Readers of the Great Learning have long noted that its vision of moral cultivation and social order, while inspiring, is not without serious tensions. The text’s emphasis on a hierarchical social structure and the cultivation of “superior persons” has been criticized as reinforcing rigid social stratification and authoritarian governance, potentially justifying inequality and limiting social mobility. By centering the ruler’s moral example and the virtue of a select few, it can appear to marginalize the role and agency of ordinary people in shaping communal life. This elitist orientation is further sharpened by the way traditional interpretations largely confined meaningful cultivation and political participation to a narrow, educated class.

Another thread of critique focuses on gender and the family. Traditional readings of the Great Learning have often excluded women from the full process of moral and political cultivation, reflecting and reinforcing patriarchal assumptions about who is capable of higher moral responsibility. Such interpretations have been faulted for naturalizing gendered divisions of labor and authority, thereby embedding inequality into the very fabric of ethical life. In this sense, the text’s moral vision has been seen as intertwined with a social order that privileges male authority and sidelines women’s voices and capacities.

The Great Learning’s famous progression from self-cultivation to ordering the family, governing the state, and bringing harmony to the world has also drawn critical scrutiny. Some see this sequence as overly idealistic, placing great confidence in the power of individual moral refinement to resolve complex social and political problems. By focusing so heavily on inner virtue, the text can seem to overlook structural injustices such as economic inequality, institutional corruption, and entrenched social injustice. Critics argue that this orientation risks treating moral failure as primarily personal, while leaving broader systemic issues insufficiently addressed.

Finally, the moral teachings of the Great Learning have been described as both politically conservative and potentially rigid in application. The strong emphasis on stability, harmony, and order may inhibit necessary social change and make it difficult to question existing institutions and norms. When its prescriptions are treated as fixed and universally applicable, they can become dogmatic, leaving little room for adaptation to changing historical circumstances or diverse cultural contexts. In this way, what began as a path of cultivation and harmony can, in the eyes of some critics, harden into a framework that legitimizes cultural dominance and suppresses alternative value systems.