Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns 019808286X, 9780198082866

Table of contents :
acprof-9780198082866-miscMatter-1
Title Pages
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Title Pages
(p.i) Sociology of Education in India (p.ii) (p.iii) Sociology of Education in India
Title Pages
acprof-9780198082866-miscMatter-5
(p.vii) Acknowledgements
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
(p.vii) Acknowledgements
acprof-9780198082866-miscMatter-6
(p.ix) Abbreviations
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
(p.ix) Abbreviations
(p.ix) Abbreviations
(p.ix) Abbreviations
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-1
Introduction
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Introduction
Sociology of Education in India—Trajectory, Location, and Concerns
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Introduction
The Context
Introduction
Emergence and Growth of SoE in India
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Disciplinary Trajectory
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Institutional Locations
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Contemporary Concerns and Emerging Discourses
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Notes:
Introduction
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-2
Sociology of Education in India
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Sociology of Education in India
A Personal Account*
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
The Decisions of the Seminar—A Blueprint for the Project
Sociology of Education in India
Inadequate Resources and the Saving Grace of Voluntary Support
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
(p.34) Lessons from the Project
Sociology of Education in India
Returns from the Project
The Publications
The Establishment of the Unit for Research in SoE
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
A Network of Scholars Engaged in SoE
My Personal Gain
Sociology of Education in India
At the SNDT Women’s University
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
At the J.N. Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians
Sociology of Education in India
Looking Back and Looking Ahead
Sociology of Education in India
Sociology of Education in India
Notes:
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-3
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Disciplinary Boundaries and Institutional Spaces
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology in Social Sciences
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Education and Sociology
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Education and SoE in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES): Genesis
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
SoE and Sociology
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Conclusions: Many SOCIOLOGIES—SoE
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
Notes:
Sociology of Education and Sociology in India
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-4
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Encounters
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Knowledge Communities: Epistemological and Sociological Approaches
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Education: A Soft Discipline?
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Consequences of Softness: Hard Battles
Ontological Reinvention and Instability
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Circumscribed Domain
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Intradisciplinary Fragmentation
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Contextual–Universal–Regional Tension
Concluding Remarks: Effects of the New Knowledge Economy
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
Notes:
Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-5
Opening Up the Black Box?
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Opening Up the Black Box?
Sociologists and the Study of Schooling in India
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Opening Up the Black Box?
Outside the Portals: Sociologists and Schooling in India
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Into the Classroom: Opening Up the Black Box
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Social Disadvantage and School Processes
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Schooling of Dalits: Contexts and Processes
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Opening Up the Black Box?
Notes:
Opening Up the Black Box?
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-6
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
A Critique and a New Research Agenda
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
The Trajectory of Research in SoEI
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
The Expansion of Schooling
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
The Social Distribution of Education and Social Determinants of Educational Inequality
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Current Trends
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
School Systems and Schools as Sources of Inequality
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
A Critique of Research
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Conclusion: A New Agenda for Sociological Research on Educational Inequality
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Notes:
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
Sociology of Educational Inequality in India
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-7
Does Education Really Change Society?
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Does Education Really Change Society?
Theoretical Reflections on a Case Study
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Education and Social Structure
Does Education Really Change Society?
Between Transformation and Reproduction
Does Education Really Change Society?
Reflecting on Reproduction: A Case Study
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Schools and Cattle Rearing
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Structure and Agency
Does Education Really Change Society?
Reproduction and Change in Fatehabad
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Does Education Really Change Society?
Notes:
Does Education Really Change Society?
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-8
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Voices and Encounters in an Indian School
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Childhoods and Education
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Representations and Identities
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Contexts of Learners and Learning
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Education and Identity: Lessons from a Literacy Campaign
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Learning Work, Learning Gender
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
‘Kaun Kya Banega’: Labouring for the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Structuring Discourse: Classroom Discussions of ‘Kaun Kya Banega’
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
Notes:
Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-9
Caste and Social Discrimination
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Caste and Social Discrimination
Nature, Forms, and Consequences in Education
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Caste and Social Discrimination
Theoretical Background
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Social Discrimination in Indian Context
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste Discrimination in Education
Caste and Social Discrimination
Forms of Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Discrimination in Academic Discourse
The Cases of Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Consequences of Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Social Discrimination and the Victimizers
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
Case Studies
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Caste and Social Discrimination
Case Study 3
Caste and Social Discrimination
Caste and Social Discrimination
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-10
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Labelling of Stigmatized Groups in an IIT
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Understanding Everyday Life Experiences and Discrimination: How Goffman’s Sociology can Help Us?
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Routes of Access to IIT: Seeds of ‘Differentness’
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Origins of Discrimination and Exclusion within the Institution
The Reception Class: Acquiring Labels—The ‘PC’ and the ‘CATA’ Student
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Discrimination and Exclusion in Pedagogic Settings
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Non-pedagogic Contexts
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Notes:
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-11
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Life Inside a Madrasa
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
(p.225) From Maktab to Madrasa
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Space, Surveillance, Control
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Power, Discipline, Agency
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Notes:
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies
acprof-9780198082866-chapter-12
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Ayurveda Education in Contemporary India*
Geetha B. Nambissan
S. Srinivasa Rao
Abstract and Keywords
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Medical/Epistemological Pluralism
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Emergence of Modern Ayurveda Colleges: Socio-historical Contexts
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
‘Integration’ of Western and Indigenous Medicines
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Developments in Post-independent India
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Modern Ayurveda Education in Kerala
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Negotiating Historical Marginalization and Biomedical Hegemony
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Building Epistemic Bridges
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Notes:
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures
acprof-9780198082866-miscMatter-19
(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors
Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao
(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors
(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors
(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors
(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors

