Today, I’m standing in front of you. But for speakers of a language with fixed directions, like many indigenous languages, I might be standing north of you. This demonstrates two frames of reference of approaching the world. An egocentric one sees the world relative to the self, whereas a geocentric one places the self in the context of the objective world. The way you see the world frames how you perceive and navigate its uncertainty, affecting your access to new, potentially disorienting but rewarding learning experiences. In the context of bildung, the process of education and self formation, we will examine the egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in German philosophy.
In his theory of education, 18th century philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt viewed the world as a dangerously complex arena that threatens the safety of the self, unless one forcefully manipulates it into being useful. Conversely, his intellectual predecessor, Johann Gottfried Herder, saw the world as a diverse environment that, when one is immersed in it, can bring about limitless change and growth. In this article, I will argue that Humboldt’s egocentric interpretation of the world—as a useful object whose complexity threatens a stable self—actually hinders inner development; one benefits more from Herder’s geocentric embrace of the world’s multiplicities and the resulting restructuring of the self.
Because Humboldt interprets the world as an object for human development, his well-intentioned belief that maximizing inner potential is a human’s ultimate purpose becomes egocentric. In “Theory of Bildung,” he states that humans only need a world to increase their natural powers and create permanent value. He characterizes the world as “an object on which [sheer power] may be exercised” and “a material in which, expressing itself, [pure form or idea] can last” (“Theory of Bildung” 58). Associating humans with “sheer power” and “pure form or idea,” he heightens their own potential and ability. He does the opposite to the world, described as “an object” and “a material,” forgoing its complexity for its utility. While human agency is crucial for bildung, his undervaluing of the world overemphasizes the self.
For humans, he says, “From [this world] springs his endeavor to expand the sphere of his knowledge and his activity.” Humans are only concerned with their “inner improvement and elevation, or at least with the appeasement of the inner unrest that consumes him” (“Theory of Bildung” 58). Humboldt’s focus on human action—seen from active words like “springs,” “endeavor,” and “expand”—reinforces that the world is just a backdrop for human powers to unfold. The repetition of “inner” zooms in on a egocentric perspective consumed by its “unrest,” unable to accept the world in its complexity. That would involve actually immersing oneself in the world and receiving it on its own terms. In pitifully reducing the world to a flat object to be used by humans, Humboldt’s egocentric frame of reference shrinks the world to its utility.
Further, since Humboldt views the complex world as a threat to the rigid integrity of the self, the egocentric maintenance of internal unity oversimplifies the beneficial diversity of the world. Humboldt frames the world’s diversity as “confusing”; dangerous in its unstructuredness, it poses threats to “dissipate” the self. Its unboundedness is “empty and unfruitful”; again, he’s concerned with how humans can concretely benefit from the world. They should “take refuge from” the “infinity” in a single circle, a simplified rendition of the world where everything is “visible at a glance from any point”.
Humboldt emphasizes that the value in the world lies in only the parts that can enrich and beautify “their inner being.” He ignores the ostensibly bad and the ugly in the world, not to mention any growth that could stem from such; one must filter and absorb only its “clarifying light” and “comforting warmth.” Humboldt leads humans towards a warped reduction of the world’s multiplicities, and characterizes its unharmonious chaos and confusion as bad. By protecting internal unity, he closes us off from potentially rewarding experiences gained from diversity.
In contrast, instead of shrinking from the world’s boundlessness, Herder situates the self as a part of the world, a geocentric perspective that opens one to grow without bounds. He depicts the self in the world as a ship on the sea. While a “suspended” self conveys uncertainty, finding yourself between infinite “sky and sea” isn’t cause for confusion or dissipation. Rather, “wide scope, “ample sphere,” and “broad, infinite atmosphere” show that the world’s abundance is remarkable. It enlivens the self, adding “wings” to thoughts, putting them in “motion.” Herder’s geocentric awareness embraces the world acting upon the self. A “fluttering sail” and “ever-rolling ship” lie on the same plane as “the rippling waves” and “the flying clouds,” where potentially dangerous natural phenomena are advantageous. The ship can’t go anywhere far without the wind nor the waves. Though they can be chaotic, as Humboldt fears, they make it possible for the ship to change course and explore uncharted waters. Together, the ship and the world are in perpetual motion; together, they are dynamic; only then can the self grow and learn limitlessly.
Under a geocentric framework, there is no static Humboldtian circle; instead, the real world, always in motion, “is vanishing from you,” “has vanished beneath you,” illustrates the ongoing nature of experience and self formation. As if from the view of a speedboat or a plane, what you know is constantly under revision. Integrating into the world can be whimsical and freeing: to “flutter” and “float” as a part of the world allows change.
Unlike Humboldt, Herder wants us to embrace potentially disorienting and destabilizing experiences, reflecting his idea of an ideal education. Herder is concerned with “how everything will mix within the soul; or what will be encountered and what will have to be changed; how powerful and enduring this change will be; or, finally, how it might combine and clash with the myriad incidents and contingencies of human life” (“Yet Another” 53). Humboldt wasn’t wrong; engaging with the world is confusing and chaotic; “mix,” “encounter,” “change,” “combine,” and “clash” denote the many points of conflict. Herder believes that only by testing beliefs in the real world can we really say we know something. An education should find ways to escape the musty study, to question the theories absorbed there, in order to experience the perspectival reforms and revisions offered by the real world. When a worldview with a “narrow, firm, restricted center” (an ego) vanishes, your worldview becomes the world.
The invaluable result of relaxing the boundaries of one’s worldview is restructuring and transformation. This is the messy stage of education for Herder to, in his words, “destroy in myself everything I have learned so far and rediscover, in my own convictions alone, what I really think and believe” (“Yet Another” 66). Education is inherently destructive and iterative, necessitating internal and external conflict with the natural world. Embracing the diversity of the world and being destabilized by it can develop the self in myriad ways, without bounds.
As we saw earlier, Humboldt is not misled in prioritizing inner development. It’s his simplification of the world as an object with utility, in conjunction with his view of the complex world as a threat to internal unity, that leads to a misguided idea of self formation. Instead of a maintenance of internal unity or perceived mastery of the world, self-formation is a temporal process that can only happen from the self clashing against itself and the world. In Humboldt’s selective interpretation of the world, he can comfortably glance at any point on his circle and explain it. In his safe circle of certainty, he misses the boat that Herder takes, forgoing the reorientation and destruction of self effective bildung requires. Returning to our initial exploration of indigenous languages, I offer a final disorienting concept from the Aymara in the Andes: their language places the past in front of you and the future behind you. For illustration, if we say “A bright future lies ahead of you once you put the past behind you,” they might say “A bright future lies behind you once you face the past in front of you.” If we follow Herder and the Aymara people, and walk backwards into the unknown, maybe we can also subvert egocentric certainty, surrendering ourselves to the world’s winds and waves.
Herder, Johann Gottfried. “Journal of My Voyage in the Year 1769” and “Yet Another Philosophy of History.” J.G. Herder on Social and Political Culture, translated and edited by F. M. Barnard, Cambridge UP, 1969, pp. 53-66.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. “Theory of Bildung.” Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition, edited by Ian Westbury, Stefan Hopmann, and Kurt Riquarts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, pp. 57-61.