Edu-Care
Vol 7 No.1 A forum for education concerns 2003
With this
issue, we begin a discussion on that complex idea called Culture. We have
invited participation from readers, and this issue carries two of the articles
we received. The Edu-Care team begins by laying out some of our own ideas about
the topic, each of us looking at it in our own particular way.
* * *
Gurveen:
Almost
as soon as we decided to focus the Edu-Care discussion on the topic of Culture,
I ran into a block, a blank. I wished that the others had not insisted on this
topic that I had resisted all along. I knew I had not reached the point where I
could begin talking about it. It is not just my own personal confusion but also
the sheer enormity and complexity of the issue that leaves me speechless. The
only things I can write about are my own personal confusions regarding culture.
Where do I begin?
With the fact that the year doesn’t begin on Baisakhi and on the day that the
year does begin, it is not my New Year? Or what I feel about the vanishing of
what might be called a national ethos or culture? Being an Indian who grew up
in post-independent India I cannot imagine that 26th Jan, 15th
August and 2nd October may not be holidays. I ring up my friends and
ex-students sure that this is one day I will catch them at home only to be told
that call centres, transcription centres, software companies do not have a
holiday on these days but on 4th July, 25th Dec and 1st
Jan! (How is it that the self-appointed culture police missed this while
destroying card shops on Valentine’s Day and canceling Live Rock Concerts
scheduled in different cities?)
We no longer even
notice the fact, let alone the peculiarity, that Western dress codes are “more”
acceptable in the work place, while Indian dress – even though it is more
appropriate given our weather conditions - are reduced to fancy dresses worn on
special, festive occasions.
This is more
strictly imposed and practiced by men than the women – thereby implying women
are not a serious part of the work world. However, women who take more easily
to western dress do find it easier to climb up the ladder of success in the
corporate world. The advertisements are quick to reflect this when they show
the professional woman dressed in Western clothes and short (or Western-styled)
hair as opposed to the housewife who dresses in a sari or a salwar-kameez and
has long (braided) hair.
I empathize with the people of the earlier generation who
attempt to precariously straddle two worlds, trying desperately to keep a
foothold in the modern economic structure while attempting ineffectually to
live, and impose traditional, cultural values in the personal and social realm.
However I also find myself in sympathy with the youngsters of the present
generation who are more impatient and forthright. They feel more comfortable in
the new social culture of our modern economic life – the ‘real’ culture they
grew up in.
While the very real threat of a complete absorption of our culture by Westernization, in the garb of modernity, upsets the older generation and makes them stick even more rigidly to a fossilized version of our culture, their refusal to let our culture adapt to the changing times exacerbates the situation and further alienates the young. The youngsters find that the cultural element isolates them from the peer-group (a fact that is so important to them at that stage) and the real world they are growing up in, and they become more estranged and uncomfortable with any talk of culture unless it is dancing the ’disco garba’ or singing ‘bhangra pop’.
Has ‘culture’
then, become reduced to a synonym for anachronistic lifestyles, meaningless
rituals, or imposed traditional practices? Does it consist of personal or
private, limited community practices that have no place in the public realm?
What about the modernising of a culture? Can a culture evolve and adapt to
changing times without losing its original impetus or identity? Does a culture
remain pure only if it is not affected in any way by change and by interaction
with other cultures? Can a culture not ‘learn’ and absorb bits of another
culture as it grows? How then does a culture ‘improve’?
On one side the
stifling of diverse cultures by the imposition of a dominant culture is a
genuine concern. On the other side the inability to get out of provincial
thinking or to see beyond one’s cultural frame and recognise the validity of
alternative lifestyles is another equally worrying trend. Chauvinism, cultural
or national, is to be opposed as much as cultural imperialism.
As I said I can
only share my concerns, confusions and worries. But as to answers, I’m still
groping.
* * *
Shyama:
Culture
is the living matrix that sustains our society and provides significance to
human existence. It can be said to be the generative nucleus of society. The
numerous aspects of our life can be understood as expressions of our culture.
