Negotiating egalitarianism in higher education: an Indian classroom
Dr. S. Sridevi
CTTE College
Egalitarianism has been the western model of pedagogy guiding our policies. Social democracy is behind the educational methodologies. How far can we negotiate it with our Indian age-old concepts of pedagogy from which no teacher or student has escaped. We can analyse how our system unconsciously clashes with the western ideals. There is a crisis in our class rooms because of this conflict, as roles are not clearly defined. Egalitarianism – hierarchy conflict occurs in our class rooms. The teacher has to emerge as a social superior to handle the issues of the class room. The students are now vested with social power and the teacher’s role becomes limited. We have to customize western pedagogy to suit our fundamental structures of society striking a fine balance between the two.
What is important for a teacher in higher education? To keep abreast in his field of knowledge? To keep the class under his control? To teach the subject thoroughly? To inspire the students? There are four areas a teacher has to concentrate upon. Research has shown it is not necessary to teach well, even if you know well. “It has long been presumed that scholarly expertise alone is sufficient preparation to enable someone to teach effectively in higher education” (8), says Bruce Macfarlane in his book Teaching with Integrity. Acquiring knowledge is a different thing and teaching it in a simple manner to young minds is another thing. This area of human experience needs another quality – ethics.
In India, the teacher is placed next to the parents. We accept the hierarchical order of society. Certain elements of the hierarchical system have been rejected by contemporary thought rightly. We have moved towards an egalitarian society. Have the teachers really become egalitarian? Can we tolerate questions, criticisms and critiques from our students? Can we accept at times students are right? Can we apologise to our students when we turn out to be wrong? Is it possible to convert all teachers to a complete rationalistic, socialist, democratic model? Can we practice complete democracy in a class room, as assumed by the learner centered methodologies imported from the west? Do we give opportunities to all our students based on their hard work and merit? Do we include them in our syllabus designing programmes? Is there any pluralistic openness in our educational programmes? Do we conduct a survey among them to find out their needs? Is there any co-relation between education and egalitarianism? Can we manage to work with a student on a research project, which need a complete freedom in questioning that we cannot give ourselves or to our students? As we are not comfortable with the Socratic, dialectical method of questioning every thing, how can our students; energy be directed into research? Vigorous questioning is the western approach to the phenomena that has grown in 2000 years of history. Our minds cannot tackle this easily.
These are our current questions. In the Indian class room the teacher is still the powerful Other. How does the self view the Other – with respect or as an equal? We cannot rationalize the role of Other in this context. It transcends and goes beyond. There is a wide gap between the teacher and the students. Both represent the two sides of a society. Both the sections are not yet comfortable with the democratic model. Either it is used too much or it is misused.
We can try a conservative approach to Indian education system. The Indian theory of moral action believes in pain if we fail in our duty. In Indian ethics: Classical traditions and contemporary challenges, a book published in 2007, J.N. Mohanty argues for an Indian theory of moral action. The karma theory strongly warns of the individual about the lapse in one’s performing of his duties. We can try to bring this theory into the arena of pedagogy. The teacher has to know that his duty is to make the student understand what he teaches and help him think beyond in the subject; unless he does it he is committing a sin for which he will be punished by life later. Similarly, the student must know he has to respect the teacher as a guru and if he insults or derogates the teacher, it would amount to be a sin; he should do the work allotted to him sincerely, otherwise it would be morally wrong. The class room should be within a natural cultural structure of thought.
Morality is a social structure born out of history and geography. It has a utility purpose of keeping the social structure intact says Nietzsche. Morality reinforces the culture of geographical blocks. It is directed by fear. To a certain extent if a society has to function well, this social fear is necessary. It is not fashionable to talk about morality in education, as it is understood the teacher is ethical. But, shouldn’t the student also be ethical? Shouldn’t he respect the teacher who is committed to the welfare of other, younger lives? Why is the committed teacher mocked by the careless students? Why doesn’t society recognize commitment in teaching? It is because we do not put education within an Indian, moralistic model. Education has to get back its glory. Our students must be made to understand that it was not so easy to enter schools and colleges those days, even hundred years earlier. They should learn the value of the class rooms. The teacher should get the respect back from society. He should not be evaluated based on materialistic factors. His role is the greatest; it cannot be materially weighed; every teacher should become aware of his importance in the building of values in society. The profession should get back its pride. We cannot negate our cultural values in the class room. This also has to become part of teaching methodologies while training teachers.
What is good to one culture may turn out to be wrong for another. It is a shifting thought process. But every region arrives at certain models of thought which remain in that mind forever. Social constructions grow slowly, rather evolve slowly and might take a double slowness to disappear. When new methodologies come from other lands, they have to carry their social values with them. Methodologies have to be backed up with society’s participation. These are the two units that can bring some movement or dynamics. As methodologies are also products of society, they cannot survive when are replaced in another society. We want education for all, as a policy. This policy has to be made a reality by the stakeholders – teachers and students. Both these stakeholders are part of a society that is hierarchical. They cannot practice liberalism in higher education to its full justice. So, it becomes essential that we customize the new methods and fit them into our theoretical models of life.
How do we combine these two extreme approaches to life – egalitarianism and hierarchy? We have to spend our intellectual energies in this area and devise accurate, suitable, scientific methodologies accordingly. We have to build a frame work that can accommodate egalitarianism and hierarchy.
Works cited
Macfarlane, Bruce. Teaching with Integrity. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Mohanty, J.N. “Dharma, imperatives and Tradition: Toward an Indian theory of moral action”. Ed. Billimoria, Purusottama. Joseph Prabhu, Renuka Sharma. Indian ethics: Classical traditions and contemporary challenges. USA; Ashgate publishing company, 2007.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond good and evil. New York: Dover publications Inc, 1997.
