REFLECTING ON TEACHER’S AUTHORITY THROUGH HANNAH ARENDT’S “THE CRISIS IN EDUCATION”

: Child-centered education has become pervasive due to its emphasis on freedom, which is highly valued in modern society. This progressive approach has brought an inquiry into the teacher’s authority which is viewed as traditional and irrelevant for students today. This essay aims to step back and to explore the concept of the teacher’s ‘authority’ more deeply through Hannah Arendt’s writing entitled “The Crisis in Education”. It begins by analyzing what Arendt means by the ‘crisis’ in education, particularly in the American context. Then, by de-parting from the progressive interpretation, I re-examine the concept of ‘authority’ and its relation to ‘freedom’, based on ancient Greek and Roman understandings. Drawing on these analyses, Arendt asserts that teachers play a signiÞ cant role because they prepare students to love and care for the world ( amor mundi ). Nevertheless, I argue that a teacher’s authority must also include attention to the private realm that continues impacting students’ learning at schools. Only in this way are students genuinely prepared for their responsibility as political agents in our society.


INTRODUCTION
During my childhood, I came across a metaphor comparing schooling with the journey of a boat crossing a river. On this boat, the teacher is a rower accompanying their pupils crossing the river from one side to the other. Although this metaphor might not perfectly describe the whole schooling experience, it demonstrates the traditional Thai approach to the educational process, particularly viewing the school as the 'intermediary' that bridges the private and public realms. Regarding a teacher-student relationship, teachers exercise a certain kind of authority based on their expertise and their role in loco parentis through which they assist and care for their students to transition to the adult world. Along this educational journey, students who were once dependent solely on their families are prepared to realize their aspirations and obtain what they need to live in society as it is.
Today, the teacher's authority in schools is increasingly questioned.
In Thailand, for instance, child-centered education, a progressive approach that emphasizes students' autonomy in learning, was introduced by the National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999), section 22. Both state and private schools, representing 78% and 22% of the total student popu-lation, respectively, must implement these new guidelines in their schools.
Teachers must integrate the facilitator role in teaching by providing more activities or experiments for students so they can learn and develop their ideas freely. This change has created widespread anxiety among educators concerned about whether this approach may decrease their roles and damage students' knowledge acquisition. In addition, alongside the progressive approach, through the rapid development of the internet and social media, a massive amount of data around the globe is available on pupils' portable devices. These innovations are viewed as effective educational alternatives that may replace mere learning from teachers as in the past.
But does the progressive approach, which undermines the teacher's authority, genuinely and sufÞ ciently prepare students to integrate into society? Does the teacher's authority stand in opposition to student freedom? This paper explores these issues through Hannah Arendt's "The Crisis in Education" (1954), later republished as a chapter of Between Past and Future (1961). In this writing, Arendt examines the role of teachers by unpacking the concepts of 'authority' and 'freedom' in education. She contends that teachers play an essential function in preparing students to love and to care for the world we all share (amor mundi). However, I argue that, although the teacher's role is signiÞ cant, as it still remains lacking in Arendt's view, teachers must simultaneously consider the inß uence of the private realm that continues impacting students in their learning at schools.
This essay consists of four parts. In the Þ rst part, I will look at what Arendt means by the crisis in education. In the second and third parts, I will philosophically analyze the terms 'authority' and 'freedom,' respectively. Finally, I will reß ect on the teacher's authority in contemporary society.

WHAT IS THE CRISIS IN EDUCATION?
When we look at a series of Arendt's writings, she focuses primarily on political issues, not so much on education. Nevertheless, because "The Crisis in Education" is one of a few works by Arendt on education, the essay can be even more valuable. 1 It demonstrates that an educational issue needs to be seriously discussed and it probably relates to her political ideas. But why did Arendt choose to reß ect on this issue seriously? What does The Crisis in Education mean for her?
At Þ rst glance, we must construe what Arendt means by education.