Looking at culture as a whole demands an exhaustive search for its different
expressions. In the coming issues of Edu-Care we would like to examine the
beliefs and expressions that are constitutive of culture. It is a challenging undertaking not only because of
the enormity of the task but due to the way in which the myriad expressions and
beliefs do not make a cumulative whole that can be said to signify “culture” in
its entirety. Just what is it that we mean when we try to understand society
through the lens of culture?
People are held together by cultural
beliefs and practices. The articulations of a particular culture can be seen in
its art forms, its literature and practices that are useful in making people
connected. As it is a living medium it is never static and is constantly
rejuvenated. The changes also become necessary when culture is faced with new
challenges. A process of evaluation sets in and a thorough churning of the
medium takes place.
The evaluation of the responses is very
critical as it sets the tone for the dialogue, debate between those seeking
change and the others wanting to maintain the status quo. We have instances in
the history of our country where such a debate was usurped by the foreign
rulers to promote their expansionist agenda in the garb of a civilizing
mission. Such designs vitiate the process of change by undermining the very
motives that inspired these changes. The transformations that result will
always carry an element of self-doubt and are open to being revoked at a latter
time in history. Therefore at times the rearticulation,
which makes culture a dynamic medium, takes either the form of blind adherence
to the existing systems or narrow rejection of all existing systems. Relative
evaluation of cultures is always an arduous task. Judging one culture to be
superior over another may lead to only an imitation culture. It does not always
result in an intelligent borrowing from another. Perhaps the parameters for the
evaluation of culture have to be internal. The finest example of such an
internalist critique is Mahatma Gandhi’s critique of our tradition. He managed
to discard the burden of the colonial legacy by rejecting the external
parameters imposed on our culture as a result of political subjugation. He
brought to fore the fact that once we denigrate ourselves culturally our
subjugation was complete. However this debate about relative evaluation
and the rest of it is slightly premature. We still have a long way to go in
achieving clarity on the various aspects of culture before entering the debate.
I hope that this brief foray into the core that may be said to constitute
“culture” will open a window, give voice to many more questions and provoke
some of you to express your views on the topic, ensuring a rich discussion.
* * *
Usha:
When
the Edu-Care team decided to do a series
of issues on “Culture”, I was very excited, at the possibilities that this
topic offered for stimulating discussion and debate. We expected submissions to
come pouring in; after all, isn’t this just the kind of topic that everyone,
but everyone, is qualified to comment on? However, this has not happened—and
the reason, we are beginning to see, is not because there is nothing to say. In
fact there is too much to say, and perhaps it is difficult to understand where
to begin, and where to stop. And as I sat down to write about this topic that I
was so enthusiastic about, I began to feel more and more daunted by the task.
Right from searching for a definition of Culture to identifying the way it
permeates life and living in all spheres, I was faced with a multiplicity of
answers, a multitude of ways of understanding. It is precisely this that makes
Culture such a rich object of study and subject of discussion.
Let’s take a shot
at trying to understand the term itself. One dictionary defines the term, almost
simplistically, in three ways: (1) Culture consists of activities such as the
arts and philosophy, which are considered to be important for the development
of civilization and of people’s minds.
(2) A culture is a particular society or civilization, especially
considered in relation to its beliefs, way of life, or art. (3) The culture of
a particular organization or group consists of the habits of the people in it
and the way they generally behave.
Contrast this
with an almost facetious definition that I came up with as a student, many
years ago, “Culture is our communicative interface”. This implies that Culture
is the external manifestation of a belief and value system—it expresses itself
in the way we speak and interact, the language and forms of art we engage in,
and is symbolized in the rituals of daily life. But it is also not only an
externality. It is also something that that forms part of our inner life. If
Culture is both within and without us, if it is both content (art forms and
philosophy) and context (our way of structuring the environment, the rules by
which we live), how do we contain and examine it? How can we possibly define
it?
