Has the institutionalization of knowledge and industrialization of institutions indeed resulted in independent and critical thinkers? Or are we being held hostage by the colonial mentality ingrained in us that makes us believe in the supremacy of all that is modern, and shun tradition.
Why am I writing this? I cannot attribute a single happening to this. It can be said that there are perhaps various happenings, that have led me to write this piece. The passing of Shahid Sajjad, a sculptor par excellence, revived the debate in art and design circles, of the oppositional relationship between schooling and the creative process. Shahid Sajjad did not believe in the institutionalization of art education.
There is a pervasive belief that in our part of
the world, the developing world - especially Asia, the existence of ‘old-school’
methods and the master-disciple relationship heavily influences the practice of
teaching in educational institutions and the mindset of teachers, and this
forms the basis of the arguments built upon by the new modern education systems
against the so-called ‘old-world methods’, (Richards, 2004). The sole
responsibility of low achievement of students, lack of innovation in teaching
as well as student out put, independent and critical thinking in students, lack
of student motivation and many other problems of education systems in general,
are attributed partially to this old-world mindset.
The master disciple relationship or the ‘sheikh-mureed’ or
the ‘guru-chela’ relationship, is the foundation from which a lot of teaching
practice emerges in the context of Pakistan, and I will make it clear here that
I am talking about art and design education in Pakistan, and not extending this
to other disciplines, keeping in view my own association. Though there might be
similarities with other disciplines as well.
A very common phrase while I was growing up was “itna chela
banay ki zaroorat nahin hai” (there is no need to be such a follower), alluding
to the fact that being a chela is something not looked upon too favorably,
underscoring the obedience and allegiance such a relationship entails traditionally.
The question then is, is the Sheikh-mureed /guru-chela relationship all that
bad? What exactly is the relationship? By believing the rhetoric and building
new methodologies based on the premise that the traditional methods are
redundant and backward and do not allow growth of independent thinking and
critical reflection, are we indeed headed in the right direction? Is the
adoption of all these new methods the way out of our present crisis?
I refer here to an article suggested to me by the esteemed
Abbas Hussain, in order to broaden my understanding of this traditional
relationship. Smith (2006) outlines the difference between the teacher–student
relationship and the master disciple relationship.
It would be fair to say that the master-disciple
relationship is based on the principles of mutuality and reciprocity. However
the context might be different from the way we apply it in teaching theories
today. In teaching today, it is the commonality of education that brings the
teacher student to each other, the body of knowledge that the teacher has. A student seeks a transfer of that body of
knowledge by virtue of being taught by the teacher. However the master-disciple
relationship is not dependent on a specific body of knowledge that the disciple
seeks to get, but the total self of the teacher. In this sense the relationship
is not utilitarian. “ The master does not enjoy the disciple’s esteem because
he conveys something that is useful in any utilitarian respect” but “what is
significant for the disciple is master’s total self, whose character and
activity are unique and irreplaceable,” (Smith, 2006, pg. 149). In education circles here, there is an
ascendance for publication and research as criteria set by HEC in evaluating
educational institutions. This severs the principle of mutuality between the
teacher and student. A teacher can pursue this practice of research and
publication without the student. It is the thus the public side of a teacher
that becomes the criteria for their evaluation and esteem. In the master
disciple relationship, “the master only becomes a master in his relationship to
his disciples, and only through perceptive and comprehending disciples does he
become fully aware of his mastership,” (Smith 2006, pg. 151). This is not say
that I am devaluing the importance of research and publication in teaching
practice, but my intention here is only to point out there is a need to tread
with care lest we allow the former to over shadow the importance of the latter.
The latter is the basis of the student-centered teaching methodologies we keep
expounding and it is important to note that therein lie some of the solutions
to some of these new notions. For instance as Smith explains, a teacher resents
interruptions where as for the master the entire experience is nothing but
interruptions. Time the most important factor in today’s educational circles, where
we talk of credits and workloads is of equal importance in the master-disciple
relationship. However the difference is in the approach.
This leads me to another aspect that raises its head over
and over again in educational circles, the question of aptitude. There is
perhaps merit here in going back to the notion of ‘calling to discipleship’.
Having just an aptitude does not nesessarily translate into being motivated and
sticking it out. The concept of being called to discipleship then perhaps
explains what it is we are looking for when we induct students. A student, who
is motivated to learn, has an aptitude for the given subject and a learning
orientation. Smith (2006) also points
out the two requirements of discipleship, questioning and submission. While
there will be no eye-brows raised about the former, it is the second that we
need to think about. In the master-disciple submission is the prerequisite for
learning to take place. Is it really so different from what we want in a
student when we cry about the lack of attention and disregard for what the
teacher is saying in class. The attention will only come from the student when
he submits to the idea that what the teacher is about to reveal to him is
indeed something important and of value.
As far as the question concerning the lack of individual
thought and rote learning is concerned, again Smith explains that a teacher is
one who gives of himself to his students, but a master gives himself. However
as disciples are also varied in nature, each disciple will take away from the
master, in accordance with his own understanding and ability. He then goes on
to explain the three stages of tragedy in a master’s life- the starting of
mastership and renunciation of things held dear, the realization that he will
have no true heir as all disciples will interpret and experience their
teachings differently and finally the loss of pushing the disciple away. Here is when the dilemma then shifts onto the
disciple. At this moment it is the disciples choice to come into his own, or
become an idolater. It would therefore
be unsuitable to rest the blame of solely on the traditional approaches. It is
indeed human nature to be defensive in times of loss. To a disciple the loss of
parting with teacher perhaps gives rise to the defense mechanism of idolatery.
In todays context we think of lack of individual thought and critical thinking
in students and their expectance of spoon-feeding.
My concluding remarks then bring me to question our berating of our own traditions of teaching and practice as something old, outdated and to be discarded. Will the utter disregard of the old help us in solving our problems? Has it solved the problem of education else-where? Has the institutionalization of knowledge and industrialization of institutions indeed resulted in independent and critical thinkers? Or are we being held hostage by the colonial mentality ingrained in us that makes us believe in the supremacy of all that is modern, and shun tradition. Perhaps it is time we turn to look at all that is still not lost to us, look around us where tradition still exists alongside the modern. And then try a new individual approach, an approach informed by knowledge of our own tradition and modern thought.
My concluding remarks then bring me to question our berating of our own traditions of teaching and practice as something old, outdated and to be discarded. Will the utter disregard of the old help us in solving our problems? Has it solved the problem of education else-where? Has the institutionalization of knowledge and industrialization of institutions indeed resulted in independent and critical thinkers? Or are we being held hostage by the colonial mentality ingrained in us that makes us believe in the supremacy of all that is modern, and shun tradition. Perhaps it is time we turn to look at all that is still not lost to us, look around us where tradition still exists alongside the modern. And then try a new individual approach, an approach informed by knowledge of our own tradition and modern thought.
References:
Smith, Huston, 2006, “The Master Disciple Relationship”
World Wisdom online Library.
Cameron
Richards (2004), “From old to new learning: global imperatives, exemplary Asian
dilemmas and ICT as a key to cultural change in education”, Globalisation, Societies and
Education Vol. 2, No. 3.
Shahid
Sajjad-1936-2014, (2014) video presentation, Indus Valley School of Art and
Architecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment