"Do we have the right to manufacture dreams for students?": A Dialogue with Saeed Ghapanvari, a Distinguished Scholar

Chahardoli:
From a teacher's perspective, "manufacturing dreams" for students is not only impossible, but also undesirable, because it violates their autonomy and individual agency. Every student has a unique background, interests, and values, and imposing the dreams of adults robs them of the opportunity for "self-discovery." This practice can lead to identity conflict, anxiety, and a sense of constructed failure, as the student is constantly measured against an external and unwanted standard. In contrast to the educational mission, which is empowerment, manufacturing dreams is like sculpting a statue whose final form is predetermined—whereas the teacher should be like a gardener, merely providing the conditions for growth.

Instead, the teacher's role must be to "facilitate dreams." This begins with creating a safe and non-judgmental space for exploration, a space in which a diverse range of professions, lifestyles, and role models is introduced to the student. Rather than directing them toward a specific goal, the teacher emphasizes the strengthening of critical thinking, creativity, concern for the world, ethics, and self-knowledge—all essential for the realization of any dream. The teacher's role shifts from lecturer to mentor, who, through open-ended questions, helps the student hear their inner voice and clarify their own dreams. The feedback is also realistic and supportive—not with unrealistic promises, but by accompanying the student in mapping out possible pathways and identifying the skills required to navigate those paths.

Ghapanvari:
Aspirations, in the learner, raise their capacity for striving in a potential form. They are a cause that, in the learner's eyes, appears beautiful and ideal, turning doubts all at once into golden opportunities. Being always in a state of striving embeds a kind of interaction within the learner and becomes a reason for them to share their dreams with others—and it is precisely this that distances them from becoming instrumentalized. Purpose is crystallized in dreams, and a forward-looking perspective creates a momentum in this cycle to bring about complete fulfillment. This matter, of course, is not without criticism, for it can itself foster instrumentality and a certain subjectivity in the individual. The problem with the forward-moving gaze lies in this path: if creativity and critique interact with supportive forces along the way, one can expect transcendence in every possible form. Yet if these three named elements are absent actions, the danger of an instrumentalizing gaze remains threatening.

Chahardoli:
I understand you, and my answer to the question "Do we have the right to manufacture dreams for students?" remains firmly negative, because imposing dreams violates their agency and autonomy. Yet what I empathize with in your view is this: the teacher's educational role is not limited to passive observation; rather, it includes responsible inspiration—introducing broader horizons as possible options, strengthening critical thinking and creativity skills to analyze these options, and creating a safe space for self-exploration, so that the student can discover and pursue their own authentic dreams, not the imposed dreams of others. Therefore, the teacher's task is not "dream-manufacturing," but "empowerment for dream-seeking."

Given this complex role, I pose my question as follows: How can a teacher recognize and manage in practice the delicate boundary between "constructive inspiration" and "the unintended imposition of their own personal values and preferences"? Is this danger inherent in the teacher's role, and what are the practical strategies to mitigate it?

Ghapanvari:
The right to manufacture dreams, so long as it does not connect the student to destructive imagination up to the point of abstraction, can function in an aspirational way. The place where a clear outlook connects us to our forward goals in the shape of dreams can be nurturing for our mind and psyche in reaching elevated goals. Role models always shape part of this project—role models that are not only inspiring to behold but also guide toward clear directions and can turn long-term motion within us into a swift leap. We must not lead the learner along this path; rather, we should give them a nudge along the way so that they themselves find and traverse the rest of the path with their own inner creativity. From another viewpoint, let us not be narrators of a grand story called "dream," and instead allow the learner to become fertile from their own self, to blossom in the arena of competition and overcoming.

Chahardoli:
To summarize our discussion: The teacher should not impose their own dreams on the student, as this harms the student's autonomy and self-exploration. The primary role of the teacher is to facilitate and empower the student in discovering their own authentic dreams. At the same time, providing inspiring role models and the right "nudge"—without predetermining the direction—can serve as a positive catalyst. The central challenge lies in distinguishing the boundary between inspiration and the unintended imposition of the teacher's personal values.