CONCERNS that democracy is facing an endemic disaffection from civic engagement and that citizens are prone to excessive individualism and a lack of accountability towards one another are being frequently voiced nowadays.

Despite analysis directed towards means of renewing civic values by national and international, state as well as non-state actors, controversy still rages over the role of education in promoting a ‘sense of democracy’.

Today’s democracy is one in which differences are complementary rather than contrary. This is unlike the earlier periods when social homogeneity and an overarching common identity were considered prequisites for a successful democracy.¹ Contemporary democracies, especially India, celebrate their characterization as a country marked by heterogeneity, multiple group affiliations and identities and a plurality of opinions. A vibrant democracy possessing civic solidarity requires citizens to possess an attitude of openness towards the perspectives and opinions of other members of society.

In this essay I will try to establish that the choice exercised within the classroom can have far reaching influence on democratic outcomes and it can produce empowered, informed, and responsible citizens capable of negotiating with the demands of democracy in a diverse society. A focus on the humanities creates opportunities for learning democratic skills, as students encounter departures from their own embedded worldviews and gradually develop a disposition of acceptance towards other points of view and the existence of multiple perspectives on any given issue as well as an appreciation of ambiguity, contradiction and nuance.

Since the current idea of institutionalized education delineated into different disciplines is an adaptation of the European educational paradigm, it might be prudent on our part to try to uncover the trajectory through which educational and pedagogical models have developed throughout history. This perspective will render visible the developmental trajectory modern educational institutions still continue to follow. This exercise will help us understand the marginalization of the humanities and the elevation of the sciences in today’s educational institutions.

 

Most of the traditions and thought processes followed in the West today can be traced to the development of the ideology of Enlightenment. The single overarching idea shared by the adherents to different strands of Enlightenment thinking is faith in the power of human reason to reveal the ‘Truth’ and uncover the reality of our circumstances.²

The enlightenment idea also gave impetus to the idea of progress in human affairs bolstered by reason, otherwise also termed as development or evolution.³ Science, mathematics and logic, being human constructions through reason, were seen as the only agents which could bring progress. The pursuit of knowledge through the route of reason is seen as mediated by and achieved through science, and human improvement is measured largely in terms of the progress made in these fields.

The pursuit of enlightenment ideals in the form of universalizing ideologies and techniques of human organization betrays an unacknowledged will to dominate. This will knows itself only as a benign desire to subdue nature and to reform the recalcitrant qualities of the self and society, all in the name of an increasingly just and progressive society.⁴

The preoccupation with science stemmed from the aim of making all knowledge secure as evinced by Descartes’ articulation, ‘I think therefore I exist’⁵, while he was in search of propositions that were certain, secure and impenetrable to doubt.

Different enlightenment thinkers would comprehend knowledge and science in differing ways over the next several centuries, but they were all consumed by the task, as Immanuel Kant described in The Critique of Pure Reason – of placing knowledge on the secure path of science, reformulating all knowledge in terms of the scientific paradigm of the age, and discarding those which could not be accordingly framed.⁶

 

These developments in philosophy stimulated the emergence of ‘modern scientific consciousness’ and reinforced its popularization. This consciousness projects a belief in the idea that science and mathematics are the only sources of true knowledge and also concomitantly demotes all other branches of knowledge as secondary to science. Of course, science did manifestly improve productivity, but it also contributed, in no small part, to the filth and the squalor of industrialization and urbanization and the other evils of modernity so poignantly described by authors such as Dickens, Eliot and Lawrence among others. With the ascent of reason (and science), the distinction between knowledge that is independent of humans and knowledge which depends on humans arose.⁷

As Thomas Hobbes puts it in De Homine,⁸ the pure or mathematical sciences can be known a priori and thus have greater epistemological force than ‘mixed mathematics’ such as physics which depends on the causes of natural things that are not in our power. Consider Hobbes’ statement at the end of his introduction to the Leviathan: that when he has laid out his own argument ‘orderly and perspicuously’, the only task for the reader was to consider whether he also finds the same in himself ‘for this kind of Doctrine, admitteth no other Demonstration’.⁹ Far from letting the reader judge how her intuition compares with Hobbes’, he imperiously asserts that the argument of the Leviathan has the force of a mathematical proof and is thus irrefutable. Such notions were quite popular in European society then and still retain their force more than 350 years later.

