Liberal Education in Arts, Sciences and
Humanities: Status, Role and Future
Text
of the paper delivered in the Seminar at the India International Centre on 13th April 2009
By
Anisha Shekhar Mukherji
I would like to explore
the role and relevance of liberal education in India today with my perspective
of studying in nine schools in different parts of India, and my exposure to
professional architectural study and practice. It is evident that our attitudes
and our abilities as thinkers, policy makers, and politicians are inevitably
shaped by the direction of the school education that we have received. As parents
and teachers we orient our children to an unquestioning faith in ‘modern
industrial’ technology and in a single-minded focus on jobs, so that most of them,
like the post-graduate students to whom I teach ‘Research Paper’ in the
Department of Industrial Design, grow up to be young adults with a stupefying belief
that there are standard ‘correct’ solutions that they must ‘follow’. Conversely,
I believe that architecture can be an important tool in tangibly communicating and
making many aspects of basic education come alive, especially to school
students.1 We may also draw direct parallels between school and
architectural education - in both of which there are many things to teach, divided
in different ‘subjects’ for ease of assimilation.
At first glance, formal
architectural training as a specialized professional course dealing with the
application of knowledge, seems to be far removed from the domain of liberal
education as conventionally understood. However, if from the different
definitions put forth, we consider Liberal
as: ‘looking to the broad or general sense rather than the literal’2 such
a criteria is already present in architecture - which is in a sense, a
microcosm of different fields. This inherent strength of architectural
education has been recognized in Italy. Though a small country, I am given to
understand that at one time it had four institutions that taught architecture,
each with ten thousand students. And what do these forty thousand graduates in
architecture do? Only a fraction practice as architects or designers. The rest
study architecture because they believe that it is the best education they can
receive.
As undergraduate
students at the well-known School of Planning and Architecture, we were taught many
subjects, which left little time for leisure or boredom. Yet, practically all the
emphasis was on transmitting skills or information such as: ‘how to draw perspectives,
how to resolve issues of space and function in a building or a town, how to
solve problems of load transmission in structures, how to describe the
difference between North and South Indian temples, how to design with the
principles of “modernist” architecture.’ And though the varied curriculum
included art, science, and humanities, these disciplines did not tie up to a
whole. I remember my inability to understand why we had to study sociology and the young Sociology Professor’s
extreme discomfiture in trying to explain. Sociology was taught in isolation
much like the joinery details which we planed and sandpapered in the carpentry
workshop without ever using them to produce doors, windows, boxes or any object
that demonstrated how they added up.
Also implicit was the
contention that European or American ‘modernist’ methods of construction were
desirable for students in India to learn, and that vernacular or classical
Indian forms and spaces may be looked at as history,
but have no place in contemporary architecture. As an instance, if we, after a
study visit to the villages of Himachal Pradesh, visualized our designs in
timber, this was lauded as an understanding of the context. But the timber
details we were expected to follow were those standardized and set forth in British
building manuals almost a hundred years ago, not local traditional wood
details. Questions such as - ‘is the architecture we build appropriate to our
culture, or is it elitist and redundant? Is there anything beyond the
expression of our individuality and creativity that we need to consider?’ were
posed sporadically, and more often in the student’s canteen than in the studios
or lecture rooms. Today, they seem to have become even less of a concern than
they were fifteen years ago. Thus, even with a scope of subjects that more nearly approaches ‘Liberal education’
than any other field of higher study, contemporary architectural training
appears to comprise of ‘indoctrination’―a dangerous synonym of education―rather
than fostering a discernment of fundamental principles and an engagement with
ethics. Are these qualities relevant to
architecture? This question, can
be answered by looking at the
environmental or climatic disasters that most contemporary buildings create
today. The ornamental palms and stretches of lawn instead of the indigenous
plants or shady trees that pass for landscape design; the size and form of cities
which make them almost impossible to negotiate without the use of fuel-guzzling
cars, the superficial and similar copies of popular international building trends
– are all a reality before us.
