Modern
Science, Education – Instruments of ‘One World’
Pawan K.
Gupta
I would like to put a few things in perspective before I begin my talk so that the gap between what is being said and what is being understood is reduced. I use the word reduced deliberately because one can never be sure about how to completely bridge this gap. And for something fruitful to emerge from such seminars listening is even more important than speaking. Chemistry between Speaking and Listening yields results and depends upon:
1.
Shabda aur Artha:
We need to make a distinction between ‘words’ (shabda) and their ‘meanings’ (artha). Meanings are of
essence; they are the ones to be conveyed, the objective and words are only the means
employed to convey. So my request would be to try to get the meaning of what is being said
rather than focus on my words so much.
For
example I would put traditional and modern in the ‘different’ mode and not the
‘opposite’ mode. It is not an either/ or situation.
*************
Having
said this I would like to come to the main topic of my paper. I would like to talk about
the assumptions of the framework of modern science and modern education, its limitations
and how this framework controls and ultimately serves the interests of the market.
Drishya,
Drashta, aur Drishti
: One of the basic assumptions of the framework of modern science and the
worldview it perpetuates is that there are only two basic entities - the drishya (the object or
the observed) and the drashta
(the observer). That the reality lies in the observed or the object - the drishya. This is the
principle of objectivity.
But
according to our philosophy, we believe that apart from the observer and the object, there
is a third thing called the drishti,
which is in between the two and whether we take it into account or not, drishti is omnipresent.
The same object is perceived, interpreted, in different manner by different people –
each according to his or her drishti.
‘Jaisi drishti vaisi shrishti’. According to
this view perception is all important. And most of our experience also collaborates this
viewpoint. A number of people listening to the same words, draw their own individual
meanings, each according to their perception. Ironically, quantum physics also supports
this view. This principle effectively challenges the principle of objectivity. Reality no longer remains only in the object rather
reality becomes a construct. The focus shifts to the observer. It is an empowering
concept as the observer gets the power to mould his perception and play an active role in
creating his/ her own reality unlike the other worldview where one is merely a passive
observer.
Limitations
of the paradigm emanating from the principle of objectivity in modern science : Although
we all perceive through our drishti, yet
as there is no space for it in our present education system, we become oblivious to its
presence. Because we take no cognisance of it, we fritter away the power of playing an
active role in creating our reality. Because of the mistaken belief (perpetuated by the
modern systems and its various instruments) we tend to believe that the reality is out
there – in the object alone. This ignoring the presence of drishti - limits our perception, making it
extremely narrow and we give away our power to the outside forces to show us only that
which they want us to see. We become dis-empowered. What is
shown to us or our education system trains us to focus on is only the functional, the
instrumental and that which can be seen, touched, heard, tasted, smelt and these too, in a
very short span of time - turant.
The
framework of modern science (and modern education and other systems and instruments, which
emanate from the same framework) which dominates our lives today, creates the illusion
that we are ‘developing a more open mind’ , ‘broadening our horizons’,
‘developing a scientific temperament’ etc. but actually it is putting blinkers
on our eyes. The result is that though the observer feels uncomfortable with the outcomes
and experiences a different reality but is unable to figure out the cause because feelings
or experience does not come under the preview of objectivity.
Conflict
between manyata
and anubhav /or vastavikta: In
our short experience of 12 years of working in the area of education we find a lot of
conflicts among our people. Conflict between what they have come to believe under the influence of modernity, modern
science, modern education, development, globalisation – call it what you like, I am
sure you are getting the meaning of what I am saying – and what their experience or reality is. For instance:
¨
The
belief is that ‘padh
likh kar naukri
milegi, rojgar ke sadhan badhenge’
but the experience is that ‘padh likh
kar ghar ka kaam
,kheti bhi nahi
hoti, naukri to door ki baat’;
¨
Belief
is that globalisation would open more opportunities of jobs but the experience is that the job market is shrinking,
unemployment is on the rise.
¨
Belief
is that literacy has a co-relation with education as if they are synonymous but experience is otherwise. A large number of
illiterate in our country are truly wise and thus educated.