I suppose,
however, that what we are looking for is not really a definition, but a way of
understanding this “thing” called Culture so that we can better understand
ourselves, others, and our interactions. All this so that we can perhaps
function in a more peaceful, tolerant manner—and, in a way, create a common
culture that draws from the best of our individual cultures. But wait—my
statements are racing ahead of themselves. Did I say “individual culture”? That
implies that there are differences in culture not only among groups of people,
but also individuals. And it also assumes that an individual may subscribe to
and be a part of many different cultures at the same time. So our exercise in
understanding should also allow us as individuals to come to terms with our
participation in and membership of these different cultures, yet giving us a
means to unify them all in some way into a composite personal culture.
Let’s look at our
own lives and how we see culture as forming and being formed by our actions,
interactions and beliefs. There is the culture of the home, which is a complex
and dynamic aggregation of individual and group beliefs and actions. It is
informed by religion or absence of it; by traditional beliefs that come from
occupation, gender, family history, power equations and place in society; by
economics and indirectly or directly, by politics. There is the culture of the
workplace, where all these individual factors combine with the beliefs of
social groupings, education, and other politico-economic forces. There is the
culture of the public space, which finds expression in phenomena ranging from
public behaviour (clothes, language, adherence to law) to theatre and other
forms of art, both popular and classical.
Perhaps the only
way to examine this free-flowing, space-consuming, indefinably tangible thing
called “Culture” is by and through its various manifestations in and
interactions with our lives. What is it the underlying commonality across
cultures and sub-cultures that allows communication to occur despite apparent
differences? Is there some sort of “base culture” of humanity that we can all
relate to? How has it changed (or has it changed) over time? How can we put
this understanding to good use?
This is how we
plan to tackle Culture—head on, and sideways, as form and expression, as
content and as context. In this first issue of Edu-Care devoted to Culture, we have two articles, one of which
looks at clothing as an expression of culture, and another that examines the
issue of language and its influence on our perceptions of ourselves and others.
We welcome readers to engage in this discussion either by reacting to the
thoughts expressed in this issue, or by raising ideas of their own, dealing
with Culture in a specific or general way. Some relationships that might help
to jog your thoughts are: culture and modernity, culture and religion, culture
and identity, and culture and language. You may find other, more convenient or
more efficient points of entry into the discussion. The culture of alternative
spaces (and I challenge you to define that!) is to think wide, think broad, but
always with an eye to making the connection between these ideas and our
everyday lives, and always making sure that all voices, from everywhere, are
spoken and heard. By understanding our different “understandings” of Culture,
we may be able to progress in our understanding of difference and similarity.
This is what we hope to do through this (admittedly limited) discussion.
The President’s [and Our] New Clothes
Clothes are a very visible element of culture; the
way people dress is an important statement of identity. It can be a statement
of belonging as well of dissent. Vimal Balasubrahmanyan discusses the implications of a dress code
and some of the reasons why we do—and don’t—abide by this particular cultural
norm, and how the norm itself changes with time.
DURING the second half of last year, the media was
preoccupied with Abdul Kalam’s hairstyle and choice of clothes. After he was
sworn in as President, the “natty” cut of his bandh gala coat was praised and
there was a perceptible sign of relief in the air that he had not turned up for
the ceremony sporting his trademark blue shirt. Earlier his brother had been
quoted as suggesting that Abdul Kalam should now abide by the dress code
expected of him as a leader of the nation.
Who decides what this dress
code should be? Should there be a dress code at all?
Look at Nelson Mandela’s
jazzy, colourful shirt, which rejects both stereotypes, the coat-and-tie of the
“civilized” West, and the exotic, traditional costume of “native” Africa. I
read somewhere that his shirts are specially stitched by a London tailor, but I
would like to think of the Mandela shirt not as a fashion statement but as a
symbol of self-expression—his own personality as well as his identification
with the aspirations of his South African people.
Of course, Abdul Kalam’s
bandh gala is absolutely Indian, and as politically correct as the Nehru
jacket. But I see his long-sleeved blue shirt as a brand image for his unique
personality, so why should we want him to squirm and fidget in something he
“ought” to be wearing? It is this “ought” that is culturally oppressive. Of
course, it’s another matter if Kalam himself wants to wear formal clothes for
formal ceremonies. What is bothersome is the media’s apprehension that he might
not dress “appropriately” for a solemn occasion.
