Abstract
A cursory glance at the syllabus of any degree/diploma course in education shows that the students of education are required to have a rudimentary—if not deep—knowledge of sociology, philosophy, psychology and history of education. Does education occupy a similar position among these disciplines?
Though not by design, the book, Ten Lectures on Education by Avijit Pathak (henceforth Ten Lectures), does build a persuasive case that in sociology, at least, it should. It is not an attempt to give an overview of educational thinkers and their ideas or a summary of the trajectory of education in our country. Rather, it is an attempt to create dialogue on educational experiences, nurture questioning of established patterns and find space for reflexivity and experiential narratives.
The book covers a wide ground. It asks its readers to re-examine perennial questions such as what is education and what is its purpose. At the same time, by placing education in a broad historical and ideological context, it provokes debates on educational practices currently prevailing in our country. The first three chapters focus on formal and informal institutions of learning in general, the next few discuss issues related to education in India and the book ends with possible alternatives to what we see today.
The book is the result of a series of classroom interactions between the writer, a professor of Sociology at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and his post-graduate students—possibly students whose specialisation is sociology. This explains the ease with which names such as Durkheim, Foucault, Mannheim and Mead among others are referred to in the text which may daunt those who are less familiar with these thinkers. These readers can start with the third chapter of the book which introduces them to the sociological lens for examining educational issues and emphasises the interdisciplinary nature of education using the ideas of Marx and Rousseau as illustrations. Simultaneously, and more importantly, it juxtaposes Durkheim’s position on the role of discipline in education with Foucault’s analysis of the power hierarchies inherent in the achievement of discipline.
It is shown that for Durkheim, education has a social function—to create moral citizens who act as a whole rather than as individuals. This notion of a collective discipline would appear to justify the role of the state in education and normalise the measures used by it to achieve the aims of education, since for Durkheim, liberty and authority can coexist. But the notion is countered using the ideas of Foucault, who unmasks the violence inherent in imposition of discipline. Through the means of examples such as the constant surveillance on teachers and students through CCTVs and the doling out of punishment upon observation of a violation or misbehaviour, the reader is asked to judge whether what we see today is a distortion of Durkheim’s ideas or merely their natural extension: a means to ensure accountability. The last sociological lens invoked is that of Benedict Anderson, associated with ideas related to nationalism and print capitalism but this section lacks the critical depth of the earlier discussions on Durkheim and Foucault. There seems to be an acceptance of textbooks as a means to build a national community without an examination of the images that are used to represent the idea of a nation. Do our textbooks accommodate the idea of multiculturalism and multilingualism? When we talk of building shared memories of our heritage, struggles and achievements, whose memories and achievements are represented in these textbooks? Subaltern history representation in textbooks and the dominance of divisive discourse in current textbooks is referred to in a later chapter on ideology, curriculum and educational dilemmas but the politics of textbooks—be it science, maths, language and not just history—could have been explored separately. Given the fact that Avijit Pathak’s recent writings often include discussions of school education and textbooks, it is unfortunate that the book under review does not pay much attention to these issues.
Today, we equate education with formal institutions such as schools and universities as is pointed out in the second and sixth chapters which, respectively, discuss the notion deschooling as proposed by Ivan Illich and the forced failure–success dichotomy in education. Formal institutions are based on a system of weeding out, believed to be necessary for sustaining the economy. Success and failure in schools decides who will do what and the book describes how this view has been made acceptable by theorists such as Talcott Parsons in whose works there is an underlying assumption of the society being equal and fair. The harm caused by this so-called meritocracy and its flaws is demonstrated through powerful examples from the writings of Omprakash Valmiki and S. Srinivas Rao which expose the non-neutrality and violence of educational institutions towards those who belong to the marginalised sections of the society. The term pathology of the normal has been used to describe the process by which other structures of knowledge and other means of learning are denied recognition and a common theme through all the lectures is an exhortation to question established structures and daring to dream of a better and ideal world.