Thus, it seems clear
that though a wide-ranging curriculum beyond narrow specialized information should find a place in technical,
vocational and management education, this by itself is not sufficient. We also
need to redefine the concept of ‘liberal education’ - which as we commonly
understand is something bequeathed to us by the Western world. A wide-ranging
study of the Classics, the Arts or the Sciences untainted by obvious motives of
profit, may not necessarily make us adhere to the true meaning of Liberal which is defined as ‘willing to
respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own’3
or to its synonyms of ‘progressive, tolerant, unbiased, enlightened, impartial’.
Did
we have a tradition of liberal education in India before the advent of western education
and can we draw any lessons from it? It appears that we
did, at both a primary and higher education level. According to the research of
the Gandhian historian Dharampal,4 even in ‘the greatly damaged and
disorganized India’ of 1800, indigenous teaching was more widespread and vastly
superior to that of the British. The physical environment under which Indian
schooling took place was less dingy and more natural. The methods were
effectual and economical. The composition of the students in schools was
inclusive, with Sudras and lower castes predominating. Though higher education
in Theology, Metaphysics and Law seems to have been dominated by Brahmins in
the nature of professional specialization, other subjects such as astronomy and
medical science were studied by scholars from a variety of backgrounds and
castes. The results of research and study appear to also have been quickly
disseminated in many sections of society.
This, in many ways
indicates the existence of a more liberal society than that of present times. What are the shortcomings that prevent us
from achieving such objectives today? Considered in the light of
architectural education, these are, briefly:
1.
a method and
content of teaching that is almost exclusively centred on a western
modernist orientation, with a guiding principle that rejects the application of
history as superfluous.
2.
an
inordinate emphasis on dissemination of skills to the detriment of
knowledge or issues.
3.
a stressing
of abstract theories without encouraging their ‘application’.
4.
a fragmented,
linear and compartmentalized way of learning that prevents overall
comprehension.
Is there a paradox
here? First we say, that specialization is an incomplete and therefore
unsatisfactory way of looking at the world and dealing with it. Yet when we
attempt to teach many things, we separate them into different subjects for
practical reasons. Therefore, can there be only two situations―one, to know in great detail about only
one subject, or two, to know about a
great many subjects but still as separate systems of knowledge? Is this true of
other fields of education in university/schools too? The answers may be
forthcoming, if we look at some of the questions we need to ask, with respect
to conventional formal education:
1.
How do we
teach?
2.
What do we
teach?
3.
Who do we
teach?
4.
Who teaches?
In all of the above, the
common feature at present is the attempt at standardization. We teach students without awakening a
holistic interest in learning or linking back individual ‘subjects’ at the
level of understanding different world views. We emphasise one single, standard
way to design/way to research/way to cure as the only correct way, in direct
contrast to the idea of the liberal. We use
a syllabus that we standardize, rejecting ‘pre-industrial’ social, spatial,
scientific or artistic systems as ‘backward’ without even knowing their
features. We enroll students from a
‘standard’ economic and social stratum and we employ teachers of a ‘standard’
profile. As the noted scientist J.B.S. Haldane – who himself did not have a
degree in science – reminds us ‘…Srinivasa Ramanujan, India’s greatest mathematician
since Aryabhatta, had no degree and would thus be disqualified from teaching in
an Indian University were he alive today’.5 If our efforts are aimed
at promoting standard products who replicate ‘standard’ answers, then how can
we expect creative, independent-thinking and responsive children or adults? It
appears that the first step then is
to reform this ‘standardization’, which at best insulates, and at worst
divorces us from our local contexts. It neither fosters respect for others nor
for the natural environment, and not even the knowledge of our own strengths
and weaknesses, which is the real basis for self-respect.