Citation preview

Title Pages

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Title Pages (p.i) Sociology of Education in India (p.ii) (p.iii) Sociology of Education in India

(p.iv) Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in India by Oxford University Press YMCA Library Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001, India © Oxford University Press 2013 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted Page 1 of 2

 

Title Pages by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN-13: 978-0-19-808286-6 ISBN-10: 0-19-808286-X Typeset in Adobe Garamond 10.5/13.4, at MAP Systems, Bengaluru 560 082, India Printed in India by G.H. Prints Pvt Ltd, New Delhi 110 020

Access brought to you by:

Page 2 of 2

 

Acknowledgements

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

(p.vii) Acknowledgements In March 2006, on behalf of the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, we organized a conference that brought together sociologists in India who were engaged in the study of education. We felt the need for a dialogue among scholars to reflect on sociology of education (SoE) and on the imagination that sociology could bring to the increasing challenges education was facing in contemporary India. The conference was of special significance as it was the second time ever that scholars met to discuss the concerns of SoE in India after the initial inauguration of the field in December 1964, when Professor M.S. Gore had organized the first SoE conference in Mumbai. We are grateful to late Professor M.S. Gore for his greetings to the second SoE conference in India in 2006. Professor Suma Chitnis, who was part of Professor M.S. Gore’s team in the late 1960s, participated in the second conference and provided a fascinating glimpse of the early years of SoE in her keynote address to the participants. We are grateful for her encouragement and support. A large number of our colleagues at other universities and research institutions, and younger faculty presented papers and were part of the three-day deliberations that saw rich discussion, debate, and critical reflection. We are thankful to all of them. We are also grateful to all the contributors to this volume for their cooperation and patience and to Oxford University Press for seeing the book through. JNU and ZHCES provided institutional and financial support for which we are thankful. Professor Karuna Chanana is one of the leading scholars of the discipline and a key architect in building the sociological study of education at ZHCES. She has also been our teacher and colleague. This book is in her honour. (p.viii)

Access brought to you by: Page 1 of 1

 

Abbreviations

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

(p.ix) Abbreviations AC air conditioner AIIMS All India Institute of Medical Sciences AYUSH Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy BAMS Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery BEd Bachelor of Education BElEd Bachelor of Elementary Education CCIM Central Council of Indian Medicine CET Common Entrance Test CWDS Centre for Women’s Development Studies DASA Direct Admission to Students Abroad DPEP District Primary Education Programme HoD Head of Department HSTP Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme IAS Indian Administrative Service Page 1 of 3

 

Abbreviations ICSSR Indian Council of Social Science Research ICU intensive-care unit IIT Indian Institute of Technology ILO International Labour Organization ISKCON International Society for Krishna Consciousness ISM Indigenous Systems of Medicine IT Information Technology JEE Joint Entrance Examination JNU Jawaharlal Nehru University Km/s Kilometre/s MEd Master of Education NCERT National Council of Educational Research and Training NCTE National Council of Teacher Education NET National Educational Test NGO Non-governmental Organization NIEPA National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (p.x) NMI Native Medical Institution NRHM National Rural Health Mission NRI non-resident Indian NSoE New Sociology of Education OBC Other Backward Class PC Preparatory Course Page 2 of 3

 

Abbreviations PHC Primary Health Centre PROBE Public Report on Basic Education PWDs Persons with Disabilities RUSE Research Unit in the Sociology of Education SC Scheduled Caste SNDT Shrimati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey SoE Sociology of Education SoEI Sociology of Educational Inequality SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ST Scheduled Tribe TISCO Tata Iron and Steel Company TISS Tata Institute of Social Sciences UGC University Grants Commission UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNO United Nations Organization US United States ZHCES Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies

Access brought to you by:

Page 3 of 3

 

Introduction

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Introduction Sociology of Education in India—Trajectory, Location, and Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords The Introduction discusses the themes covered by the essays in this volume about the history of the development, the trajectory, location, and contemporary concerns of the sociology of education (SoE) in India. The essays included are based on the presentations made at the March 2006 seminar held at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, titled ‘Sociology of Education in India —Looking Back, Looking Ahead’. The content of SoE courses taught in universities today are rarely a matter of discussion for scholars, and the work of internationally known classical thinkers on SoE have been largely ignored. In this volume, many contributors reflect critically on the work of these scholars in the context of contemporary concerns in education in India. Some chapters focus on the need to include courses on SoE in teacher preparation in India while others attempt to ‘counter neoliberal and intellectually conservative onslaughts on knowledge generation, which…deflects attention from increasing inequality in society and education.’ The Introduction outlines the content of the two sections of the volume. The first deals with disciplinary trajectory of SoE and analyses its journey and theoretical and methodological concerns. This is followed by chapters on emerging discourses and contemporary concerns about SoE in India. The second section brings together contributions that break new ground in theoretical and empirical engagement with equality, identity, and exclusions in education.