Dress code prescriptions have many dimensions. In
times of communal tension, identity, politics, and religious fundamentalism
could be the factor (Khalistani types coercing Sikh women and college girls to
wear only salwar-kameez, cover their heads with a dupatta, and refrain from
putting on a bindi; or Muslim women in this country and elsewhere being
compelled to don burqas). I saw an inverse variety of this kind of prescription
over a decade ago on a signboard outside a Hindu temple. Devotees were
requested not to enter the temple wearing lungis. Here the lungi was covertly
projected as a Muslim costume, even though lots of Hindus too wear it for
comfort.
Then there is dress code
elitism. Some years ago there were instances of men being denied entry into
posh metropolitan clubs wearing pyjama-kurta and slippers instead of shirt,
trousers, shoes and socks. Though the clubs were well within their rights to
prescribe a dress code for members, they were criticized for their failure to
shed their colonial past and move in step with nationalist sentiments.
The Kalam episode does not
fall in either of the above categories. The dress code expected of him was not
based on a religious norm. And though it was elitist, there was no legal
compulsion. It was just a prescriptive attitude towards what is “appropriate”
dress for people in public life.
Suppose the Muslim clergy had suggested or insisted
that Kalam should, now that he is President, dress like a devout Muslim. There
would have been a furore. The media then would have defended Kalam’s right to
his fancy hairstyle and blue shirt, and would have protested against anyone
forcing him to cut his hair, grow a beard, wear a skull cap, and don a sherwani
and chudidar. By the same logic, why should he be forced to give up what he
likes and wear a bandh gala, however stylishly designed? (Let me state here
that I don’t admire either his haircut or the shade of blue that he seems to
prefer, but I do defend his right to both.)
Interestingly, Kalam on his part showed his respect for other people’s
comfort when he waived the age-old lounge suit dress code for invitees to the
Independence Day party at Rashtrapathi Bhavan. But the poor man himself,
instead of mingling with his guests in his comfortable blue shirt, was sweating
it out in a—you guessed it—bandh gala, most inappropriate for Delhi’s muggy
August weather.
The Kalam episode is
particularly ironic in our country where the Father of the Nation set the trend
for leaders of all time when he chose to wear the khadi dhoti even at the Royal
tea party. Through his dress he proclaimed his identity with the millions of
people in his country—so much so that khadi became synonymous with desh-bhakti
and was adopted as the preferred dress by politicians. Unfortunately, politics
has come to mean corruption, and khadi has come to be more closely associated
with this attribute than with patriotism. The khadi-clad neta of the Hindi
cinema is usually the villain and not the hero.
Cultural expression and clothes get linked in
invidious ways. The young express their defiance of the establishment through
their choice of unconventional clothes. But they can be prescriptive about
“appropriate” clothes for the older generation. Like the class 9 boy who told
his mother not to come to a parent-teacher meeting dressed in jeans. Or the
teenager who doesn’t want her mother to cut her hair or switch over from sari
to salwar kameez. Or the schoolgirl who feels mortified if her grandfather
comes to fetch her wearing a dhoti.
While many of us stop short of dress-code prescription, we do
indulge in dress-code snobbery when we have rigid ideas of what’s good taste
and what’s not. I do it myself when I “approve” of the elegant handlooms worn
by the newsreaders on Delhi Doordarshan and frown impatiently at the gaudy
synthetic prints worn by newsreaders on some of the Tamil channels. I might
assert my freedom to dress as I please by refusing to wear an ostentatious silk
sari to a wedding, but when I go to an activist meeting I want to make sure
that I’m seen in one of my ethnic cottons and not in the polycot which I might
wear when I’m traveling or buying vegetables!
However, there are times
when we voluntarily abide by a dress-code with laudable motives—to put others
at ease, or in deference to religious sentiments.The young NGO worker, who
consciously puts on a sober (rather than trendy) salwar kameez, ties her hair
back, and remembers to wear her chunni when she visits a poor or rural
locality, does so because she wants to establish rapport. It wouldn’t be
possible if her appearance were distractingly alien. Similarly, we may
willingly cover our heads when we visit a gurdwara even if it is not our custom
(it is not in the South) to do so in our places of worship.
