings of human nature. If we reflect on contemporary education in both the East and the West, an important question to consider is the extent to which education measures up to developing in young people a sense of their responsibilities to one another, their families and to the wider community. In short the question of how well we are developing humane persons who are able to relate to one another and build a civil society. This article argues that there needs to be a rebalancing of the aims of education to include the development of those values and dispositions that will foster a civil society.

In the mind of many governments the aim of education is not just to develop the potential of each young person and adult, but to also develop their creativity. Part of the logic of the rhetoric of constant improvement is that the improvement of literacy and numeracy is not enough, but that education must also unlock thepotential of every human being. Though few, if any, would dispute this as a laudable aim of education, the equating of creativity with the development of a person’s full potential is misguided. Though creativity does admit of degrees, at its highest level, it breaks new theoretical ground, solves formerly intractable problems and inspires new approaches to practical problems; at this level it cannot be taught and doubtful whether anyone can be taught to be creativeat any level. Moreover, the products of creative work will not always have economic value. It is argued that though it is important to encourage creativity, it should not be expected that creative outcomes will follow from such encouragement. The nature of creativity is such that governments should be careful what they wishfor.