I submitted this to my teacher as a partial fulfillment of the course
Philosophical – Social Foundation of Education:
King
Mongkut in the film Anna and the King was a humanist. Humanists believed that
“an individual human being had
within him or her all that was necessary to grow and develop that person’s
unique capacities”. That was basically
how he educated his children, especially his eldest son and heir to the throne,
Prince Chulalongkorn. He gave the prince the opportunity to learn, in his own
pace, the values and character needed of a king. As a father to 48 children, he
wanted them to learn values, developed their own capacities and worth as members
of the royal family. He recognized their talents, as on the scene with him
happily observing his daughter dancing. He let them learn the arts, theater and
music and then watched their plays. Not only did he make sure that the
conditions of learning were humane but also that they were educated with
Science, English, and Literature. He did not deprive them of these subjects no
matter how strong the influence of religion and conservationism were in their
culture. This implied that he wanted them to open their minds to the realities
of the world, not just within the boundaries of the Siamese kingdom. Hiring a
foreign teacher was also a proof to that. This character of him was humanistic
in nature, that “even as science pushed back the boundaries of the known, man’s
sense of wonder was continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music found their
places along with religion and ethics”.
The
greatest evidence of King Mungkut’s humanistic nature as king was the trial of
Tuptim, his latest wife. He let her get punished, though he was not sold out to
the idea of death and humiliation as punishment, for the sake of morality and
ethics, so that his other wives would always remember that it was unethical and
immoral and should not be repeated. It also discouraged his subjects/citizens
to do immoral and unethical actions. He placed the end of moral action in the
welfare of humanity rather than in fulfilling the will of God, or in his case,
Buddha. Anna even reasoned out to him that death was not the way of Buddha.
Still, he did not do something to save Tuptim. I thought of it as because he
placed morality in the welfare of his people than let religious convictions
overpower him and his people.
Note:
I enclosed in a double opening-closing quote the definition of humanism because
I copied that from an online encyclopedia I can’t place which.