Page 1 of 21

 

Introduction Keywords:   sociology of education, education in India, exclusions in education, theories of education, methodology of education, teacher preparation in India, Jawaharlal Nehru University

The Context Education in contemporary India is marked by sharp inequalities, rising aspirations, and diverse and deeply contested discourses regarding the meaning and purposes of education, who should deliver it, what should be offered as content, and what its relationship should be with the nation state and society. In this sense, the educational arena today in India is vastly different from that in the first decade of post-independent India, where education was seen as a key institution for the larger project of nation building and national development and through which equality of opportunity and social justice could be achieved. Though the non-state sector, primarily through philanthropic initiatives, had played a significant role in the spread of education prior to independence, the overwhelming responsibility of the state, especially in the provision of education to all children, was unquestioned. Today, most of these tenets stand questioned. While nation building is still a major theme in Indian textbooks, the canvas of educational aspirations is now global rather than national for middle-class Indians and the pathway to these opportunities is the private/public school rather than those run by the state. Education policy receives far greater importance today than ever before. It has shifted from broad pronouncements on education as a harbinger of equal opportunity and social change to specific policy shifts and interventions that have far-reaching implications. Despite the massive expansion of the education system, inequalities continue to be visible at all stages, and even at the elementary level, where non-completion of primary schooling and low transition rates (p.2) are striking among the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of society, such as the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and socio-religious minorities. Girls within these groups and children with disability are educationally among the most vulnerable. A stratified system of education and complex school–home– society linkages that yielded privilege and disadvantage, were realities in Indian society prior to the 1990s. However, economic and social forces that have come with globalization and privatization in the post-1990s have widened old inequalities, and also created new diversities and inequities that operate and interface in complex ways within the domain of education, its policies, institutions, and processes. The post-1990s reforms initiated in education as part of the larger economic restructuring in India have led to a number of significant changes: the distinct spread of marketization and commercialization in education; the withdrawal of the state; and the decline in state subsidies which is most visible in higher education. The corporate sector has come in as a key player in school education and there is increasing stratification of institutions in terms of ‘quality’. Similar to many anglophile countries, India is also witnessing the spread of neoliberal ideology and an emphasis on the reign of the market, most notably, in the field of Page 2 of 21

 

Introduction education. We are also seeing the persistence of conservative and communal values that call into question values that underlie the democratic and plural character of this society. In the changing socio-economic and political context, concerns of equity have receded to the background, and institutional diversity and choice for greater inclusion are emerging as the new catchwords in educational discourse. The market is increasingly influencing the aims of education and is being viewed, even among the most marginal sections, as the major arbitrator of the futures of their children. The study of education embedded in a society characterized by social and economic hierarchies and cultural diversity should have been a rich area for sociological enquiry. However, this has not been the case. The sociology of education (SoE) as a sub-discipline of sociology has been a latecomer to the Indian academic arena. The growth of interest in the study of education was largely propelled by policy concerns since the late 1960s. This was not accompanied by the creation of adequate institutional space for the development of SoE. The fallout has been that the building of sociological knowledge critical to the understanding (p.3) of school–society relationships in India, and educational processes and institutions is still a task that has to be urgently addressed. Given the challenge that the study of the complex, contested, and changing terrain of education sets before the sociologist, it becomes important to review the state of SoE and the theoretical and methodological resources that it brings to address contemporary concerns and the possible future paths that it may need to chart. This volume is part of an effort to reflect on the intellectual field of SoE. The contributions are based on presentations at a seminar on ‘Sociology of Education in India—Looking Back, Looking Ahead’, organized in 2006 at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, on 9 and 10 March 2006. In addition to the Introduction, there are 11 chapters that are divided into two broad sections. The first section maps the disciplinary trajectory of SoE in India, and chapters in this section critically analyse its journey, the changing institutional domain, and theoretical and methodological concerns. This is followed by chapters that dwell on contemporary concerns and emerging discourses in education. This section brings together contributions that break new ground in theoretical and empirical engagement with equality, identity, and exclusions in education. In the discussion that follows, we trace the emergence and growth of SoE in India. Drawing upon the contributions of our authors, we also map some of the concerns around education in India.

Emergence and Growth of SoE in India It was more than five decades after the discipline of sociology emerged in India that the first few sociological studies on education were undertaken in the 1950s and the 1960s. The faint outlines of the sub-discipline can be traced to the late 1960s when sociologists were brought in to contribute to the deliberations of the Page 3 of 21

 