School education today,
particularly the CBSE, stresses isolationistic
instruction of theory to the exclusion of application. Despite the
experiments in playway education in some mainstream ‘progressive’ schools, children
are inundated with theoretical information from the earliest years of school or
at the latest by class four or five. Even in Environmental Science - a compulsory subject of late - the method
of assessment is to test knowledge about organizations such as the World
Wildlife Fund, rather than on helping students to understand the implications
of everyday actions on the environment. The overriding emphasis today on
computer-assignments as an educational tool, is a part of the same isolationist
view which cannot apply the lessons of environmental science to other subjects
and certainly not to daily life! As an illustrative example, here I would quote
the experience of a progressive and famous public-school, which sought
professional advice from a leading energy-institution on how to reduce cooling
costs and make its new buildings environmentally appropriate. The advice that
the school received was impressively detailed and voluminous, with results from
high-technology monitoring equipment and insulating techniques. But it
incredibly did not mention the basic fact
that the North-South orientation of the proposed buildings was incorrect,
and till this was corrected they would inevitably absorb maximum heat! This
reveals the absurd ‘blinding’ that such technocratic and isolationist attitudes
breed.
How should our education,
technical, vocational or otherwise, remove such a ‘blinkered’ vision? Dr
Zakir Hussain wrote an article in 1961 in the journal Nayee Talim,5 which may summarize all the objectives of
a truly liberal vision for centers of education, ‘To train students for taking
responsibilities of various social tasks…to expand the areas of knowledge…to
include broad-mindedness in its students, to inspire the students to live a
life of goodness and truth’. Thus, the national
goal of education, whether we call it ‘liberal’ or anything else, should first open a method of enquiry for its
students to judge situations, to formulate their actions, to evolve into good
human beings, not to produce
individuals whose sole aim is to earn more.
The world is not standardized, it has unique solutions to different
situations, which despite being different are all linked, and affected by all
actions, great and small. The only way to understand the world is through
self-realization which may begin with, but does not end, with formal education.
Is
it possible to do all this by being primarily dependant on western systems of
living and learning? No. Segregation
and fragmentation, specialization and confrontation were inherent parts of the
method of inquiry in the western tradition even before industrialization put
this into more glaring view. As Chaturvedi Badrinath writes in The Mahabharata An Inquiry Into the Human
Condition, a look at the history of philosophical thought in the West shows
that ‘…when systematized into an ism,
the various explanations of the human condition had fiercely rejected each
other…But although fiercely rejecting each other, all these isms have one thing in common - a logic
which fragments human attributes into irreconcilable polarities, and then
assumes either the one or the other is the reality, and constructs its world view wholly on that, or the
logic of either/or’.7
In fact, unlike much of
western thought, indigenous methods of inquiry seem to lend themselves more
easily to holistic and wholesome attitudes to learning. The difference between
these two world views - the exclusionary
and the inclusive - is manifest in the
answer of some Brahmins three centuries ago. Asked a question on a subject as
personal and emotional as religion, by the French traveler Francois Bernier, this
is what they had to say:
‘We pretend
not,’ they replied, ‘that our law is of universal application. God intended it
only for us, and this is the reason we cannot receive a foreigner into our
religion. We do not even say that yours is a false religion: it may be adapted
to your wants and circumstances, God having, no doubt, appointed many different
ways of going to heaven.’
Bernier on the other
hand, could not understand this point of view. And this is what he had to say: ‘I found it
impossible to convince them that the Christian faith was designed for the whole
earth, and theirs was mere fable and gross fabrication’.8
So
how does all this translate into education today? Does it mean a change in the method
of teaching? In the content? In both? In our present assessment and evaluation procedures? Practical
demands of time, space and resources imply that there will be some amount of
specialization as one proceeds on the learning path, and it would never be
possible to teach everything about everything. We must also recognize that in
the learning curve of individuals, society and civilization, some amount of
specialization is the natural path of evolution. A Benarasi weaver whose
remarkable skill and creativity we treasure as heirlooms, does not learn
pottery or till the land. Were he to do so, he would have neither the time nor
the skill to fashion his intricate weaves. Yet, this specialization does not divorce
him from his natural or cultural context or knowledge base. He traditionally operates
within a societal framework, which creates a need for his skills and which
provides him with sustenance to develop these. Today, such a societal and
cultural framework is missing. It can only be regenerated if even in specialized training at any stage of
education, the emphasis is general,
and the composition of our curricula and our teachers is inclusive. Colleges in their dissemination of specialized education
must encourage students in theoretical and practical instruction, which is
balanced and engages with cultural and social issues. Such holistic education would
help students obtain a more complete understanding of the world, and avoid mindsets
like Bernier’s that reject everything unfamiliar, as false or untrue.