In "The Crisis in Education", Arendt (1961) deÞ nes education as the 'intermediary' between private and public realms or between family and politics. It is a place where students are introduced to the world and prepared to take responsibility as political agents in the future: Normally the child is Þ rst introduced to the world in school. Now school is by no means the world and must not pretend to be; it is rather the institution that we interpose between the private domain of home and the world in order to make the transition from the family to the world possible at all. 2 Therefore, 'school' should not be viewed as a mere learning space, but it aims to assist students in acquiring sufÞ cient knowledge and taking responsibility to care for our world. Drawing on such understanding, the Arendtian notion of 'crisis' in education does not refer to a particular problem whose immediate negative consequences we directly experience, such as the food crisis, the Þ nancial crisis, the environmental crisis, and so on, but it is the profound problem that impacts our political realm.
It is worth noting that, for Arendt, the 'political realm' (the vita activa) is essential because it is where we exercise our democratic role as citizens by deliberating and making decisions that collectively impact all aspects of our lives. This crisis forces us to reß ect upon the problem and to make a judgement to seek possible solutions and reorganize our society.
1 Apart from "The Crisis in Education", Arendt wrote another essay on education entitled "Reß ection on the Little Rock", discussing whether the American federal court should intervene in the issue of segregated schools in the State level by allowing black students to study at schools for white students. This essay was later republished in the book entitled Responsibility and Judgment (2003). As we can see from both writings, her analyses on education rest on her academic interest in politics.
In the same way, Arendt was concerned about education in America, which was inß uenced by the progressive movement which overemphasized students' freedom and rejected the teacher's authority. To analyze this issue further, Arendt starts with three assumptions of what 'will happen if': Þ rst, children have deÞ nite freedom and exercise their functions as political agents without any intervention from adults; second, inß uenced by modern psychology and pragmatism, teachers lack mastery of certain particular subjects, but can teach only in general; and third, teachers focus on 'doing' which pragmatism values highly rather than 'thinking'.
With regard to the Þ rst assumption, if we let a child govern the world and they have been freed from an authority, then 'the child has not been [truly] freed but has been subjected to a much more terrifying and truly tyrannical authority, the tyranny of the majority.' 3 This statement can be viewed in relation to Arendt's tragic experience of totalitarianism and her concern with what she called 'the banality of evil', which operated behind the cognitive mechanism of the tyrant leaders. But how might totalitarianism be related to education?
Arendt characterizes the banality of evil as related to the thoughtlessness she encountered in the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a former Nazi ofÞ - Regarding the second assumption, Arendt criticizes modern psychology and pragmatism, which emphasize the science of teaching in general rather than learning speciÞ c subject-based knowledge and expertise. Inß uential theorists in this pedagogy were, for instance, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey; their ideas were 'crucial to pragmatism having immediate educational application.' 5 For them, students' learning must include not only the cognitive dimension but also emotion- Similar to the context of American education, the progressive method was implemented because it was considered more appropriate during signiÞ cant immigration, creating cultural diversity among children. Also, the emphasis on a student's freedom and rejection of the teacher's authority was perceived as more relevant to the American value of liberty.
Nevertheless, the famous work of Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny Can't Read, demonstrates the crucial problems caused by this progressive pedagogy.
Johnny, as he represents many students at that time, learned how to read claims to universality'. 14 Today, this powerful knowledge is known as specialist knowledge, and teachers must specialize in particular areas of knowledge, for instance, in the sciences. In this way, teachers can introduce the world, not from their ignorance or prejudices, but as the world is understood in a particular Þ eld of inquiry. Eventually, this will give students an adequate basis for judgement about the world.
Finally, the teacher's authority consists not only of these qualiÞ cations but also of their love for the world (amor mundi) to which the teachers introduce the students. This love is not merely an emotion but is concerned with the continuation of the world. In an Arendtian sense, education is the imparting of this amor mundi from the teachers to the students. It is to ensure that children, with their newness, will change the world not for ill but for good. Through this love for the world, the teacher's authority will be a pathway 'for building, preserving, and caring for a world that can survive us and remain a place Þ t to live in for those who come after us '. 15 Without this love for the world, for Arendt, one is no longer capable of undertaking the role of a teacher.
