United Nations
Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
EDUCATION RESEARCH AND FORESIGHT
WORKING
PAPERS
12
July 2015
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER:
REVISITING THE HUMANISM OF
THE DELORS REPORT
Maren Elfert
Department of Educational Studies
University of British Columbia
Universality and diversity
Learning to live together
and learning to be
The relevance of the
Delors Commission’s
humanism today
INTRODUCTION
Since its inception, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) has promoted a view of education as a human right. The concept is embedded in its
founding Constitution as a right to ‘full and equal opportunities for education for all’. Although
highly influential, this humanistic approach has long been contested, in particular, following the
rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, when education policies and strategies worldwide began
to reflect a market-driven approach to learning. There are, however, indications of a revival of the
humanistic approach. The theme of the 2015 Conference of the Comparative and International
Education Society (CIES) – ‘Ubuntu! Imagining a humanist education globally’ – highlights a
growing nostalgia for humanist education. Current debates around the post-2015 education
agenda and development goals also underline UNESCO’s key role as a guardian of a human
rights-based development agenda, linked to principles of equality, democratic participation and
social justice. Furthermore, recent UNESCO documents reaffirm the organization’s humanistic
vision of education, such as its position paper on post-2015 education (UNESCO, 2015a) and
Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good? (UNESCO, 2015b).
2
EDUCATION RESEARCH AND FORESIGHT • WORKING PAPERS
In light of the recent global debates about the future of
education and development, it is useful to look back at the
work of the International Commission on Education for the
Twenty-first Century, chaired by Jacques Delors (hereafter
referred to as the ‘Delors Commission’ or the ‘Commission’),
which produced the report Learning: The Treasure Within
(Delors et al., 1996), otherwise known as the Delors Report.
The Delors Report was released in the mid-1990s, twenty-four
years after its predecessor, Learning to Be, otherwise known as
the Faure Report (Faure et al., 1972). The two reports emerged
in very different political and socio-economic contexts. The
late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of cultural and social
transformation, characterized by economic growth and
optimism – an era referred to as ‘the golden age’ (Hobsbawm,
1996). The early 1990s were marked by economic crisis, the end
of the Cold War and the rise of neoliberalism as the global
economic paradigm. Jacques Delors contended that the world
was ‘en travail’ and pointed to ‘three current crises’ framing the
world in which the Commission was situated: ‘the economic
crisis, the crisis of the ideology of progress and a certain form
of moral crisis’ (UNESCO, 1992, p. 2).
The Commission was formally constituted by UNESCO in
January 1993 and carried out the bulk of its work between
1993 and 1995. It consisted of fifteen members appointed
by UNESCO’s Director-General Federico Mayor, after broad
consultation with Jacques Delors among others.1 Many at
UNESCO were surprised at Delors’ decision to take on the
Herculean task of chairing the Commission, as he was still
President of the European Commission at the time. However, a
reason for his decision may be found in his address to UNESCO’s
140th session of the Executive Board, during which Delors
made the point that ‘looking at the future already amounts to
changing it’ (UNESCO, 1992, p. 1). Later in his Mémoires he
also referred to his ‘militant commitment to education in the
past’ (Delors, 2004, p. 440; author’s translation from French),
a stance evidenced by his involvement in pushing through
legislation on continued training in France, and his belief ‘that
education [is] one of society’s essential priorities’ (Delors, 1994,
p. 348; author’s translation). Delors was driven by a ‘double
faith’: a ‘faith in education as a factor of improvement’ and a
‘faith in the role of international organizations to convey into a
universal conscience the most commendable ideas, which will
be increasingly oriented towards the understanding of others’
(UNESCO International Bureau of Education, 1995, p. 15).
The question put before the Commission was: ‘What kind of
education is needed for what kind of society in the future?’