According to the Indian Right to Education Act, all children in specified age groups are expected to be in schools and work is being done to achieve different goals under Education for All. It is a good time to stop and ask why everyone should be educated and what we mean by education. The discussions on Durkheim and Foucault answer the first question to some extent as already described above. In answer to the latter, the book suggests that education is that which leads to enlightenment. Enlightenment, as understood through the work of Kant or alternatively enlightenment equated with nirvava (salvation) is discussed in some detail. It is described how the current education system does not lead to enlightened population in either of the senses associated with the word. The idea of enlightenment seems to hold a deep fascination for Pathak: at one point in the book he mentions the dialogues of Yajnavalkaya and King Janaka reflecting on the inner light. In the chapter on science and secularisation, he advocates the redefinition of religiosity and incorporation of spiritualism—distinct from ritualism—in education with the caveat that it cannot be taught the way other scientific subjects are.
At the end of the chapter on education and enlightenment, one is left with several questions: has there ever been a system of mass education which aimed at enlightenment? Second, how do we explain why the current system of education is the way it is? The second question is answered throughout the course of the book—using history, sociology and philosophy of education. One has to wait till the last chapter, which focusses on feasible ideals, to get a partial answer to the first. In the ideas of Tagore, Shri Aurobindo and Krishnamurthy and the relation between spirituality, education and aesthetics as reflected in their works, the book sees a means to bring about a more meaningful education. While the ideas of the three thinkers have remained restricted to select sites, it is suggested that their underlying principles can be assimilated on a larger scale.
The chapter on the false duality between skill learning and liberal education describes how vocational training is pitched against liberal education and how education has been reduced to the instrument of serving market needs. It advocates the integration rather than isolation of skills, an oblique reference perhaps to the current discourse on skill India programme.
A large portion of book is devoted, and rightly so, to what is considered worth teaching and learning and the paths that have led to this general understanding. In the education commission reports—Radhakrishnan Commission, the Mudaliar Commission and the Kothari Commission—influenced by Nehru’s ideas of nation building, significant emphasis was on science and technology though not totally to the exclusion of the liberal arts. The book is not uncritical of Nehru’s focus on the development of scientific temper, whose shortcomings are illustrated by the persistence of social hierarchies and continuing chasm between different social groups. It is shown why science was given this status, its equation with ‘secularism’ and the resulting discontent. This is not to say that religious nationalism is being promoted in any sense; towards the end of the chapter contextualising the educational debates, we are reminded of the contemporary reality when neo-liberal global capitalism and religious nationalism have joined hands. This has resulted in discourses and practices where the value of education is gauged by how market friendly it is and being educated implies aggressive nationalism. Ironically, science is still placed high in the knowledge hierarchy but while earlier science was perceived as a means to fight the divisive nature of religion today it is a means for economic growth and asserting militaristic nationalism.
Continuing the discussion on what form of knowledge is valued, the chapter on ‘ideology and curriculum’ describes how it is the ruling ideology, be it now or earlier, which decides what knowledge is worth transmitting. The author does not mince words when describing the current state of Indian politics and its effects on education, namely the dominance of what he calls Hindu nationalist historiography.
In Ten Lectures, the writer has demonstrated his ability to weave together philosophy with practice. The style is conversational, liberally interspersed with accessible examples. However, there is a tendency towards narrating anecdotes, a strategy that engages listeners during lectures but when used too often is distracting for readers. Even with these drawbacks, students of sociology who are interested in education and those in the field of education who wish to question the norm will find it useful.
The book was written about two years ago and in the course of these two years, several of the issues raised in the book such as religious nationalism or gap between skill and liberal education have become starker. Education is often based on promoting conformity, consensus and avoiding conflict. In its extreme form today, it has reached a point where any sort of questioning is labelled ‘anti-national’, where space is not given to repressed sections. The book warns that this attitude is not exclusive to the dominant ideology today, it is a trap in which other ideologies have fallen before and continue to fall; we need to ask ourselves why it is so if we want to move towards an enlightened society.