In any case, however, the educators here stand in relation to the young as representatives of a world for which they must assume responsibility although they themselves did not make it, and even though they may, secretly or openly, wish it were other than it is. This responsibility is not arbitrarily imposed upon educators; it is implicit in the fact that the young are introduced by adults into a continuously changing world. Anyone who refuses to assume joint responsibility for the world should not have children and must not be allowed to take part in educating them. 16 Hence, being a teacher, in Arendt's view, demands a love for the world and taking responsibility for it. This authority is not for oneself as the tyrant's authority is, but rather for the common good. Since the teach-er is aware that children bring with them 'the fact of natality', 17 teaching them Þ rst to understand the world correctly and love it will orient the changes they can make in a positive direction. That is what the teacher's authority means, and its meaning goes far beyond a mere function to teach students but instead includes the greater horizon of love and responsibility for the world.

WHAT IS FREEDOM?
One of the arguments often raised by child-centered education in opposition to the teacher's authority is the threat of that authority to the student's freedom. John Dewey (2015), for example, insists that the imposition of external authority will limit students' freedom regarding learning and further growth. The reason is that this freedom in the 'external and physical side of activity cannot be separated from the internal side of In Greek, 'to act' comes from the words ἄρχειν, to begin, to lead, and to rule, and πράττειν, to carry something through. The Þ rst word, ἄρχειν, refers to 'the outstanding qualities of the free man, bears witness to an experience in which being free and the capacity to begin something new coincide', and 'for only with the help of others could the ἄρχων, the ruler, beginner, and leader, really act, [and] πράττειν, carry through whatever he had started to do.' 21 Meanwhile, in Latin, 'to act' derives from agere, to set something in motion, and gerere, enduring and supporting the continuation of past acts. It is rooted in the Roman belief that their freedom is related to their ancestors who founded the city and the responsibility they must continue building upon this foundation of the city (ab urbe condita).
At this point, the notion of freedom is closely related to authority because a person who obtains this freedom also exercises authority by augmenting (agere) this city foundation.
Roman freedom was a legacy bequeathed by the founders of Rome to the Roman people; their freedom was tied to the beginning their forefathers had established by founding the city, whose affairs the descendants had to manage, whose consequences they had to bear, and 20 John Darling, Child-Centred Education and Its Critics (London: Paul Chapman, 1994), p. 6.
21 Arendt, Between Past and Future, p. 164. whose foundations they had to "augment." All these together are the res gestae of the Roman republic. 22 From the above, we can see that the notion of 'freedom', for Arendt, which derives originally from the Greek word polis, is related to her understanding of politics. In other words, 'the raison d'être of politics is freedom and that this freedom is primarily experienced in action.' 23 It is the freedom that individuals, as political agents, exercise through the interplay of their actions, which brings with it the renewal of the community or society where they live.
Nonetheless, for Arendt, freedom must be distinguished from free will because freedom is political, demanding that a person goes beyond life's necessities and self-preservation to undertake responsibility and love for the world. It is inaccurate to associate authority with injustice, oppression, and inequality because authority, in Arendt's view, guarantees the ß ourishing that comes from the exercise of freedom in collective life. In contrast, free will is merely self-focused, taking oneself away from the world. Worse than that, instead of making us free, the rejection of authority may create a space occupied by totalitarianism or tyranny.