 

Francis Bacon’s development of the Scientific Method (a planned inductive method for scientific enquiry) and his conflation of knowledge with power embodied a programmatic commitment to science as the only reliable means of understanding the universe and the best tool for transforming the world to enable the realization of human aspirations.

That the proto-typical discipline of knowledge in the present era is economics (just as in the past it was theology) is the ultimate triumph of science – as mathematics and logic struggle to tame and streamline the social sciences.

Concomitant to the historical shift towards an emphasis on the sciences, the idea of human life was also being recast in technological terms – entities, natural and non-natural, human and non-human – increasingly started to be seen as only resources to be used.

The consideration of all entities mostly in terms of quantitative terms negates all qualitative relations such that we come to equate quality with quantity; all entities regardless of their intrinsic value and diverse characteristics are transmuted into programmable information. This can be seen in the transformation of employment agencies into human ‘resource’ departments, the trend towards the digitization of data and the stress on quantitatively presented information.¹⁰

 

The German philosopher, Heidegger presciently diagnosed the current crisis in education – the increasing instrumentalization, professionalization, corporatization and technologization. The historio-social transformation of subjects into resources being embedded in our socio-political practices becomes more pervasive with time; it further eludes our critical gaze as we gradually come to treat ourselves in the very terms through which we articulate our technological refashioning of the world – no longer as conscious ‘Cartesian’ subjects taking control of an objective world, but rather as a resource to be optimized and enhanced to its maximal efficiency – whether cosmetically, psycho-pharmacologically or educationally.¹¹

Gandhi in Hind Swaraj points out that seeing people merely as a resource gives rise to cruel utilitarian ethics – the balancing of the interests of one section of society to the detriment of the other, as well as the emergence of a greedy middle class interested solely in their personal aggrandizement. The emphasis shifts from inclusive welfare of people to technological progress.

 

The successive successful conquests of the western world, motored and sustained through technology, impressed upon the postcolonial nations the importance of developing similar capabilities. From the first five year plan onwards, India’s emphasis was on developing a technically trained and scientifically aware workforce. India’s National Policy on Education (NPE) provisioned for an apex body for regulation and development of higher technical education, which came into being as the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in 1987 through an Act of the Indian Parliament. No doubt this move was important for the development of capabilities and assets essential to providing for the material needs of the nation, but the subsequent years did not see much inclusion of the humanities in our educational institutions.

A historical analysis reveals that an inordinate emphasis on the sciences to the detriment of other subjects catalyzed the fragmentation of the modern ‘Uni’-versity – the pursuit of a unified system of knowledge and the common dedication to the formation of cultivated individuals, which originally brought together the academic community as a whole and gave them a sense of purpose, disintegrated. Since only those disciplines which produce instrumentally useful results regularly find financial endorsement, all disciplines increasingly try to present themselves in terms of their utility value. Following the trend, students too tend to adopt this utilitarian mentality, seeing education merely as a means to an increased salary down the road. This paves the way for the professionalization of the university and infiltrates our psyche, instilling a calculative way of thinking and creating a generation of apathetic self-involved individuals who fulfill only the minimal citizenly duties.

The different disciplines lacking any shared substantive sense of a unified purpose or common subject matter tend to develop internal standards appropriate to their particular domains through increasing specialization; over time these internal standards become even more disparate, if not entirely incommensurable. In this way the fragmented university is left bereft of any common standards, other than the ubiquitous but entirely empty idea of formal excellence (vis-a-vis a holistic, substantive idea of excellence).