¨
Belief
is that gender ratio has a direct co-relation with literacy. Figures of Kerala and other states are often cited to establish the
co-relation. Without saying what is imputed is that the illiterate are harsher on women
etc.. But the reality is that as India and all
its states have become more literate the gender ratio has gone down.
¨
Belief
is that ‘chhota parivaar sukhi parivar’. We have
chapters to this effect in our textbooks. That in nuclear families children are better
looked after etc etc.. But the reality, at least in rural areas is that the large
or joint families are more prosperous, have less work load on women and children. All
dropouts from our schools in last five years were from nuclear families.
There
are many more such conflicts but for lack of time I am giving but a few examples. The
point is that the modern system creates these illusions because it has managed to drive
our attention away from the reality of drishti, thus allowing the powerful to show
us what they want us to see (believe) - to create our belief systems.
Confusion
between means and ends:
We know that after all human endeavour ultimately is to derive sukha - some happiness, some sort of self
satisfaction etc.. But by not recognising drishti and thus losing focus of the self,
the entire effort, to gain happiness, the entire attention gets shifted to the object
– the suvidha
(the material, the objective world). Though
the endeavour is to seek happiness (which is experiential, non material and subjective in
nature) it is sought outside in the material world only.
Looked
at in a different manner - by not recognising drishti, the goal (sukha) is replaced by only one of the
possible means, that which can be seen – suvidha. An illusion is created that we are
going after the goal but actually we go only after (one of the possible) means. But our
experience tells us that many a times the goal (of sukha, which is experiential in nature) is
not achieved even after acquiring the means. This leads to the confusion in modern
society.
The essence of West - Control: Modernisation as we
know today is basically synonymous with westernisation. I believe we have not yet evolved
our own modernity.
Essentially western society in the last five hundred years has
evolved in a manner which tries to control nature and all its entities and ultimately
tries to control human societies. Perhaps this is because they do not recognise drishti and hence
confuse ends (sukha)
with means (suvidha)
and hence all their efforts are towards acquisition and control of the material world.
Homogenisation
:
The phenomena of globalisation (a modern day avatar of colonisation) is essentially an
idea and effort to shape the international society in a singular manner, steer it in that
direction through various means and ultimately to control it to serve the larger interests
of the dominant power centres - state as well as private - of the west. Homogenised
societies are easier to control than diverse cultures. It is easier to control people who
believe in the same things, have similar value systems, who think alike, have similar
tastes etc.. Modern science (and its offspring modern technology) and modern education are
major instruments of such control to shape all societies in one single mould.
In
the globalised world, as the focus is on the object, sukha is confused with suvidha which becomes the
object to be coveted (in the hope of gaining sukha) and the market becomes the instrument
to lure the majority. And as they already have similar tastes through the effort of
shaping societies into ‘one world’ mass production makes every sense. It is
easier to sell jeans to the entire world but not so easy if a company had to sell dhoti in
one place, pyjama in another, sural
in the third etc.. It is easier for the market if people desire, by and large, the same
things. Then MacDonalds and Levis can go international.
The
illusion of individual freedom :
The modern day control is through thought control by keeping alive the illusion of
individual freedom. I say this is an illusion because human being essentially is
interdependent on each and every entity in this universe and yet we are somehow given the
impression that we are independent.
So
for instance we have the illusion of having a choice to drink what we like (pepsi, coke, etc.) but we have hardly any choice to drink water from
the tap, (branded as unsafe), wells, bawdis or naulas (which have disappeared with the
onslaught of modern ‘development’ – call it globalisation if you like) or sherbet (outdated and unavailable) or juice (again
branded as unsafe because human hands touch it). Who puts these ideas in our heads –
we need to think. And even if they are unsafe, why have they become unsafe in the first
place – we need to see the connection of their being unavailable or becoming unsafe
with the phenomena of ‘development’ or ‘globalisation’. Market in fact
is reducing both choices and competition while giving an impression to the contrary.