Hence, Arendt disagreed with progressive education's claim for freedom in students' learning, as she argued, 'the very thing that should prepare the child for the world of adults, the gradually acquired habit of work and of not-playing, is done away with in favor of the autonomy of the world of childhood.' 24 Education is not just a period of development but has its political aims, because students, who bring with them newness to the world, must be prepared to assume their roles as political agents in the future. Freedom in education must not be based on free will or self-interest, which might lead to destruction, but is built on a foundation of love and responsibility that makes the world change for the better. Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world. 25

RECONSIDERING THE AUTHORITY OF TEACHERS IN TODAY'S CRISIS IN EDUCATION
Drawing on Arendt's analyses in "The Crisis in Education", we see how signiÞ cant the teacher's authority is in education. Nonetheless, in my view, something is missing in Arendt's thought. Arendt seemed to be preoccupied with education mostly as it is related to the political realm, particularly in terms of the authority of the teacher as the 'representatives of the world', 26 and students being prepared to be the political agents who are prepared for 'the task of renewing a common world'. 27 This overemphasis on students' preparation for politics is possibly caused by Arendt's strict liberal perspective, in which the private and public realms must be separated. 28 Nonetheless, I argue that if school is viewed as the intermediary between private and political realms, teachers must also pay atten- 25 Arendt,Between Past and Future,p. 193. 26 Arendt,Between Past and Future,p. 186. 27 Arendt,Between Past and Future,p. 193. 28 For Arendt, the distinction between the private and the public realms is important in her political thoughts. Drawing on Greek understanding, the household (oiketai or familiares) is where people labour for the necessities of life, such as food. In other words, it is where people are enslaved working for their human needs and their household master. In contrast, the political realm is where those who are liberated from the necessities of life (for examples, those masters of the household who have other slaves to work in their place) come together to discuss the political issues in the public. Arendt's separation between the two realms is to prevent the characteristics of the private (i.e., violence, the master-slave relationship, and so on) from entering the political realm where citizens are supposed to be free in their interaction in democratic process. The totalitarianism can be an example of ways in which the household governance is used in the state level.
tion to the private realm that continues impacting students' learning at schools.
To elaborate further, by using the analytical concept of 'intermediary', if 'school' is represented by 'y', it also means the school is located between the private realm or family ('x') and political realm ('z'). It seems that Arendt tends to pay attention only to the relation between 'y' and 'z', by emphasizing that the role of 'y' is to prepare students toward 'z'.
However, we must not forget that 'y' is at the same time related to 'x'. The reason is that when students enter schools, they do not start from zero in learning but also bring previous knowledge, experience, and disposition, from their family background into school.
This concern is particularly important given the prevalence of wars, Returning to Arendt's expectation for school as a place where a teacher teaches students to love the world, I argue that unless students Þ rst experience being loved, they will not be capable of loving others and the world around them. Without this experience of love from the beginning, they may engage in the educational process with negative concepts about the world, making it hard to teach them to love the world and be responsible for it as political agents. Hence, the teacher's authority must also include this aspect of the teacher's affective disposition.
Finally, given the fact that today an unlimited amount of information from around the globe is available instantly on their portable devices, students in the third millennium have no difÞ culty accessing information.
Although Arendt might never have imagined a phenomenon of this kind, it presents a challenge to her thinking on education. Do teachers still have the right to introduce students to the world when the students can use their mobile devices to know the world by themselves? Is the teacher's authority obsolete in this context? Does it restrict the liberty of children to discover knowledge for themselves?
These issues, I must accept, are complex and demand greater discussion. Nonetheless, my current view is that the teacher's authority is more necessary than ever in this context. So much of this information gives different answers to the same questions. Consequently, students must not only know the world but must know how to go about knowing the world as it is, so that they will be critical and discerning users of the internet, able to make moral judgements about what they see and read -lest they are manipulated by those who post on the internet. In this context, the teacher's authority needs to be based not only on their subject knowledge but also on their expertise in helping young people make wise discernments and well-founded judgements. Therefore, the authority of teachers today must be valued, as it guarantees students' freedom, ensuring that they are prepared through education to become political agents who begin something new for a better world, a world for which they have come to love and take responsibility.

CONCLUSION
Arendt's "The Crisis in Education" continues challenging us to reß ect on education in our time more critically and deeply. We are invited to examine the educational crisis beyond merely a response to the problems we are facing, but in its relationship to the political realm that essentially impacts all aspects of human lives. Arendt's concern with education is not just with criticism of progressive education and its effects on the student's acquisition of knowledge, but more importantly, with how the students are sufÞ ciently prepared to undertake responsibility as political agents, such that their potential newness can change the world for the better. In this way, there is no conß ict between the teacher's authority and students' freedom, because both notions are the means whereby education is oriented to this greater aim. Nevertheless, teachers must not overlook the private realm that continues impacting students in their learning, notably in the current context of increasing domestic violence. So that schools can be a genuine place of what Arendt calls the 'intermediary' between the private and the political realms and prepares students for such an essential role of renewing the world today.