On the other hand, the
motives for a voluntary dress code may be less than sincere. A Benazir Bhutto
in Pakistan or a Haseena in Bangladesh bending over backwards to conform to the
Islamic dress code has more to do with the desire for power—which comes at the
price of toeing the fundamentalist line. It is similar to women politicians in
India sporting a demure “domestic” kind of look when they go to canvass for
votes.
There are many issues in dress code politics for
which there is not enough space here. In the entertainment industry, it
operates in a big way and is a fit subject for a PhD thesis (a much-discussed example is Mandira Bedi’s
couture on a television talk show during the Cricket World Cup). To touch
upon it very briefly, what dominates here is gender bias. The prescription may
come from government authority in government-controlled television, or from the
global culture, which now dictates how people, particularly women, should dress
in the competitive world of cinema and cable television.
Way back in the Rajiv Gandhi days, male newsreaders were
admonished for appearing “too casual” in shirts and kurtas. After that the
instructions were: either wear a shirt with tie or a jacket over a kurta. When
you saw a woman newsreader with her pallav round the shoulder, you knew she was
wearing a sleeveless blouse. There was no question in those days of wearing
salwar kameez, though that has become permissible now. In the eighties, male
newsreaders could be seen in spectacles, but women newsreaders with a vision
problem had to wear contact lenses.
In recent times, you saw many newsreaders on the private channels including the Hindi ones, wearing a severe looking business suit, which you earlier associated only with BBC and CNN. Now I’m seeing this less often and many of the young newsreaders on Star News and NDTV seem to have switched back to their ethnic salwar kameez. The code for female VJs seems to be that should wear as little as possible. The sophisticated young things on MTV and Channel V manage to carry off their trendy, if skimpy, outfits but their less than with-it counterparts on some of the other music channels look very uncomfortable in similar clothes. To what extent these new dress codes are voluntary, to what extent prescribed, one doesn’t know.
An arts brochure for almost any major
university might appropriately feature a photomontage representing its season
of cultural offerings from around the world. The montage might feature a female
dancer with an East Indian head, a male Navaho left leg, the right leg of an
Afro-American modern dancer, a torso half-covered by a suit and tie, and the
other half festooned with eagle feathers with one arm displaying a sacred Tibetan
hand gesture, another muscled arm pounding out a rhythm on a Japanese drum, and
two more female arms in a lyrical dance pose from India.
Contrast this cultural mixing with the
lives of most of the people on the planet for most of its history. Citizens of
the Middle Ages and members of premodern tribal societies could live out their
years without encountering anyone with another god, a contrary worldview,
different folktales, dances or myths. If they should encounter an individual or a
society that was different, then the strategy was to conquer it militarily,
economically and sexually; to convert it to one’s own religion; or to kill it.
The very existence of the Other, the very presence of the Other, posed a threat
to the supposed universality of one’s own beliefs.
In the Postmodern age, however, it is
difficult to get through a day without confronting many different realities.
Simply turn on the TV and you might hear a world music group singing a blend of
Irish love song, Indian raga, heavy-metal anthem, Mongolian Buddhist chant ---
and all to the tune of peyote drums, gamelans, didgeridoos, panpipes, nose
flutes, alpenhorns, sitars and tambourines. And all these sounds may be
produced not by the original instrument but electronically, to a danceable reggae
or hip-hop beat, and broadcast worldwide via satellite to millions of viewers
--- the profits going to save the Brazilian rainforest… All the world’s
cultures, rituals, races, databanks, myths and musical motifs are intermixing
like a smorgasbord in an earthquake…In other words, we live increasingly in a
world of interconnected differences….
Postmodernism for Beginners by Jim
Powell, Orient Longman Ltd.
Languages and divisions among them
Language is a window
into culture, being a way of knowing and interpreting the world. Geetha Dorairajan of the Central Institute for English and Foreign Languages in
Hyderabad shares her insights about language and culture from a childhood
experience.