(UNESCO, 1994, p. 39). The Commission adopted a humanistic
perspective in its response, contrary to the contemporary
‘market-oriented view of education’ (International Commission
on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1995a, p. 1). This
paper, which draws on research carried out in the UNESCO
1
Ms In’am Al Mufti, Jordan; Mr Isao Amagi, Japan; Mr Roberto Carneiro,
Portugal; Ms Fay Chung, Zimbabwe; Mr Bronislaw Geremek, Poland;
Mr William Gorham, the United States; Ms Aleksandra Kornhauser, Slovenia;
Mr Michael Manley, Jamaica; Ms Marisela Padrón Quero, Venezuela;
Ms Marie-Angélique Savané, Senegal; Mr Karan Singh, India; Mr Rodolfo
Stavenhagen, Mexico; Mr Myong Won Suhr, Republic of Korea; and Mr Zhou
Nanzhao, China.
archives, sheds some light on the conceptualization of
humanism encapsulated by the Delors Commission.
UNIVERSALITY AND DIVERSITY
At its first meeting, the Commission defined the functions of
education in terms of seven main goals, the first of which was:
‘to contribute to the all-round development of individuals
capable of reaching their full potential in a pluralist society’
(UNESCO, 1993, Annex I, p. 5). This statement brings to mind
the discourse of UNESCO founders, such as Jacques Maritain,
who in his book Education at the Crossroads (1943), argued
that education should support the development of a person
into a human being (pp. 6-7, 27-28). Delors stated that Jacques
Maritain was one of his strongest influences, ‘mon inspiration
profonde’ (CVCE, 2009, p. 4). Just like Maritain more than
fifty years before him, Delors grappled with the challenges
of UNESCO’s ‘paradoxical’ task, which ‘presupposes unity
of thought among men whose conceptions are different
and even opposed’ (Maritain, in UNESCO, 1948, p. 1). When
speaking about his motivation for assuming the Chairmanship
of the report, Delors underlined the importance of ‘making
of education a universal message in order to try, not to unify
this world, but to bring together the different parties in their
diversity, which means to accept the difference and to respect
the other’ (Delors, 2004, p. 441; author’s translation). He further
declared that ‘we must ponder the connections between
education, freedom and equality, a theme which challenges
all forms of particularism’ (UNESCO, 1992, p. 5). The Delors
Commission followed in the footsteps of UNESCO’s founders
for whom education was a means to achieve the unity of
‘humanity’ and foster better understanding of different
peoples, as a pre-condition for peace in a globalizing world
(Elfert, forthcoming, Chapter 2). As the head of the French
delegation, Georges Bidault, put it at the fourth session of the
General Conference, UNESCO’s task was ‘to give every man
living his chance to help make humanity more conscious of its
unity’ (UNESCO, 1949, p. 118).
The question of whether education could convey a universal
message was the first crucial issue discussed by the Commission
(UNESCO, 1993, Annex I, p. 4; UNESCOPRESS, 1993, p. 1).
Several Commissioners stressed ‘the universal values that
will characterize the 21st century’ (Fay Chang, in UNESCO
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century, 1995, p. 3), while Karan Singh argued that ‘the whole
point of global education is to help the human race to transcend
barriers of race and religion, sex and nationality’ (Singh, n.d.,
p. 1), and Myong Won Suhr believed that ‘education should
teach commonness rather than differences’ (International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1994,
p. 16).
However, Delors’ universalism was not meant as an imposition
of one culture over the other. He stated explicitly that
the Commission was not interested in a ‘Euro-Western
monoculture’ (Henderson, 1993). Carneiro defined ‘humanism’
as ‘embracing the universal and diversity’ (Carneiro, n.d., p. 3;
author’s translation) and Zhou Nanzhao argued that ‘education
3
EDUCATION RESEARCH AND FORESIGHT • WORKING PAPERS
for multiculturalism is to seek the sameness of humanity in
order to cultivate the differences’ (International Commission
on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1994, p. 16). Some
of the experts consulted at hearings held by the Commission
highlighted the importance of diversity as an expression of
‘common humanity’. Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Secretary-General
of the Commonwealth, stated that he hoped for a ‘revolution
for the 21st century’ which would produce ‘a world in which,
through greater awareness of a common humanity, diversity
and difference between peoples can be a cause of celebration
and pride’ (UNESCO, 1995, EDC-95/CONF.006/Annex I, p. 2).