Introduction first Education Commission (1964–6), also known as the Kothari Commission. The scope of SoE outlined at a seminar in 1964 and the major areas and subareas for research on education in India were mapped (Gore et al. 1967). A volume entitled, Papers in Sociology of Education in India, was published in 1967, to which leading sociologists of the time contributed. They included M.S. Gore and I.P. Desai who provided the initial outline of the scope of SoE in India; S.C. Dube examined the importance of (p.4) education in the transformation from a traditional to a modern society; A.R. Desai (1959[1979]) reflected on the colonial context of education; M.S.A. Rao elaborated on the differentiation that the modern education system introduced in the traditional social structure; Yogendra Singh dwelt on education and socialization; and Y.B. Damle presented a detailed analysis of the structural and functional aspects of the school and college (Gore et al. 1967). Field studies in SoE were carried out in different states in the 1960s and published in 1970 by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) (Gore et al. 1970). M.S Gore, I.P. Desai, Suma Chitnis, Ramakrishna Mukherjee, and other sociologists were involved in different stages of the research. The beginnings of research on education within sociology departments can be traced to the work of I.P. Desai, in the early 1950s, on the social background of high school students in Poona and their performance, aspirations, and attitude (Desai 1953). Desai’s doctoral student, B.V. Shah, studied the role of high school teachers in 1967, followed by Karuna Ahmad who focused on the social background of women students in Delhi University for her doctoral research in 1968. Other than these instances, there appears to have been little academic space at the time for the sociological study of education as a distinct area for doctoral research. The slow growth of SoE in the 1950s and the 1960s may be linked to the pace of the discipline of sociology itself around that time. For instance, though the first postgraduate department of sociology was established in 1919 at the University of Bombay, only six universities had departments of sociology in 1950.1 Though the number of universities offering sociology increased from 6 in 1950 to 19 in 1966 (University Grants Commission [UGC] 1966), only M.S. University, Baroda, and Osmania University, Hyderabad were offering courses in SoE in the 1960s. The UGC Review Committee (1966), under the chairpersonship of M.N. Srinivas, was referring to the state of the sub-disciplines of sociology when it observed that ‘Even today, the study of some aspects of Indian society is not liked…as such studies will project a poor image of India to the outside world’ (UGC 1966: 60). The areas referred to included education, social demography, health, and untouchability. The situation barely improved over the next decade. In 1978, of the 40 departments of sociology, 13 departments were offering a course on SoE at the postgraduate level (UGC 1978). Even in the late 1990s, (p.5) only 16 of 53 university departments of sociology (that responded to a questionnaire from

Page 4 of 21

 

Introduction the UGC) ‘had listed sociology of education as an optional course that may or “may not have been offered”’ (Chanana 2002: 8; also cited in Chapter 2). Though the growth of SoE as a sub-discipline within sociology departments was relatively dismal through the 1970s and 1980s, the interest in the study of education was growing. Writing the first Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) review and trend report on SoE in India in 1974, Chitnis located only 89 contributions that focused on education (Chitnis 1974). In her second review in 1980, the number of contributions on education had almost doubled (Chitnis 1981). The third ICSSR review (Aikara 1994), for the period 1979–89, lists 278 contributions to the study of education. Despite the fact that this growth seems impressive, a large number of these contributions are not located within theoretical discourses in SoE, and many are descriptive accounts of macro issues and micro themes from disciplines other than sociology. The focus of sociological research over the decades has reflected the interests of individual scholars interested in education and the concerns of policymakers over time. During the 1960s and 1970s, the dominant themes were equality of educational opportunity, stratification and mobility, the role of education in democracy, and the influence of education on modernization.2 Student unrest and the crises in the university system also received attention. The relationship between education, stratification, and change became an enduring area of research in the subsequent decades when a relatively large number of studies on SCs and STs were carried out. One of the reasons for the spurt in studies on these groups was the policy concern with equality of educational opportunity and the availability of funds with the UGC and the ICSSR for research on these themes. For example, Abbasayulu (1978) studied the impact of higher education among SC, ST, and OBC students at the Osmania University and Ambasht (1970) made a study of tribal education. In 1981, Chitnis published a summary of studies (carried out by sociologists in the early 1970s) on the educational problems of SC and ST students in 15 states (Chitnis 1981). Groups such as Dalits (SCs) and Adivasis (STs) have received a fair amount of research attention in relation to policy thrusts for equality of educational opportunity and affirmative action. Education for women’s empowerment, the study of gender identity, and its implications for (p.6) education are only recently becoming an area of focused research. Further, where girls, Dalits, adivasis, minority groups, or people with disability are concerned, institutional structures and practices in the context of exclusion and inclusion are yet to be systematically studied. The school and classroom processes have been areas that sociologists have neglected but in the last two decades, the larger societal concern with the communalization of school textbooks has drawn attention to the role of education in relation to democratic values, citizenship, and the plural character of Indian society and culture.

Page 5 of 21

 

Introduction The separation of teaching and research was visible prior to the 1990s. However, the field of education today is seeing project mode research sponsored by funding organizations, as well as new sites for knowledge production in education with the private/corporate sector attempting to take a leading role. Educational statistics are also being generated by organizations established under corporate social responsibility as well as those that conduct market surveys. It is important to keep in mind that teaching and research in the social sciences are under pressure as higher education is being increasingly left to the dictates of the market. The position of SoE, which is yet to receive adequate institutional space and visibility, is particularly vulnerable. This is likely to impinge on the expansion of teaching, the growth of the knowledge base in this field, and indeed, the spaces where its practitioners are to be found.

Disciplinary Trajectory It has been observed that ‘the development and discontinuities within sociology of education are produced both by the changing patterns of relations within the field and the relations between the sociology of education and adjacent fields or disciplines’ (Ball 2004: 1). We agree with this and argue that the development of SoE in India can be partly traced to the history of its parent discipline and the latter’s early and continuing preoccupation with creating a disciplinary identity and building a body of distinct knowledge defined as ‘sociological’. The early policy-driven nature of the study of education, the institutional domain in which teaching and research in education is located, as well as the ‘disciplinary infrastructure’ (Ball 2008: 661), or lack of it, have also contributed to the trajectory of SoE in India. The era of globalization which is seeing new players in the sphere of education in India is also (p.7) likely to powerfully impinge on the institutional space for the sociological study of education and the future of SoE. Efforts towards a systematic study of Indian society can be traced to the colonial project of understanding ‘native’ culture and institutions and thereby consolidating the rule of colonial Britain. In its early anthropological avataar, it also helped map ‘primitive’ societies in the colonies and locate them on the evolutionary path of progress, the pinnacle represented by the West. Sociology in post-colonial India had hence the burden of building a disciplinary identity that was able to shake off this colonial ‘heritage’, and also project the study of society as legitimate and scientific and in tune with the aspirations of the newly independent nation.3 A shift from sociology/anthropology to social anthropology advocated by M.N. Srinivas, and his emphasis on the methodology of fieldwork as critical to generating sociological knowledge in a scientific manner, was part of the larger objective of acquiring disciplinary legitimacy that economics and history had already gained in India by the 1950s. The quest for identity led to the focus on social phenomena that were seen as distinctly ‘Indian’ and also lent themselves to the tradition–modernity and structural–functional framework that was a Page 6 of 21

