What is Tutelage?

"If we are under some form of tutelage (intellectual, political, or societal), how can it be challenged or transcended? If we are not, how do we structure our lives meaningfully without such guidance? And if neither existing framework proves satisfactory, what constitutes a truly viable alternative?"

    I had never considered writing about tutelage—Immanuel Kant’s answer to the question, What is Enlightenment?—until I reflected deeply on the subject long before reading his essay. I often discussed the idea of "borrowing" (उधार की भाषा, कपड़े, जाति, धर्म और शरीर) with my teacher, Mr. Tembhare. The notion that I was under tutelage, lacking my own reason, was deeply unsettling to me, so I devoted considerable time to grappling with it. When I raised these questions with Mr. Tembhare (whom I will hereafter refer to as U.T.), he tended not to provide direct answers. Instead, he kept the learner engaged, guiding them to arrive at their own conclusions through reasoning. Recognizing this method, I never resented U.T.’s approach or questioned his opinions. I don’t recall exactly how, but I eventually reached a conclusion and derived a very satisfying resolution to the problem of tutelage. Before presenting that conclusion, however, I should first outline the question of tutelage itself.

The question had been on my mind for some time, though I had never articulated it clearly—until today, when my good friend Mr. Chandurkar sent me an excerpt from the essay "An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?" The passage read:

"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'—that is the motto of enlightenment."

As we often discussed philosophy, and since I was slightly better at answering such questions, Mr. Chandurkar frequently turned to me for explanations. I could address them systematically, which, unfortunately, led him to perceive me as far more intelligent—almost a teacher-like figure (a Guru). He began to regard me as a Guru, though in truth, I possess the barest fraction of knowledge and am far more ignorant than he is. Whether or not he consciously thinks this, his attitude suggests as much. When he shared the excerpt, he asked me, "Am I under your tutelage?" In my response, I argued that no one can live entirely free from tutelage. My answer, in a way, addressed the broader question of tutelage, which I shall now explore, as far as I remember my answer was as follows:

A person can never be truly free from tutelage. The language we speak is not our own but borrowed from society. The religion we follow is inherited, not self-created. Even the clothes we wear and the very mind that thinks—its ideas shaped by what we read, see, and hear—are all influenced by external forces. Thus, from the first flicker of thought to the final act of understanding, every step is taken under the weight of tutelage.

    This realization presents a profound difficulty—one that is not easily grasped. If no individual can escape the conditioning of external tutelage, then why does Kant implore humanity with the imperative "Sapere aude!" ("Dare to know!")? How can one truly "use their own reason" when the very words Kant speaks, the ideas he defends, and the framework of his philosophy are themselves inherited, refined, or contested within a broader intellectual tradition? Kant’s call to enlightenment seems, at first glance, to advocate for intellectual independence. Yet, if we scrutinize his own philosophy, we find that his reasoning is deeply embedded in the Enlightenment’s discourse—a discourse shaped by Locke, Hume, Rousseau, and others. Even the concept of "self-incurred tutelage" presupposes a societal framework where authority and tradition dictate thought.

Thus, Kant’s exhortation to "think for oneself" is paradoxically dependent on the structures he seeks to transcend.

Then what shall be the answer?

    The motto of enlightenment—Sapere aude, "Have the courage to use your own reason"—appears, at first glance, to champion absolute intellectual independence. Yet, upon deeper reflection, we encounter an unavoidable truth: tutelage can never be fully rejected nor entirely escaped. Like Newton, who acknowledged, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants," we too must recognize that our understanding is built upon the accumulated knowledge of those who came before us. What would happen if tutelage disappeared entirely? Humanity would be thrust into an abyss of reinvention—forced to rediscover fire, rewrite mathematics, and reconstruct philosophy from nothing. Progress would cease, for each generation would have to begin anew, redoing what has already been done and searching for what has already been found. Tutelage, then, is not an obstacle to reason but its necessary foundation. Rather than viewing tutelage as a corrupting force—a pollutant that distorts "pure" reason—we must see it as a vast intellectual inheritance, a reservoir of accumulated wisdom. The question is not whether we rely on tutelage, but how we engage with it.

    True enlightenment does not demand the eradication of external influence but rather a critical and deliberate engagement with it. To "dare to know" is not to reject all guidance but to consciously choose which ideas to adopt, which to refine, and which to discard. The tutor—whether a philosopher, a tradition, or a text—is not an absolute authority but a provisional guide, one who is themselves engaged in an ongoing dialogue with history. Kant’s imperative remains vital, but its meaning deepens when we acknowledge that intellectual autonomy does not mean isolation. The courage to use one’s own reason does not require discarding all external input; rather, it demands that we take responsibility for the ideas we inherit. We must examine them, test them, and, when necessary, transcend them—not from a place of ignorance, but from a foundation built by those who came before us.

    Enlightenment shall seen as an "Active Participation in Tutelage". The impossibility of total intellectual independence does not negate enlightenment; it redefines it. Enlightenment is not the absence of tutelage but the conscious participation within it. It is the recognition that while we are shaped by the past, we are not bound by it. We may stand on the shoulders of giants, but our vision can extend beyond theirs.