Despite broad agreement in favour of a universal message of
education, it took the Commissioners a long time to establish
common ground because of basic differences between ‘East’
and ‘West’ on issues such as ‘equality versus hierarchy’,
‘individualism versus collectivism’, ‘cooperation versus
competition’ and ‘idealism versus pragmatism’ (UNESCO,
1993, Annex I, p. 4). While the Asian and African members of
the Commission placed greater ‘emphasis on the group rather
than the individual’ (Chinese Commissioner Zhao Nanzhao, in
UNESCO, 1996, p. 3), some Western members were shaped
by the ‘primacy of the entire person [proclaimed] by Christian
humanism’ (Carneiro, n.d., p. 2; author’s translation).
Carneiro (2015) gives an account of the challenges faced by the
commission:
I recall our first meetings: lively discussions, with the most
disparate approaches to life, values and philosophies, a
deepening of irreconcilable perspectives [...]. This medley
of disharmony went on for several meetings. Whenever,
under the inspired leadership of Jacques Delors, we
were summoned to find one common understanding,
one basic concept or one shared priority for future
education, inevitable differences would shoot down what
could theoretically provide a good basis for consensus:
human rights declarations are Western-oriented and
individualistically biased; dignity of the human person is
anthropocentric; democratic values are open to diverse
emphasis and vary with subjective interpretation; even
development goals could differ considerably according
to regions and levels/notions of well-being [...]. We ended
up combining two approaches: region by region, we
would try to grasp the local flavour by surveying issues
and conducting hearings of large groups of representative
personalities; alongside that, we would strive to arrive at
common foundational concepts (p. 103).
The Commission eventually overcame these differences, by
focusing on the concept of ‘learning to live together’. This
concept was regarded as the most important of the ‘four
pillars of education’2 and the guiding principle of the report
(Delors et al., 1996, p. 22; see also Carneiro and Draxler, 2008).
However, ‘tension between the global and the local’ remained
(Delors et al., 1996, p. 17). In her feedback to the first draft, Fay
Chung noted that ‘the report should take more cognizance of
2
The ‘four pillars of education’ are one of the key messages of the Delors
Report. They consist of: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live
together and learning to be (Delors et al., 1996, pp. 85-98).
the situation of Asia, Latin America and Africa’ (International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1995b).
In a letter written to Karan Singh, who voiced similar objections,
Delors argued that: ‘Without losing sight of the extraordinary
diversity of the world, I have deliberately emphasized in this
relatively succinct text, what can be considered to be common,
both in terms of concerns and in terms of the analysis of
problems’ (Delors, 1995). Delors’ universalism was one of the
main features of his humanism, which he powerfully rendered
in the first chapter of the report, written by himself:
It is [...] education’s noble task to encourage each and
every one, acting in accordance with their traditions and
convictions and paying full respect to pluralism, to lift their
minds and spirits to the plane of the universal and, in some
measure, to transcend themselves. It is no exaggeration on
the Commission’s part to say that the survival of humanity
depends thereon (Delors et al., 1996, p. 18).
LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER AND
LEARNING TO BE
The principle ‘learning to be’ is the last of the four pillars of
education presented by the Delors report, and constitutes a
common thread with its predecessor, the Faure Report:
Learning to be emerges, once again, as a timeless priority.
Being and becoming a whole person – fully entitled to
rights and duties, bearer of a human dignity beyond
conditionalities – remain prime goals of every single
educational endeavour. This pillar brings to life the road to
self-fulfilment (Carneiro, 2015, p. 105).
Entrenched in this pillar is the Enlightenment idea of the
fulfilment of human potential, an idea reiterated often by
Delors and the Commissioners:
A broad, encompassing view of learning should aim to
enable each individual to discover, unearth and enrich his
or her creative potential, to reveal the treasure within each
of us. This means going beyond an instrumental view of
education, as a process one submits to in order to achieve
specific aims (in terms of skills, capacities or economic
potential), to one that emphasises the development of the
complete person, in short, learning to be (Delors et al.,
1996, p. 86).
‘Learning to be’ provides continuity with the Faure Report,
but at the same time constitutes the main difference between
the Faure Report and the Delors Report. While the Faure
Report chose ‘learning to be’ as its main message, reflecting
its emphasis on existentialist questions of what it means to be
human, the Delors Report chose to expand that perspective
to ‘learning to live together’. When asked to identify the key
idea behind education in the future, Delors responded: ‘Make
human beings more aware of themselves and of what is around
them’ (1994, p. 348; author’s translation). This statement
reflects both ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’.