 

Introduction defining characteristic of early sociological research in India. The study of caste and other aspects of Indian society as well as ‘village studies’ by doing ‘fieldwork’ became a distinct mark of sociology/social anthropology in India.4 The emphasis was on generating ‘pure’ sociological knowledge—distinct from the crass empiricism in the study of social problems that ‘…determined the character of American Sociology’ (Srinivas 1952: 35). Citing the American experience, Srinivas cautions sociological research in India against being dictated merely by the availability of funds or ‘the desire to do good’. He observes: The availability of funds for investigating problems like juvenile delinquency…have prompted American sociologists to study these problems. It is difficult to resist the desire to do good especially when it helps to keep the proverbial wolf at a respectable distance from the doors of sociologists. But this has not been advantageous to the growth of ‘pure’ or ‘fundamental’—I regret I cannot find more suitable terms—sociology which is devoted to the study of social institutions on a comparative basis which has as its aim the making of intellectually significant statements about the nature of human social relationships. (Srinivas 1952: 35) The terrain of caste and village social structure is likely to have held out greater promise for the future of sociology as a discipline rather than (p.8) the study of education which was the domain of normative practice and applied knowledge. Further, education was the turf that was already under teacher education institutions where psychologists held sway. These may have been reasons for schools to fall outside the ambit of sociological study. There was also the exhortation by leading sociologists such as Srinivas for sociology to remain far away from the ‘cheap variety of “applied sociology”’ if the discipline was to acquire academic integrity. Referring to social work, and this could extend to education as well, Srinivas observed in the early 1950s: …I must say that it will be a disaster for sociology if it does not assert its autonomy from both social philosophy and social work. Any alliance on the basis of expediency will not only prevent the emergence of the proper kind of sociology but it will make popular a cheap variety of ‘applied sociology’ which everyone with any respect for academic integrity and standards will keep away from. (Srinivas 1952: 35; emphasis added) It has been observed that ‘The emergence of areas, sub-disciplines and specialisations bear a close relationship with the societal needs, national problems and theoretical advancements inside and outside the country’ (Rao 1979: 1810; emphasis added). This is true of SoE in India too. As already discussed, the conceptualization of SoE as a sub-discipline of sociology in India, and the first systematic studies in the field, stemmed primarily from policy Page 7 of 21

 

Introduction imperatives rather than from within the parent discipline. These were nevertheless momentous for the development of the sub-discipline. For Chitnis (1982: 157), they marked the establishment of SoE as ‘a field of sociological research and study’ in India. She is quite clear that: … it was only after the compilation of the set of thematic papers on the subject by M.S. Gore and others and with the organisation of the NCERTsponsored national survey covering school and college students (Gore et al. 1967; 1970) that the sociology of Education came to be established as a field of sociological research and study in the country. (Chitnis 1982: 157) In her keynote address at the 2006 seminar, Chitnis (2006) observed, ‘I feel we set an agenda for the sociology of education at that time’. The failure to build upon these developments and create institutional spaces for SoE as an academic programme within the university had its fallout. In her reflections, Chitnis (Chapter 1) elaborates on the constraints imposed by the institutional location of the Research Unit in the Sociology of Education (RUSE) that was established in Tata Institute (p.9) of Social Sciences (TISS) in 1970, following the ‘pioneering work carried out for the Education Commission 1964– 66’.5 As mentioned next, the unit was bound to carry out policy research for the government (and other organizations) and in particular, evaluations of government programmes and schemes and studies. These were in the nature of ‘commissioned projects’ and there were no funds for independent research. As Chitnis says, ‘the discipline suffered’: Moreover unlike university departments, Tata Institute is specifically committed to serve the research needs of bodies such as the Central and State governments, the ILO, the World Bank etc and commissioned projects fitted into this commitment. But as time went on the discipline suffered. Commissioned projects were designed to serve the immediate needs of policy makers and administrators. There was no room to advance into a deeper understanding of the issue researched and much less to initiate research on larger concerns and issues… (Chitnis 2006; emphasis added). The trajectory of SoE in India is in sharp contrast to the experience in the United Kingdom (UK) where significant contribution has been made to the overall growth of the field. As was the case in India, the early impetus to sociological research in education in the UK was closely linked to policy changes in education. The sociology of education received early academic legitimacy from the dominant structural–functional framework in which it was located, and the integration of education in sociological studies on stratification were carried out from the Department of Sociology of the London School of Economics in the UK (Karabel and Halsey 1977). In Bernstein’s words, ‘the legitimizing institution Page 8 of 21

 