I am going to narrate
an incident from my school days that I have never forgotten, and it is about a
teacher in my school, in Madras, where I studied. It was an English medium convent school where we could take
either Tamil or Hindi as a second language. As a first language user of Tamil,
it was taken for granted that that would be my second language, so I never
studied Hindi, either in school or in college.
Yet, the teacher I want to talk about today is the Hindi teacher in my
school, a Mrs. Thailambal. I was never
her student, but I can never forget her.
To know why, you will have to be a little patient, and read this story
of mine.
In
Madras, now known as Chennai, in those days, monsoon rains were very
heavy. Our school was low lying and so,
very often, if there was too much rain, and the grounds were flooded, the school
would declare a holiday and we could go home in the afternoon. I was in class 4 at that time, and
telephones had just become popular in homes.
My father had just got one put in, and we children were not very
familiar with its use, unlike children of today.
That particular afternoon,
school declared a holiday, and those of us who had phones at home could go to
the school office and call home and ask someone to pick us up. I was standing in line to make that call, a
little apprehensive because it was the first time that I was going to speak on
the telephone in a public place, when a girl, ahead of me in the line, picked
up the phone, dialed and asked:
“Is the car at home?”
I stood there, heard it and remember telling myself,
“So
that is how you talk on the phone.”
So when it was my turn, I picked up the phone; it was my father on the
line and very smartly, I thought, I said: “Is the car at home?”
In reply, I got an earful
and a scolding, in Tamil. “What is that
arrogance, have you forgotten Tamil…?”
This continued after I reached home.
I did not have the language, guts, or ability to explain why I had done
what I had done. I also could not state
clearly that in that school, if we spoke one word of Tamil outside the Tamil
classroom, even during lunch break, your friends would look at you as though
you were a worm! I kept quiet and took the scolding, not knowing what to say or
do, except cry and look remorseful.
This would have continued, and I would have been a confused soul, if it
had not been for another rain and another holiday. How I think back and bless those infernal monsoon rains!
Same place, same line, same call; this time, a few people ahead of me,
was this lovely lady Mrs. Thailambal.
She picked up the phone, and loud and clear stated:
“Naan Thaila peesareen. Schoolla
leaveu vittuttaa. Caar anuppamudiyumaa?”
[I am Thaila speaking. The school has declared a holiday. Can you send the car?]
As you must have guessed,
she spoke in Tamil, and in her dialect. I still remember standing there, and
even now when I think about it, I get shivers down my back, telling myself,
Ippadi kuuda schoolla peesalaama?
[You mean, we can even talk
in school like this?]
I was flabbergasted, amazed
and quite relieved to find that a teacher, of all people actually spoke in
HER--also my--mother tongue in school.
So that day, I bravely went up to the phone, and did the needful in
Tamil, but was careful to not shout it out to the world; I was still scared of
peer pressure!
Needless to say, I did not
get a scolding from my father that time.
Why am I stating all
this? Not to tell you that I became a
brave girl. I feel that there is a
lesson that all of us need to learn from this.
To rephrase Krishna Kumar, when we see Hindi, English, Telugu and Tamil
as school subjects, we expect them to kept in separate compartments. Also, experts make unnecessary distinctions
between a first and a second language, between the use of Hindi and
English. They will tell us that if two
or more languages are spoken together, it will result in a khichdi, a big mess where nothing will be clear.
What we need to remember is
that this assumption about the use of only one language at a time, of only one
language in school, is a hand-me-down from the English who can speak only one
language. They wanted us to become pure
English speakers; they thought of us as a “half civilized race,” who had to be
educated and so they imposed and prescribed a one language use system.
But our lives are not like that. Our culture is not like that. As Professor Pattanayak says, with the economic outlook of monolingualism, (the learning and use of only one language for all practical purposes), two languages are a nuisance, three languages are uneconomic, and many languages are absurd. But where many languages are a fact of life (as in India), and a condition of existence, restrictions on the choice of language use is a nuisance and one language is not only uneconomic, but absurd.