The
modern man thinks they have the freedom of choice whereas they are totally at the mercy of
the market. Take technology. If we go back in time we find that we had more control with
ourselves. We were thus more empowered. We or
someone very close to us (person from our sansaar) could make, repair and control the
technology (take plough or the typewriter) and we could also use it for a very very long time. Now things are out of our hands. Now we can only use technology that too in a manner
specified by the system and certainly can not control it. We can not make or repair
it. Instead of making us free it enslaves us. I can no longer make or repair computer as
easily as I could the typewriter. I am forced to upgrade the computer every few years (the
span becoming shorter by the day) otherwise I might as well stop using it. Who is in
control? Me or the market? We need to ask this. The power has shifted out of the periphery
of my sansaar.
Perhaps
it a thumb rule that the more remote and invisible
the centre of power from myself, the more disempowered I become. The closer and more visible the power centre the more
empowered I am. We can easily see that in all spheres of our lives we have become less
empowered – sukha
has become a distant dream even though we perhaps may be enjoying suvidhas. Essentially this is because I am
becoming less and less in control of my life. The power centre is becoming more and more
distant and faceless. I have become less and less powerful but the illusion is to the
contrary. This is illusion - the power of
globalisation.
By
steering my focus of attention only on the functional aspects the dominant system has
succeeded in making me believe in the neutrality of science and technology. As if
technology is neutral. Strictly functional / instrumental understanding of technology
fails us badly. We need to recognise the subtle ways in which everyday life is transformed
by the mediative role of technical devices. In technical realm
we repeatedly enter into social contracts which we often recognise after a considerable
gap – after it is too late.
Technology
in a very subtle way moulds our drishti. For example: The pedestrian has a
certain flexibility of movement : he can pause to look at his surroundings, speak to a
passer by etc. All entities have a name and a distinct meaning for him. But as soon as he
becomes a driver of a fast moving vehicle suddenly all entities turn into nameless
obstacles which he must avoid, if he is a good driver. Without his knowledge his drishti undergoes a
change. His world changes without his knowledge – things which had a name and a
distinct meaning suddenly all of them get clubbed together as obstacles to be avoided.
The
large, centralised, hierarchical socio-technical entities crowd out and eliminate other
varieties of human activities. Industrial techniques and technologies of modern
agri-business make traditional occupations and small scale farming difficult if not
impossible to survive. The tragedy is that it is not merely that useful devices and
techniques of earlier periods that have become extinct but more important the patterns of
societies and individual experiences that employed these tools are also vanishing along
with them.
The
large organisations exercise power to control the social and political forces that
ostensibly control them. Human needs, markets and political institutions that might
regulate technology based systems are often subject to manipulation by those very systems.
Thus (psychologically) sophisticated techniques of advertising have become instruments of
altering people’s ends to suit the structure of available means.
Like
homogenisation, increase in speed and insecurity in life makes it easier to control: A
rhythmic pace of life gives a sense of security. The two in fact go hand in hand. And
secure people are difficult to control. Hence it is in the interest of those who want to
control to increase the pace of life, which in turn brings with it a sense of insecurity,
which makes it easier to control. So it is in the interest of the dominant forces to
destabilise people from traditional occupations (where a rhythm is needed) and push them
into the cash economy, salaried jobs etc. where one is forced to lead a fragmented and
fast life, ultimately leading to insecurity which makes it easier to control.
Scientific
temperament is ideally supposed to broaden our horizons, to make us see through multiple
perspectives, to broaden our drishti.
Instead it gives no credence to drishti
while creating an illusion to the contrary. It makes us see things in almost a unidimensional sense – this is the control. Our children are
taught to have an unquestioned belief in anything branded as ‘scientific’. Our
people covet any thing which comes under the umbrella of ‘development’. We need
to get out of this control.
The
answer perhaps lies in recognising that the reality is not ‘out there’ but has
to be constructed. When we take drishti into account then the focus shifts from the object
to ourselves, the observer. The focus shifts from only the ‘seen’, the
functional, the instrumental, to also the
feelings and experiences, to the observer. And slowly it dawns on us that we can work on
ourselves to create our own reality by moulding our perceptions. We could then work
towards shifting the power centre closer and closer to ourselves with the ultimate
objective of shifting it within ourself, when we could hope to
be completely at peace – fully empowered. This empowerment will not be at the cost of
the disempowerment of the other as is the case today.