CITY CITY BANG BANG

The other side of education

Santosh Desai

Perhaps, nothing in the world receives as much unanimous endorsement as the idea of education. We see it as a fundamental human need, nay right, and strive to ensure that our children get the best education our circumstances permit. And yet, for something that is seen as such a natural and intrinsic part of our lives, education is an extraordinary institutional intervention in an individual’s life. Think about it—we voluntarily turn over our children to this sector for indoctrination. We give them our children and get in return, socially productive resources 20-odd years later. Education turns people into professions, for the purposes of society. People become their profession; every other source of identity recedes in the background.

The role of education in society is so central because it converts the individual into the collective without appearing to do so. In some ways its most important role is to make us realize what we cannot be and what we cannot do. Education, particularly schooling, teaches us about the need for obedience, the desirability of order, the importance of rules and the power of hierarchy. It judges us and tests us, it observes our actions and shapes our thoughts. It creates a framework of arbitrary rules in the form of attire, time and order. We wear uniforms, stand in straight lines, put fingers on our lips, stand to attention, clap dutifully when told, keep quiet so that we can hear a pin drop, crease our trousers, comb our well-trimmed hair, polish our shoes and clip our nails.

A school moulds people into becoming usable later in life. Our individuality is a cumbersome thing—it carries sharp edges and harbours enormous self-love, it is restless, self-indulgent, untamed. Without education, we fear the outbreak of anarchy for we would not learn anything about living in a world full of others. At its heart, education recognizes that human beings are inter-dependent and need to find a way to fit into a larger template that accommodates all of us and more importantly, allows this otherwise chaotic collective to move forward with a degree of coherence.

The subjects we learn at school are important, but eventually they merely define which specific slot we fall into as we grow up and become something. The more important function of schooling is a structural one—it makes us of a predictable shape so that we can fit into one of the many available pre-designated slots.

The important thing to note is that schools are not structured around students and their needs but around those of society. To be sure, the needs of students are accommodated within this larger framework, but the idea of education does not rest on making individual students realize their full potential, no matter how good a school. Every sign emitted by the schooling system, every institution cherished by it, carries within it a trace of a larger societal intention.

Ask yourself why schoolchildren need to wear uniforms, for instance. One reason is that it equalizes everyone and blinds them to the social differences that lie outside in the world. There is some truth in this, but only some, for in most cases, school fees do a good job of ensuring a minimum amount of homogeneity in terms of who can afford to be in which school. Schools need uniforms because they need to teach children that they are a collective, part of a defined social group that follows a set of rules and observes certain hierarchies. They are grouped together constantly, addressed often with their roll number rather than name, and even when the name is used, the surname rather than the first is often preferred.

The fact that education is society’s way of making us useful to it, is borne out by the way we are taught things. The idea of subjects is an interesting one. The universe is not divided into subjects, neat boxes that come labelled for our use. We experience the world in its totality; our consciousness does not fragment it into capsules. In order to comprehend the world, we needed to reduce it for otherwise the world was too overwhelming. But nothing operates in isolation. The blacksmith must have an understanding of the physics of temperature, the chemistry of metals, the anatomy of horses for whom he made the horse-shoes, the marketability of his produce while being mindful of his responsibility towards his family, community, religion and ruler.

Specialization is what society needs; for individuals it creates a spurious sense of division. The scientist does not see the social consequences of her invention as a part of her legitimate concerns, just as a businessman believes his role is to maximize profits without worrying too much about the environment. It is not his subject; let the environmentalists worry about it. In India, this division is even more rigid. We study science or commerce or arts as if these three broad heads cannot co-exist for any single individual. We cannot choose combinations of subjects to our liking, because they are not offered together. For we must become one thing or another, and that menu of choices has been made for us by someone else for their own needs.

In the years to come, it would be important for us to take a deeper look at this institution and ask if we need to redesign it in order for it to serve our needs better given today’s circumstances. Of course, education will continue to meet the needs of society but it also needs to work more consciously towards enabling individuals to use their individuality to more telling effect. We need a more dynamic and fluid view of education. Kapil Sibal’s efforts are a good place to start, but there is a long way to go yet.
santoshdesai1963@indiatimes.com