Also, we must not forget
that it our many languages, our multilingualism that has kept our cultural and
ethnic distinctiveness alive. To chant slokas in Sanskrit, talk to daadima, naanimaa, or thattha in Tamil, switch to Hindi,
Telugu and English with parents and friends, is a common phenomenon in our
lives. We also very comfortably bring
in one language while speaking the other.
Tenglish, (Telugu + English) Hinglish (Hindi + English) and Tanglish
(Tamil + English) were all born that way.
This does not mean that we do not know any one language or that we will
not learn to speak even one language properly.
It also does not carry with it, overtones of deficiency and gaps; that
the only reason we are bringing the other language, possibly our first language
while using English, is because we do not know enough of English to speak it
properly.
Those who know only one language, have no choice. But we do; we have richer language resources at our command and can mix and combine them as we wish.
Many languages implies
having more than one tool at hand; the more dexterous we are, the better tool
users we will be. And perhaps, the better we will be at dealing with—and
understanding--many cultures at the same time.
Sharing Room
A
group of readers has this to say:
We read
some of the Edu-Care issues, discussed them and consolidated our general
comments. Most of our comments appear critical, but our primary aim is to give
feedback on this committed, consistent effort. We hope that our comments would
be taken in a positive spirit and help in increasing the outreach of Edu-Care.
We look forward to your reactions and hope to give more specific comments in
future.
1. Language: The articles would be more readable if you could
include some personal experiences from classroom. Often there are long
sentences, which reduce the clarity. We found that sometimes, we had to read
two to three times to fully understand an idea.
2. We find that in many articles the world seems to be black and
white, sometimes giving a feeling that the author is on the “white” side.
3. This may make the reader feel excluded, since (we feel) the
world is gray (No one person is all bad, no one person all good). If the
authors include themselves as one of the all gray world, the reader may
identify with the issue better.
4. Generalizations when made should either be not too forceful (in
expression), or should be subsequently fully developed (in the article or
issue) so as to prove the basis. Otherwise these more often come through as
personal opinions of the author and may put off readers.
5. There is a high level of abstraction in many articles. We felt
that the reader is expected to have the background of Social Sciences to
understand and appreciate this.
Edu-Care does raise
many social issues relevant to today's learning practices. To take the reader
along in its dialogue, a touch of the day-to-day reality (may be by way of
classroom examples) should be brought in. Otherwise this journal may get
restricted to a few theoretically oriented/intellectual readers.
Our
response:
Dear Sreekumar, Lakshmi and
Manisha,
It is
heartening to know that we have readers who take us seriously and care to help
us improve. We are extremely grateful for the time, the thought that you have
invested in sending us your feedback and for giving us this opportunity of
clarifying our position.
Before coming to the
specific issues raised in your letter, we would like to make a general point.
Edu-Care is a forum for education concerns, but we do not subscribe to the
narrow definition of education as restricted to classroom issues or schooling.
Education, for us, is not what happened to us or was given to us in schools.
Education, for us, is a continuous process of self-clarification,
self-definition and self-determination through engaging/ grappling with life
issues, with contemporary dilemmas and debates for a fresh understanding that
would help to make definite, examined life choices. A culling out of personal
values from within a social, cultural, temporal, technological, political and
economic matrix of received wisdom that one neither blindly accepts nor blindly
rejects. It is this personal quest and journey that we share with our friends
in Edu-Care. It is caring about education (=self-realisation) and educating
about caring that is the theme and aim of Edu-Care. It is a consistent,
considered, critical and creative engagement with contemporary dilemmas,
debates and issues.
Coming
to the specific points raised by you:
1. Apropos your point regarding language. While I agree with you
about avoiding complicated sentences, let me share with you my personal
resistance to the general culture and demand for only short sentences. I feel
they promote (intellectual) laziness and short attention span in readers and
writers. Short sentences are appropriate vehicles for expression of simple
thoughts but are not suitable for all occasions.