In his Mémoires, Delors affirmed that ‘learning to live together’
provided ‘the strongest shock formula (‘formule-choc’), given
4
EDUCATION RESEARCH AND FORESIGHT • WORKING PAPERS
the world in which we were going to live’ (Delors, 2004, p. 442;
author’s translation). He referred to this concept as ‘a necessary
utopia’:
Developing an understanding of others and their history,
traditions and spiritual values and, on this basis, creating
a new spirit which [...] would induce people to implement
common projects or to manage the inevitable conflicts in
an intelligent and peaceful way (Delors et al., 1996, p. 22).
THE RELEVANCE OF THE DELORS
COMMISSION’S HUMANISM TODAY
Delors has frequently expressed his fear that education is
becoming dominated by an economic agenda, an issue he
has returned to often in later life. In a recent article, Delors
called the dominant economic ideology a ‘disaster’ (2013,
p. 238). Protecting education from ‘utilitarian policies in a
world of shrinking budgets’ (Henderson, 1993) and ‘economic
pressure’ (Delors, 1994, p. 345; Henderson, 1993) is one of his
most consistent concerns. The other Commissioners agreed
with Delors on this point. In particular, Fay Chung noted that
‘this Commission is an opportunity to shift away from a purely
economic vision of education’ (International Commission on
Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1995b).
Delors’ humanism was a reaction to neoliberalism. In his
reflections on the ‘changes taking place in the modern world’,
he dwelled on the economic changes of ‘supply-side economy,
based on tax-cuts and financial deregulation’ introduced
in the early 1980s (UNESCO, 1993, Annex I, p. 1). These
developments, which led to economic growth but also to the
‘financial bubble’ and market crash in 1987, had a significant
impact on education, ‘since the point was reached when
money, having become all-powerful, changed cultural and
moral attitudes’ (p. 1). While emphasizing the Commission’s
interest in talking to other international agencies such as the
IMF and the World Bank about ‘how they deal with education
as capital’ (Henderson, 1993), Delors was driven by his desire to
‘rehabilitate’ education as a value in itself, in accordance with
‘the ideals at the foundation of UNESCO and the whole UN
system’ (Henderson, 1993).
The Delors Report remains highly relevant today. It challenges
the prevailing instrumental view of education, which is at odds
with UNESCO’s human rights-based approach to education. At
this time of increasing conflicts, there could be much to learn
from revisiting the reports’ guiding principle of ‘learning to live
together’
This paper emphasizes the Delors Report’s contribution to
UNESCO’s humanism, which has been re-introduced into
UNESCO’s discourse by its current Director-General, Irina
Bokova, under the concept of the ‘new humanism’. Like
those who drafted UNESCO’s Constitution, the members
of the Delors Commission summoned up an ideal vision of
a just society, ‘a better world to live in’ (Delors et al., 1996,
p. 19). They believed in humanism as a unifying force and
emphasized shared commonalities that unite the people of the
world, rather than the issues that divide them. The principal
contribution of the Delors Commission was to revitalize
UNESCO’s powerful founding message, which provides the
basis of the Organization’s legitimacy and authority in a world
characterized by particularism and economic hegemony. In this
respect, the Delors Report is a ‘treasure within’ UNESCO.
REFERENCES
Carneiro, R. n.d. Pour une éducation inspirée par l’humanism.
Background paper. ED/EDC/5. UNESCO Archives.
Carneiro, R. 2015. Learning: The treasure within – prospects for
education in the 21st century. European Journal of Education,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 101–112.
Carneiro, R. and Draxler, A. 2008. Education for the 21st century:
lessons and challenges. European Journal of Education,
Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 149–160.
CVCE. 2009. Transcription of interview with Jacques Delors –
Part 2 – the journey of Jacques Delors before his presidency
of the European Commission (Paris, 16 December 2009).
Sanem, Luxembourg, Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance
sur l’Europe. www.cvce.eu/education/unit-content/-/unit/
da53c3f9-6a19-4c52-8802-26206906f253/c9f69671-5d35-4fffbb4e-417f45c2716a (accessed 20 May 2015).
Delors, J. 1994. L’unité d’un homme. Entretiens avec Dominique
Wolton. Paris, Éditions Odile Jacob.
Delors, J. 1995. Letter to Dr Karan Singh, 1 September 1995.