Introduction might be said to have been the London School of Economics, and the legitimizing area was the problems and processes of industrialisation’ (Bernstein 1974: 149). The history of SoE in the UK reveals the importance of the institutional domain and the ‘audience’ that SoE addressed for the development of the field (Karabel and Halsey 1977; and Lauder et al. 2009). The establishment and growth of SoE in university departments in the UK from the 1960s saw it included as one of the foundational sub-disciplines taught in the rapidly expanding colleges and departments of education. In India, similar developments were relatively absent. Structural-functionalism along with the modernization paradigm framed by a tradition–modernity and continuity and change framework dominated early sociological studies of Indian society. This was (p.10) brought into research on education along with a liberal perspective that emphasized the mapping of patterns of equality of educational opportunity (see Chapter 4 by Nambissan). The Marxist/conflict framework was drawn upon by a few of the early sociologists (Beteille 1965; Desai 1974; and Mukherjee 1958; and subsequently, Dhanagare 1983; and Oommen 1984). In the study of education, this could be seen in the work by Jayaram (1977) and Kamat (1985). However, symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology, which emerged as critiques of the macro/ structural paradigms of structural functionalism and Marxism in the West found little reflection in sociological research in India, though they found some space in the syllabi of the discipline. This clearly constrained the scope of SoE in India as research failed to be informed by the significant theoretical and methodological turn of the New Sociology of Education (NSoE) which emerged in the UK by 1970s. The NSoE, drawing on interactionist, phenomenological, and sociology of knowledge perspectives, and ethnographic research methods, interrogated school knowledge and pedagogy as well as teaching–learning relationships, leading to the opening up the ‘black box’ of schooling. Because it was one of the foundational disciplines in teacher education, SoE had a farreaching influence on generations of teachers and also received a fillip because of this institutional location. As Lauder et al. observe, ‘These researchers sensitized and challenged teachers as to the nuanced and subtle effects different kinds of pedagogy, classroom organization and communication could have on pupils’ learning, which continues as an important strand within the sociology of education’ (Lauder et al. 2009: 572). In India, it took until the mid-1980s for the first ethnographic studies on schools to emerge (Malvankar 1988; and Thapan 1991) drawing on the New SoE. It is significant that as early as in 1969, S.P. Ruhela, from within the Department of Education in Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi, had voiced serious concern about the slow growth of SoE in India. He lamented that scant attention was being given at the time by the leading education research institutions like the NCERT, regional colleges of education, state institutes of education, as well as university departments to SoE. According to him, it was the lack of a proper realization of Page 9 of 21

 

Introduction the importance of SoE in a developing society like India by educationists and sociologists, and not the scarcity of financial resources, that was the root cause of the disappointing growth of the field (Ruhela 1969: (p.11) viii). A regrettable result of this situation, in his view, was that ‘most of our sociologists have neither been able to keep abreast with the global trends on the development of sociology of education nor have they been able to understand the proper sociological approach to the study of education’ (Ruhela 1969: viii). Further, this may also be due to the confusion among sociologists and educationists regarding the concerns of ‘educational sociology’ and ‘sociology of education’.6 Ruhela also highlighted the failure to consolidate or bring together the contributions of sociologists, educationists, and other social scientists that related to the field of SoE, which lay ‘scattered far and wide in journals, books, etc.’ (Ruhela 1969: viii). These observations, made more than four decades ago, are still relevant today.

Institutional Locations The building of the ‘disciplinary infrastructure’ (Ball 2008) of SoE, which includes putting in place institutional practices to strengthen teaching and knowledge production as well as nurturing communities of discourse, was slow in India. The parent discipline itself was in disarray even in the mid-1970s, plagued by the lack of an integrated perspective for the development of sociology in/for India and the sites of academic engagement leading to uneven and ad hoc growth. Unnithan (1982) speaks despairingly of the uneven nature of syllabi and courses that were taught as sociology in different universities. Calling sociology ‘underdeveloped’, he emphasizes that: …the significant trend that emerges about sociology in India is that it is still faced with problems in the field of professional stabilization, methodological sophistication and theoretical integration. We have seen that in terms of content of course [sic] these are not linked with research findings and they do not bear much relation with the socio-cultural milieu of Indian society. (Unnithan 1982: 75) He points out that ‘As many as 34 different papers are offered…in 21 leading universities for which data is available’. While there was no core sociological content offered to all students, sub-fields/specializations offered lacked a rationale/relevance and were poorly and unevenly represented (Unnithan 1982: 67). We know very little about teaching or research on education in departments of sociology except that it found very little space in these (p.12) institutions judging by the papers offered at the pre-doctoral level, research, and publications of scholars (see Chapter 2 by Chanana). Jose’s (2003) discussion of the undergraduate sociology syllabi in the University of Mumbai gives us a glimpse of the complexity of curriculum restructuring that is mediated by Page 10 of 21

 