2. We see the point you are making about black and white and about
conveying the feeling that we are on the “white” side and “excluding” the
reader. We do not believe that things are black or white and did not mean to
say so or to suggest that we are “white”. Yet we do want to say that there are
choices to be made between shades of grey, which are not being made. Also,
would it not be dishonest and inconsistent to lead people into thinking that
all is well? The point we are making is that people have not made choices where
there are issues to be confronted but have drifted into unconsidered routines
and unexamined lifestyles. Perhaps the confrontation will provoke reflection.
3. We take your point/ correction regarding generalisations. We
shall see that either we are less forceful or substantiate our claims to the
extent it is possible, in such issues. However there is no getting away from
the fact that whatever we write is our point of view, a personal opinion--it
cannot be otherwise. The debate between the philosophers of science Popper,
Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos showed that even in Science there is no real
conclusive, final proof. We feel that while scientific objectivity has a point
and place, because it has no space for even well considered individual
positions, even as professionals, it evades issues of personal responsibility.
We hope people will look at the articles in Edu-Care as our personal opinions,
with only one (I think, important) difference that it is point of view arrived
at after much deliberation and consideration.
4. We have never thought of ourselves as (in fact are not) social
scientists or tried to write like them. We have consciously tried not to
presuppose any reading on the part of our readers. However, it is a sustained
and considered engagement with serious issues and as such a certain amount of
inter-textuality is inevitable. We have tried to write as reflective, critical
individuals with our distinctive points of view. We invite others to relate
with us as reflective, critical individuals, which will mean that they will
bring with them their experiences of reading, training, their facts and
considerations. The important point is that we engage with these pressing
social and political issues to the best of our capacity, constantly reviewing
and revising it in light of the insights gained from our experiences.
We
hope others too respond in a similar vein and will share with us the reasons
(practical or theoretical) why they agree or disagree with us. We look for
interactions that will reflect where the others are in their personal journeys
with these issues, and/or point out where we have failed to take into account
some important fact that makes our position untenable or unreasonable. Only through
such dialogue can we arrive at well considered personal positions, which we
hope will take the world in the right direction.
A Request for Help
If
you have been finding Edu-Care informative and thought-provoking, please think
about supporting Edu-Care with an annual contribution of Rs 100. Cheques or
Demand Drafts payable to Centre for Learning may be mailed to: Edu-Care, c/o Centre for
Learning, C-128, AWHO Ved Vihar, Subhashnagar, Secunderabad 500 015, India
What is Centre for Learning?
Centre for Learning is a
voluntary, not-for-profit organization that strives to understand, in
theoretical and practical terms, what education means as distinct from
schooling. Our attempt is to share our learning and understanding with other
interested individuals and organizations, both from the privileged and
disadvantaged sections of society so that we may together begin to responsibly
and compassionately address the issues that we face in the world today.
Our hope is to discover how we may together evolve a lifestyle and a way of
looking at things that is socially just, that genuinely respects the cultural
and biological diversity of all living things on this planet, and that brings
out the best in ourselves as individuals and as a collective.
Aims
·
To discover how
learning can be made personally meaningful and socially responsible.
·
To discover how
education can lead to self-determined, self-disciplined and self-realizing
members of society.
·
To enable individuals
to address the problems of modern day living - critically, creatively, and
compassionately.
Activities
·
Research and advocacy
in education and related issues
Creation of educational resources; consulting and training
·
Publication of
Edu-Care
·
Children's Education
Centre, catering to all sections of society
·
Learners' Club
Help a Vision Grow
Centre for Learning is supported by individuals and institutions with a strong belief in the need for quality education. Current areas requiring support are sponsorships for needy children and contributions to the building fund, or toward publication of Edu-Care. CFL offers its supporters a partnership that works toward the future of individual children and of society as a whole. Ours is a commitment to quality for equality. To find out more about any of our activities, or to contribute your ideas and resources, write to us at:
Centre for
Learning
C-128, AWHO
Ved Vihar, Subhashnagar
Secunderabad
500015, India
Email: gurveenkaur@rediffmail.com; shyama_b@rediffmail.com; ushaupen@vsnl/net