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century. ED/EDC/6. UNESCO Archives.
Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F.,
Geremek, B., Gorham, W., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., Padrón
Quero, M., Savane, M-A., Singh, K., Stavenhagen, R. Myong
Won Suhr and Zhou Nanzhao, Z. 1996. Learning: The Treasure
Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on
Education for the Twenty-first century. Paris, UNESCO.
Delors, J. with Arnaud, J-L. 2004. Mémoires. Paris, Plon.
Delors, J. 2013. The treasure within: Learning to know, learning
to do, learning to live together and learning to be. What is the
value of that treasure 15 years after its publication? International
Review of Education, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 319–330.
Elfert, M. forthcoming. UNESCO’s humanistic approach to
education: An intellectual history. Doctoral dissertation.
Vancouver, Canada, University of British Columbia.
Faure, E., Herrera, F. Kaddoura, A.R., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A.V.,
Rahnema, M. and Champion Ward, F. 1972. Learning to Be:
The World of Education Today and Tomorrow. Paris, UNESCO/
Harrap.
Henderson, E. 1993, March 12. Unesco group’s task is
rehabilitation. The Times Higher.
Hobsbawm, E. 1996. The Age of Extremes. A History of the
World, 1914-1991. New York, Vintage Books.
5
EDUCATION RESEARCH AND FORESIGHT • WORKING PAPERS
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century. 1994. 13 April, morning session, 12-15 April 1994,
Vancouver. ED/EDC/3. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCO. 1994. Approved programme and budget for 1994–
1995. 27 C/5. Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0009/000956/095663eo.pdf.
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century. 1995a. 6 February 1995, Sixth session (minutes). ED/
EDC/4. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCO. 1995. International Commission on Education for the
Twenty-first Century. Sixth Session. UNESCO Headquarters,
Paris, 6-10 February 1995. Report. EDC/3 (January 1994). ED/
EDC/2. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century. 1995b. Sixth session, discussion on the outline of final
report (notes of comments by Fay Chung). ED/EDC/5. Paris,
UNESCO Archives.
Maritain, J. 1943. Education at the Crossroads. New Haven and
London, Yale University Press.
UNESCO. 1996. International Commission on Education for the
Twenty-first Century. Eighth Session. New Delhi, 15-17 January
1996. Interactions of education and culture for economic and
human development: An Asian perspective. Zhou Nanzhou.
EDC/3 (January 1994). EDC-96/CONF.008/INF.2, 8 January
1996. ED/EDC/4. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
Singh, K. n.d. Comments by Dr. Karan Singh, member, UNESCO
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. ED/
EDC/6. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCO. 2015a. Position on education post-2015. ED/14/
EFA/Post-2015/1. Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0022/002273/227336e.pdf.
UNESCO. 1948. M. Maritain calls for unity. UNESCO
Courier, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 1. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0007/000736/073649eo.pdf#73649.
UNESCO. 2015b. Rethinking Education: Towards a Global
Common Good? Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1949. Records of the General Conference.
Proceedings. Fourth session. UNESCO Headquarters,
December 1949. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCO International Commission on Education for the
Twenty-first Century, 3 December 1995. Comments by Fay
Chung: Education in Africa today. ED/EDC/5. Paris, UNESCO
Archives.
UNESCO. 1992. Education and the twenty-first century. Address
given by Mr Jacques Delors, Chairman of the International
Commission on Education and Learning for the Twenty-first
century to the 140th session of the Executive Board. ED/EDC/1.
Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCO International Bureau of Education. 1995. International
Conference on Education. 44th session. Geneva, 3-8 October
1994. ED/MD/99. Paris, May 1995. www.unesco.org/education/
pdf/34_69.pdf.
UNESCO. 1993. EDC/2. International Commission on
Education for the 21st Century. First session. UNESCO
Headquarters, Paris, 2-4 March 1993. EDC.93/CONF.001/I.7
REV. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
UNESCOPRESS. 1993. Whither education? First session of the
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century. No. 93-21. ED/EDC/1. Paris, UNESCO Archives.
To cite this article:
Elfert, M. 2015. Learning to Live Together: Revisiting the Humanism of the Delors Report. Paris, UNESCO
Education Research and Foresight [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 12].
ED-2015/WS/19