How
shall we practically achieve this? By completely rejecting western systems
of education or thought? By limiting study to only indigenous traditional
systems? Certainly not, since that
would be continuing the same exclusivist view that is the main deficiency of
our education today. All education must develop an enjoyment of the process of
learning, and an engagement with the natural world. The analogy may be likened
to a baby, whose first efforts are aimed at resolving the objects seen, heard
or felt in the immediate vicinity. This is how we are genetically coded to
grow. A knowledge of local systems and sympathy with the natural world, will
help to comprehend larger systems or those from other regions or cultures. As
Winin Pereira clarifies in his book From
Western Science to Liberation Technology, ‘It is the traditional methods of
research, development, dissemination and use that are still relevant, not
necessarily all brought forward pieces of knowledge’.9 Thus, primacy
to indigenous traditional systems of learning in formative years, should help, not
inhibit enquiry and direct experimentation in other systems–whether
non-indigenous, non-mainstream, conventional or unconventional. The spirit of
inquiry and analysis can be furthered and coupled with an understanding of the
universal and natural worlds, to eventually lead to creative, contextual, humane
theory and practice.
Thus
the policy formulation with regard to liberal education should be that:
1.
Theoretical instruction instead of remaining abstract, must link learning to real life, illustrated through stories and examples (most people, especially children
love stories, and these are invaluable in explaining even complex notions of
philosophy, conduct, etc. as the Mahabharata and much of our traditional
literature demonstrate).
2. The proportion of practical
instruction must be increased, and
must connect to nature. Students should be encouraged to work with their hands,
and learn by ‘doing’ so that satisfaction and a sense of achievement are
the incentives to learn, not marks.
3. Both theoretical and
practical instruction, must include dissemination and discussion on traditional
and indigenous knowledge, through an active involvement of non-mainstream
disciplines or cultures - such as folk artists, craftspeople, writers in
indigenous languages - rather than just conventional academics and
theoreticians. Educational experiments, such as the one where a flower-seller
and her five year old daughter, were instructors to Class Six students in the
Padma Seshadri Bala Bhawan in T. Nagar in Chennai for three days, as reported in
The Hindu, should be widespread.10
4. There should be an
optimum size beyond which the classroom and the educational institution must
not grow.
Large sizes and centralization necessitate standardization for ease of
management, consume greater resources, and take away the emphasis from learning
to administration.
5. The present system of
evaluation,
based on marks must be replaced by one
based on grades.
It is not as if these problems or the
suggestions offered have not been recognized or enunciated before our time. The
experiments in school and college education at SriNiketan and Santiniketan by
Rabindranath Tagore and in national education as envisioned in Mahatma Gandhi’s
NaiTalim, did this almost a hundred
years ago. Why have these experiments failed? Why they been largely forgotten
or sidelined by mainstream education? If individuals of such political,
intellectual and moral stature such as Tagore and Gandhi were unable to make a
difference despite actually setting up schools and universities that applied
visionary principles, is it likely that we will be able to do so? Even today,
there are some institutional and
private efforts committed to unconventional or non-formal methods of learning.
The reason that these efforts were and are
unable to make a dent in society or permeate through larger sections of it, is largely
due to the Government’s unwillingness to promote these as valid ways of
learning. This sort of education does not
fit the official notion of development. The idea
of development as perceived by the government is still the Nehruvian one which
in essence is the western industrialized model, a model which as argued earlier
is incapable of accepting, like that of Bernier’s mindset, any other path to an
alternative development option. Therefore,
the only way for a change to happen, is
for the Government, as the overall authority responsible for running the
country, to realize that the present notion of development is flawed. It must,
as must we all, recognise the necessity of liberal education and endorse holistic
teaching and evaluation methods. Rather than setting up new competing institutions,
we need to transform our existing institutions at every level and decentralize.