Introduction perceptions of the status of the discipline and its students (sociology as ‘soft and easy’; and pitching the syllabi to meet the ‘grasping power of students’), ad hoc and superficial practices of additions and deletions to the syllabi, and lack of institutional memory. His passing reference to the course on SoE as offered by the University of Mumbai is particularly revealing. It was in 1974 that SoE was introduced (taught in the first year) in the undergraduate programme in the University of Mumbai. In 1977, it was merged with the earlier ‘Sociology of Modernization and Development’ (first offered in 1947) and called ‘Sociology of Education and Modernization’ and shifted to the third year. Interestingly, the ‘modernization’ part ‘disappeared without a trace in the course of the 4th revision of the syllabus in 1985 only to be reintroduced in 1993’ (Jose 2003: 111). Explanations for the seemingly ad hoc journey of the course are unavailable and Jose (2003) emphasizes the lack of adequate documentation of meetings on course revision, leaving little trace of institutional memory. However, the status of the course can be seen in relation to where it is positioned, whether it is an optional or compulsory course and if it is publicly examined. At the University of Mumbai, only the third year courses are publicly examined (Jose 2003). The perception of sociology as a ‘soft’ discipline and an ‘easy option’ was mentioned earlier as one of the factors that Indian sociologists have cited as responsible for the crisis in the discipline. For the sub-discipline of SoE that lies on the margins of sociology and is focused on the study of education, there is an additional predicament. As Chanana (in Chapter 2) explains, ‘If sociology has been viewed as a soft discipline, the sociology of education is a soft subdiscipline or specialization because of the nature of the content and the substantive area’. Sociology is seen as different from education because ‘sociology has been and is mainly theoretical and empirical, whereas the latter was and has been applied and normative’. She goes on to elaborate on the institutional boundaries and hierarchies between SoE and sociology on the one hand, and the divide between the sociologists working on education (liberal educators) and teacher educators (‘professional educators’) and the fragmentation (p.13) of research in education, on the other. She raises a larger question as to whether these boundaries are ‘academic and intellectual or only a problem of turf?’ (see Chapter 2 by Chanana) Sarangapani (Chapter 3) elaborates on these concerns from the standpoint of ‘education’ as a discipline, observing that its ‘epistemological characteristics’ such as ‘softness’, being non-paradigmatic and applied, and the fact that its foundations lie in several distinct disciplines, makes its disciplinary status contentious. Here again, the building of disciplinary infrastructure, the role of discourse communities, inter and intradisciplinary perceptions and construction of boundaries, as well as critical issues of resources and faculty suggest that processes of institutionalization of disciplines and domains in which they are located, and how these interface with changing contexts (nation state/national Page 11 of 21

 

Introduction development, the new economy, and entry of diverse players), need serious research attention. Her contribution takes us back to some of the key Bernsteinian concerns with the framing of knowledge (in relation to the discipline of education in this case), the construction of boundaries and identities, and ‘knowledge–power encounters’ that mediate these processes. The institutional domain of SoE has been commented upon by some of the authors. In departments of sociology, it is still on the margins, offered in the Masters programme in a few departments, usually as an optional course which students are not obliged to take. At the undergraduate level, it may be even less visible as a course. The Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (Jawaharlal Nehru University [JNU]), as Chanana observes, was an institutional innovation that focused on the study of education from different social science perspectives. In the MPhil/PhD programme, SoE is offered as an optional course as well as one where students can specialize in and go on to do a doctoral programme. The Unit for Sociology of Education (now rechristened Centre for the Study of Sociology of Education) at TISS has also promoted doctoral research in SoE since its inception in the 1970s. The Masters’ programme in education (elementary) introduced at TISS offers a foundational course in SoE as well as one in gender and education. There are a number of concerns here. First is the integration of SoE into spaces where the parent discipline is located. This gives SoE its rightful space as a sub-discipline and also allows students to bring in their understanding from other courses to the study of education and vice versa. For instance, the study of sociology of (p.14) organizations/family/globalization enables a richer theoretical engagement with the sociological context of education and institutional structures and practices. Second, it is important that SoE be offered at the graduation level where it is likely to evoke interest in students and also deepen their self-reflexivity as they journey through their own education. The early sociologists who were engaged with the Education Commission and subsequent research studies brought to the study of education sociological perspectives and scholarly rigour. Chitnis (Chapter 1) looks back on the early years of the development of the discipline and gives us a flavour of the challenges and sense of purpose that accompanied the carrying out of the field studies in SoE. In her reflections on her journey in the discipline as well as in the institutions that she provided leadership, we get rare insights into the interface between institution and biography and the building of a larger sociological imagination in education. By and large, until the mid-1980s, research by sociologists in education was largely informed by a liberal perspective within which equality of educational opportunity was a major concern. A few sociologists (Jayaram 1977; and Kamat 1985) have drawn upon the Marxist/conflict perspective in the study of education. Drury (1993) has engaged with Bourdieu’s (1973) theory of cultural and social reproduction to study the Page 12 of 21

 