 

Most disciplines today have adopted a regulatory approach to problems, being concerned primarily with immediate logistical issues rather than with ultimate ends and questions such as what may foster the good of man or how one should live – questions which any informed citizen should ideally reflect on. Due to the development of an engineering approach in economics (which has come from several directions, including some actual engineers such as Leon Walras, a 19th century French economist), the importance of the normative/ethical approach in economics substantially weakened as modern economics has evolved.¹² The methodology of so-called ‘positive economics’ has not only shunned normative analysis in economics, it has also had the effect of ignoring a variety of complex ethical considerations which affect actual human behaviour, creating a rift between theoretical economic projections and predictions and the actuality.

 

The Platonic ideal of ‘Paideia’ resonates with meaning – civilization, culture, development, tradition, literature and education. The Indian parallel to it of course is ‘Shiksha’ which connotes discipline, skill, ingenuity, history, tradition and expertise. The concept of ‘Shiksha’ or ‘Paideia’ exposes two important drawbacks affecting the current education system in contrast.

First, we cannot understand education as merely the transmission of information in the Lockean sense of inscribing a tabula rasa. We as human beings are already shaped by our tradition and culture which we cannot erase and so are not empty containers waiting to be filled. This reductive view of education as the mere transmission of information reflects the nihilistic logic of a historical trend in education in which knowledge is equated with not much more than the storage of standardized information. This problem becomes worse as we are less likely to recognize this ontological drift towards meaninglessness and its pernicious repercussions.¹³

Second, the goal of the educational odyssey is not just acquaintance with the world around us, but also discovering the inner realms of the human psyche. In sharp contrast to the professed goal of science, which is to create an objective, independent, external standard through which the world can be assessed, a holistic education must unsettle the human being by displacing them out of the region of immediate encountering (science and other empiricisms) and placing before them the task of self-reflection (considering the underlying bases of all epistemological encounters in its totality).

Self-reflection at a minimal level requires a self-critical awareness of one’s relation to these bodies of thought, both in terms of ‘responsibility to the other’ and ‘care of the self.’ This creates a space for interlocution of ideas which maintains dignity of discourse for opposing views without at the same moment succumbing to antagonistic reactions (unresistingly yielding to repressive theories and regimes); it is in this space that concepts relating to citizenship and justice can develop.

Thus, a focus on the humanities reigns in the teleologically oriented sciences and creates a dialectical space for us to pause and question all the important implications of a particular action, not just its rationale and telos.

 

The dark side of modernity or European enlightenment, as we have discussed earlier, produced justification for many an evil, especially in its idea of ‘Progress’. To Gandhi, swaraj signified not just emancipation from the colonial domination but a swaraj in ideas – a release from the European ideas of politics and society and a move towards an indigenous way of life. The humanities, by uncovering the assumptions and presuppositions behind theories and ideologies, create a space where individuals can carry out this exercise.

As Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze demonstrated in their analysis of the Bengal famine, the fact that famines can be caused even in situations of high and increasing availability of food, underscores the need for normative considerations in the socio-political realm.¹⁴

The skills of reading and mathematics are essential as they provide the critical foundations of reading and computation so that students can read documents and comprehend basic social and scientific concepts. But what is the backdrop against which the skills and instruction provided by our educational institutions in these ‘more essential disciplines’ are used? One cannot teach skills in a contextual vacuum. Technical education can be taught effectively only in the context of normative socio-political considerations.

 

Social sciences and humanities play a pivotal role in providing solutions to societal challenges: ‘The question is not what India can do for social sciences and the humanities, but instead, what social sciences and the humanities can do for India.’ Most of the economic activity now is in the service sector; so it follows that innovation in these sectors will have a correspondingly larger impact on aggregate productivity growth. Social sciences and humanities provide the normative basis for responding to economic, political, and societal challenges. By offering insights into pricing and regulation as well as behavioural change, they also contribute to tackling contemporary challenges such as climate change, expression of democratic freedom, corruption, and so on.