This implies a great deal of consensus-building through interaction, discussion
and cooperation which is no doubt difficult. But it is not impossible.
In my teaching of
Research Paper, by no means sufficient in providing complete answers - especially
when compared to the work of more experienced educationists - there has been a
partial success in the students’ ability to link abstract design and real social
issues or to express themselves openly with conviction. Most of the students
comprehend that the state of the urban poor and homeless in our cities today, are
as affected by the disappearance of traditional livelihoods as with the plastic
or metal products designed such that they can only be made in large mechanized
factories. The students also realize that ostensibly beneficiary schemes of
large-scale export of handicrafts may actually hasten their extinction by promoting standardized production
possible only in ‘factory-like’ situations. However, the focus of their lessons
in other subjects or in design studios, even when actuated by themes such as ‘socially
relevant design’ invariably leads them to modern, mechanized engineering
industrial designs. Their site visits are to factories or large multi-national
firms where they foresee themselves working in the future, not on an apprenticeship
with master-craftsmen. Most typical urban professionals feel they have no other
option, since alternative choices do not eventually assure them of economic
security. Here again the government has a larger role to play, not in terms of
subsidies or grants, but in recognizing indigenous economic structures as valid,
inclusive and wholesome. This would be therefore “in-sync” if the government-supported
education system would become more holistic.
I would like to end
with a quote from Harsh Mander in an article on a different context, but which
I believe can be a guide to what we hope to achieve from this seminar, or
indeed any action we do, any work we contemplate, any change that we envison,
whether in education or in life: ‘Gandhi offered us a “talisman” to use in
moments of doubt and confusion. He asked us to recall the face of the poorest,
most defenceless, powerless man we have encountered…We must ask ourselves
whether what we are attempting has meaning for this person.’11
Acknowledgements;
The
ideas expressed in this paper have been greatly clarified and extended by
discussions with many people, particularly Snehanshu Mukherjee and Badri
Narayanan, both insightful architects committed to teaching and learning. The
experience and attitude of Chitra Dhariyal and Madhu Pandey, in dealing with
the challenges of teaching secondary and high school students, and the optimism
of the artist and writer Shakti Maira, transmitted as much in his conversation
as in his writing about art and education, have made me rethink notions about
how I deal with the development of my five year old daughter as well as my methods
of teaching college students. Finally, I believe that we can only find answers
to many of our challenges in education today, even in this greatly changed and
changing world of the 21st century, if we look at the life and work
of Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, and many others of their generation.
Notes:
- Architecture
gives an insight into the living conditions, methods and materials of
construction, concepts of time and culture of previous generations. In
fact, some countries in the world are already experimenting with using
architecture as a tool for teaching school children.
- Chambers
Dictionary
- Oxford
Dictionary and Thesarus (Indian Edition)
- Dharampal, The Beautiful Tree, Indigenous Indian
Education in the Eighteenth Century, First Published by Impex India
1971, Republished 2000 by Other India Press, Goa, in association with SIDH
Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas, Mussoorie
- As
quoted in Rabindranath Tagore,
Philosophy of Education and Painting, Devi Prasad, National Book
Trust, India, Creative Learning Series, First Edition 2001, New Delhi
- The Hindu Tuesday, April 7
2009, ‘Polymath who shared the fun of science’, Vidyanand Nanjundiah.
- The Mahabharata An Inquiry Into the Human
Condition, Chaturvedi Badrinath, Orient Longman 2006, p.10-11.
- Francois
Bernier, Travels in the Mughal
Empire, p. 328
- Winin
Pereira, From Western Science to
Liberation Technology, Earthcare Books, Kolkata, first edition 1993
- The Hindu Tuesday, April 7
2009, ‘The hands that craft and create’, Priscilla Jebaraj. The report
also mentions that CBSE has already worked out a syllabus in handicrafts
for an elective course in Classes 11 and 12.
- The Hindu Sunday April 5,
2009, ‘BAREFOOT, The silent tragedy of hunger’.