Dr. S. Sridevi
CTTE College
Egalitarianism has been the western model of pedagogy guiding our policies. Social democracy is behind the educational methodologies. How far can we negotiate it with our Indian age-old concepts of pedagogy from which no teacher or student has escaped. We can analyse how our system unconsciously clashes with the western ideals. There is a crisis in our class rooms because of this conflict, as roles are not clearly defined. Egalitarianism – hierarchy conflict occurs in our class rooms. The teacher has to emerge as a social superior to handle the issues of the class room. The students are now vested with social power and the teacher’s role becomes limited. We have to customize western pedagogy to suit our fundamental structures of society striking a fine balance between the two.
What is important for a teacher in higher education? To keep abreast in his field of knowledge? To keep the class under his control? To teach the subject thoroughly? To inspire the students? There are four areas a teacher has to concentrate upon. Research has shown it is not necessary to teach well, even if you know well. “It has long been presumed that scholarly expertise alone is sufficient preparation to enable someone to teach effectively in higher education” (8), says Bruce Macfarlane in his book Teaching with Integrity. Acquiring knowledge is a different thing and teaching it in a simple manner to young minds is another thing. This area of human experience needs another quality – ethics.
In India, the teacher is placed next to the parents. We accept the hierarchical order of society. Certain elements of the hierarchical system have been rejected by contemporary thought rightly. We have moved towards an egalitarian society. Have the teachers really become egalitarian? Can we tolerate questions, criticisms and critiques from our students? Can we accept at times students are right? Can we apologise to our students when we turn out to be wrong? Is it possible to convert all teachers to a complete rationalistic, socialist, democratic model? Can we practice complete democracy in a class room, as assumed by the learner centered methodologies imported from the west? Do we give opportunities to all our students based on their hard work and merit? Do we include them in our syllabus designing programmes? Is there any pluralistic openness in our educational programmes? Do we conduct a survey among them to find out their needs? Is there any co-relation between education and egalitarianism? Can we manage to work with a student on a research project, which need a complete freedom in questioning that we cannot give ourselves or to our students? As we are not comfortable with the Socratic, dialectical method of questioning every thing, how can our students; energy be directed into research? Vigorous questioning is the western approach to the phenomena that has grown in 2000 years of history. Our minds cannot tackle this easily.
These are our current questions. In the Indian class room the teacher is still the powerful Other. How does the self view the Other – with respect or as an equal? We cannot rationalize the role of Other in this context. It transcends and goes beyond. There is a wide gap between the teacher and the students. Both represent the two sides of a society. Both the sections are not yet comfortable with the democratic model. Either it is used too much or it is misused.
We can try a conservative approach to Indian education system. The Indian theory of moral action believes in pain if we fail in our duty. In Indian ethics: Classical traditions and contemporary challenges, a book published in 2007, J.N. Mohanty argues for an Indian theory of moral action. The karma theory strongly warns of the individual about the lapse in one’s performing of his duties. We can try to bring this theory into the arena of pedagogy. The teacher has to know that his duty is to make the student understand what he teaches and help him think beyond in the subject; unless he does it he is committing a sin for which he will be punished by life later. Similarly, the student must know he has to respect the teacher as a guru and if he insults or derogates the teacher, it would amount to be a sin; he should do the work allotted to him sincerely, otherwise it would be morally wrong. The class room should be within a natural cultural structure of thought.
Morality is a social structure born out of history and geography. It has a utility purpose of keeping the social structure intact says Nietzsche. Morality reinforces the culture of geographical blocks. It is directed by fear. To a certain extent if a society has to function well, this social fear is necessary. It is not fashionable to talk about morality in education, as it is understood the teacher is ethical. But, shouldn’t the student also be ethical? Shouldn’t he respect the teacher who is committed to the welfare of other, younger lives? Why is the committed teacher mocked by the careless students? Why doesn’t society recognize commitment in teaching? It is because we do not put education within an Indian, moralistic model. Education has to get back its glory. Our students must be made to understand that it was not so easy to enter schools and colleges those days, even hundred years earlier. They should learn the value of the class rooms. The teacher should get the respect back from society. He should not be evaluated based on materialistic factors. His role is the greatest; it cannot be materially weighed; every teacher should become aware of his importance in the building of values in society. The profession should get back its pride. We cannot negate our cultural values in the class room. This also has to become part of teaching methodologies while training teachers.
What is good to one culture may turn out to be wrong for another. It is a shifting thought process. But every region arrives at certain models of thought which remain in that mind forever. Social constructions grow slowly, rather evolve slowly and might take a double slowness to disappear. When new methodologies come from other lands, they have to carry their social values with them. Methodologies have to be backed up with society’s participation. These are the two units that can bring some movement or dynamics. As methodologies are also products of society, they cannot survive when are replaced in another society. We want education for all, as a policy. This policy has to be made a reality by the stakeholders – teachers and students. Both these stakeholders are part of a society that is hierarchical. They cannot practice liberalism in higher education to its full justice. So, it becomes essential that we customize the new methods and fit them into our theoretical models of life.
How do we combine these two extreme approaches to life – egalitarianism and hierarchy? We have to spend our intellectual energies in this area and devise accurate, suitable, scientific methodologies accordingly. We have to build a frame work that can accommodate egalitarianism and hierarchy.
Works cited
Macfarlane, Bruce. Teaching with Integrity. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Mohanty, J.N. “Dharma, imperatives and Tradition: Toward an Indian theory of moral action”. Ed. Billimoria, Purusottama. Joseph Prabhu, Renuka Sharma. Indian ethics: Classical traditions and contemporary challenges. USA; Ashgate publishing company, 2007.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond good and evil. New York: Dover publications Inc, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.