There is a need to distinguish between a ‘passive concept of justice’, depending solely on the distribution of relevant goods and the ills they bring about, contrasted with an ‘active concept of justice’, which explores and uncovers the conditions which create situations of injustice and sustain the existence of the producers of injustice. This clarity emerges not just as an analytical virtue; rather it needs to be nurtured through the dialectical process involved in the teaching of the humanities within our classrooms.

Indeed, the act of critical reflective thinking (fostered by teaching of the humanities and the social sciences in classrooms) helps students learn about group similarities and differences, break down stereotypical views, and begin to understand the importance of achieving a more equitable society through democratic processes.

 

The extent to which students engage in meaningful, honest and intellectual discussions in which they share their personal feelings and problems will directly influence their democratic learning and development. Many of these types of interactions are likely to occur in courses that include diversity in reading materials, as well as those courses that include an experiential component, such as an intergroup dialogue, as students gain experience in negotiating differences and become aware of their role as allies in creating a solution.¹⁵

In the absence of such guidance by educators, students are likely to conform to familiar and established peer opinion, particularly those students who are unsure of themselves or their place in a large campus environment. This is especially true in more hostile racial/caste based/communal climates, where students are less likely to engage in dialectical exchange and perspective taking (reverting to accustomed status quo positions in the absence of varied exchanges).

As Mark Engburg et al. point out, Erik Erikson’s theory of psycho-social development, that identity develops best when adolescents are afforded a psycho-social moratorium in which they are free to experiment with differing social roles before making permanent social, political and occupational commitments, points to a link between diversity in learning and democratic attitude among students.

 

Thus, we see that the continuation of the enlightenment ideals which implicitly underlie all our social institutions, and indeed also direct their further development, has had a pervasive influence on the modern educational institutions, leading to the fragmentation of the university and commercialization of education.

We need to move beyond ‘situated knowledges’ (knowledge resting on metaphysical and epistemological foundations which are usually left unquestioned) and come up with ingenious worldviews by de-naturalizing the prevalent scientio-political theology and thus identifying the lacunae in the professed aims of politics and development and its (usually divergent) results.

A look at the pre-enlightenment ideas on education can help shatter the myth propagated by currently used pedagogical methods; this enables us to understand that the development of pedagogical methods is contingent and shaped by an understanding of ourselves and our being in the world.

The social sciences and humanities evidently have a very important role to play in ensuring a better quality of life for citizens and social innovation for India in a globalized world. The teaching of the humanities and social sciences along with that of science and technology, therefore, is capable of creating safer, inclusive political environments – environments where resolution of differences becomes a learning opportunity and a starting point for lifelong democratic engagement – especially when they are facilitated in classrooms where differences of experience, background and opinion can be shared in a controlled environment.

 

Footnotes:

1. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1942.

2. Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2002.

3. Andre Beteille, ‘Individualism and Equality’, in Dipankar Gupta (ed.), Anti Utopia: Essential Writings of Andre Beteille. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 330-360.

4. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (translation Edmund Jephcott). Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1944.

5. Rene Descartes, Discourse on the Method. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1637 (1994), p. 53.

6. Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason. Macmillan, London, 1781 (1976), p. 17.

7. Daya Krishna, Social Philosophy: Past and Future. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, 1993 (1995), pp. 3-23.

8. Thomas Hobbes, De Homine. Anchor, New York, 1658 (1972), p. 42.

9. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Pelican Books, London, 1651 (1968). p. 83.

10. Iain D. Thomson, Heidegger on Onto theology: Technology and the Politics of Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

11. Ibid.

12. A.K. Sen, On Ethics and Economics. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 1987 (1996), pp. 23-35.

13. Iain D. Thomson, op cit.

14. J.P. Dreze and A.K. Sen, Hunger and Public Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988.

15  Mark Engburg, Sylvia Hurtado and Louis Ponjuan, The Impact of the College Experience on Students’ Learning for a Diverse Democracy. University of Michigan, 2003.