|
|
|
|
Students, politics and the elite
Nov, 2007: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -Hamlet
Hamlet said the above lines while talking to his friend, Horatio. Interestingly Hamlet, feigning madness, could afford to challenge the cold, calculated, and confined philosophy of Horatio. To challenge some of the stereotypes in education one needs to go beyond the structured confines of thinking which have been constructed, perpetuated, and internalised through the process of socialization in the name of logic and reason. One such stereotype is positivistic view of education where education is viewed as a tool, which is neutral, and apolitical in nature and can be used with precision to get its objectives.
What are the objectives of education is a debatable issue. The positivistic paradigm of education proposes that education should lead the students to a set of certain competencies enabling them to have their economic chunk in the society. The better education, in this paradigm, is the one that brings you a larger economic chunk in life. The contemporary corporate logic has popularised, intensified, and legitimised this notion. This brand of education is supposed to be value free. The only value, if there is a value at all, is to maximize profit and for that it is fair that values should either be skipped or down played. Such education is apolitical in nature and thus claims to be devoid of all kinds of subjectivity.
This idea of education sans politics suits all centres of power, e.g., dominant groups, dominant states, and dominant superpowers. This kind of education can easily be linked with good jobs and more bucks and is offered as a panacea to all our economic needs.
The positivistic view of education offers to prepare successful students who are good citizens of society. The definition of success is measured with the help of salary and good citizenships, aims at following the dictates of state and act as an obedient citizen without challenging the practices of injustice around you. In other words goodness of citizenship is equated with conformity.
This paradigm is challenged by the critical paradigm of education. One of the proponents of critical paradigm Paulo Freire claims that education is a highly political act as it aims at improving peoples' lives. Freire's own work in literacy in Brazil demonstrates that how peoples' lives could be impacted with the help of education. In a critical paradigm the ultimate goal is not to fetch a good job and have a successful personal life or lead a life of conformity as a good citizen. Rather this paradigm focuses the development; development at personal and societal level. The idea of development here is linked with the freedom it brings. The critical paradigm of education believes in values and significance of subjective interpretations. It focuses on developing critical thinking skills, which help the students to challenge the social, economic, political, and legal injustice. This paradigm does not suit the dominant groups and dictators. That is why they always try to patronize a purified brand of education that focuses on technical part of education and does not lead to the real objective of education, i.e., emancipation, development, and freedom.
It was during Zia's regime that the purified model of education was put in motion with a lot of religious fervour and all student unions were banned. The reason that was given to ban student unions was that most of them were student wings of main political parties who would act as stooges to their masters' designs. But it was not fair that for the misdeeds of a handful of students the whole student community was penalized. The real reason for putting a ban on student unions was, however, different. It was the threat of student power that scared the autocratic governments. In all the political mass movements against the dictators students remained in the forefront. Stifling the voices of students suited the rulers' designs. They always advocated the technical and purified version of education to blunt their critical thinking skills.
A prolonged ban on student unions put the students into deep slumber. The flow of ideas, which was once common in the large public sector universities, was stopped. In 1980s charters of new universities were given in the private sector. They were dubbed as elite universities where students would get education in ivory towers. These ivory towers remained isolated from and unconcerned with realities of life at societal level. But this passive image of the elite universities was to change after the recent announcement of emergency in Pakistan.
The hitherto isolated ivory towers have suddenly turned into lighthouses. Students from these universities are in the forefront fighting for democracy. This is certainly a new phenomenon, as the voices of dissent did not come from any traditional madrassahs but from most elite universities. The active participation of these students in the movement for democracy and the supremacy of law was also intriguing for many as a common stereotype suggests that elite class is least bothered about the issues of masses and society. This participation challenged the myth that only labour class becomes active in the movements. What could be the reasons of students' concern on the social issues? What inspired them to come out from their comfort zones and take up the challenge? It could be a combination of many factors, e.g., radical nature of courses, critical pedagogy, enabling campus milieu, etc., that led to a heightened level of sensitivity about the social issues.
Pakistan's political history is a sad story of failures of political parties. Let our education system prepare a better replacement for our failed politicians. To do that we need to get away from technical, cold, and cut-throat system of education and bring back critical pedagogy that focuses on emancipation, freedom, and development. The central questions, however, need more exploration: why have students from elite universities challenged the emergency? Why wasn't a similar reaction seen in the mainstream public universities? Why were voices of dissent heard from class of "enlightened moderates" against a government that claims to be a symbol of enlightened moderation? Why wasn't any reaction forthcoming from the madressahs? Seeking answers to these questions will certainly help us unravel and understand certain stereotypes and redefine some age-old notions.
Shahid Siddiqui
The writer is a professor and director of Centre for Humanities & Social Sciences at Lahore School of Economics. Email: shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.com (The News)
|
|
|
|
 |
| Post your Comments/ Views. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Education News | | Updated: 25 May, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