Introduction linkages between education and mobility strategies of families in an Indian city. However, the sociology of education in India appears to have been largely untouched by the interactionist studies of classrooms and schools or the emergence of New SoE by the 1970s. As mentioned earlier, one of the few exceptions is Meenakshi Thapan’s study in the 1980s of the Rishi Valley School using the symbolic interactionist perspective (Thapan 1991). Nambissan (in Chapter 4) dwells on this phase in the discipline in India and points to the neglect of the ‘black box’ of schooling. Drawing attention to the education of the more marginal and socially vulnerable groups in Indian society, she emphasizes the need to understand the manner in which larger structural and organizational factors mediate and shape children’s learning experiences. The New SoE and research from within neo-Marxist/resistance/critical perspectives that are looking at intersections of diverse inequalities, provide new ways of understanding institutions and processes in relation to disadvantage as well as privilege in education and are particularly critical for us in India, keeping in mind the specificity of this society. (p.15) This brings us to the content of SoE courses that are taught in universities, rarely a matter of discussion for scholars located across departments of sociology (where it is offered) or centres of educational studies. While many do include the mandatory functionalist and Marxist perspectives on education, the work of other classical thinkers as well as developments in the post-1980s from interactionist and critical frameworks have largely been ignored. For instance, Karl Mannheim, Max Weber, G.H. Mead, and Erving Goffman, whose work provides theoretical and methodological insights for understanding contemporary education, are yet to become the focus of serious study. We are not aware if students opting for SoE are exposed to sociologists such as Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, Frank Parkin, Randal Collins, Michael Young, and Louis Althusser, among others, whose work is extremely pertinent for the study of education. The early sociologists of education such as Pierre Bourdieu, Basil Bernstein, Peter Woods, and David Hargreaves may have found space in some syllabi but we do not know how deeply students are encouraged to engage with their work. The subsequent generation which includes Michael Apple, Lisa Delpit, and Stephen Ball may still be unknown.7 We do see the need to critically reflect on the work of these scholars keeping in mind the social and educational realities of Indian society. Many of the contributors to this volume have done so as they draw upon the contributions of some of these sociologists in their review of theoretical developments in SoE and contemporary concerns in education in India. Teacher education/preparation is also one of the important sites where sociology is mandated to be taught but is a location that has been neglected by the discipline. Sociology is taught in these institutions but in a fragmentary and diluted manner. For instance, sociological theory and concepts do not receive emphasis, and courses appear to provide a general understanding of the ‘social Page 13 of 21

 

Introduction context’ of education and of ‘institutions’ and ‘social groups’. Faculty members teaching the course are not required to have a Masters degree in sociology and are often those with a specialization in education or who are Masters of Education (MEd). We have seen the important contribution that British SoE made to teacher education and the development of the field. In India, the relatively rigid boundaries between institutions where SoE is taught, as referred to by Chanana (Chapter 2), is likely to have had detrimental implications for the larger development of the field, for practitioners of (p.16) sociology located in teacher education institutions and for schools where the teacher practitioner subsequently teaches. Both Velaskar (Chapter 5) and Madan (Chapter 6), in different ways, take ahead the theoretical critique of SoE. Their contributions review developments in the field and offer important insights in the study of education and society in India in the backdrop of the changing global and national contexts. This changing context is what Oommen (2009) calls the third location for the evolution of the discipline of sociology as well, namely, the ‘post-national globalizing world’ (Oommen 2009: 1). In her critical review of research on educational inequality in India, Velaskar finds that only the building of ‘a critical and rigorous tradition of sociological enquiry and theorization would counter neoliberal and intellectually conservative onslaughts on knowledge generation, which apart from constructing an ideological defence of its educational agenda, deflects attention from increasing inequality in society and education’ (Chapter 5). Arguing against mechanistic generalizations that merely see education as playing a ‘reproductive role’ in society, Madan draws from Giddens, Archer and Bourdieu, to bring in the interplay of structure, agency, and reflexivity to explore the ‘impact’ that education has had within a specific context—villages in Haryana where he conducted ethnographic fieldwork. He pleads for ‘a vision that encapsulates a wider view of the concrete roles, groups, and processes in society’ and that ‘It is through a real and grounded examination of what education is doing there can one work out the true effect of it in society’ (Chapter 6).

Contemporary Concerns and Emerging Discourses A number of chapters in this book focus on the education of specific groups in Indian society that are identified on the basis of identities such as caste (Dalits), socio-religious minority (Muslims), as well as gender. Rao (in Chapter 9) and Wankhede (in Chapter 8) look at the education of Dalits, while Alam (in Chapter 10) focuses on Muslims. Gender concerns in education are interwoven in most of the chapters but is specifically focused upon by Manjrekar (in Chapter 7). Manjrekar brings into her contribution, intersecting debates on the construction of childhood and sociological debates on gender and schooling. Drawing upon research she carried out with urban working-class children in the city of Baroda (Vadodara) in Gujarat, she studies the complex (p.17) ways in which gender, class, caste, and nation interweave in dominant constructions of what Page 14 of 21

 

Introduction constitutes ‘work’ and the significance of these constructions to the life worlds of the children. Rao’s chapter (Chapter 9) is an important attempt to document and interpret the deep roots of the process that characterizes a student from the socially stigmatized and economically disadvantaged groups as ‘not capable of success’ and as ‘destined to fail’. Drawing from Goffman’s (1963) well-known work on ‘stigma’ as well as other less quoted but extremely significant theoretical contributions, Rao explores the contexts of discrimination and exclusion within the sphere of higher education and how this plays out in the ‘everyday life’ of an institution ‘designated as a “centre of excellence’’’—the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). What is important is the relational character of processes of unequal treatment that he points to in that they are based on principles of structurally constructed characterizations of groups and individuals by those who have power to characterize, namely, the non-stigmatized groups and individuals in everyday encounters with socially stigmatized groups such as the SCs and STs in pedagogic and non-pedagogic contexts. Rao, however, cautions that while for Goffman stigma is an individual oriented process, in India caste based stigma emerges from group identity (Chapter 9). Wankhede (in Chapter 8) reiterates some of Rao’s concerns and argues that caste still underlies social and academic discrimination even in the era of privatization and globalization, though it takes on new, differentiated, and multiple forms. In order to capture the complex processes through which caste informs educational practices, he emphasizes the need for appropriate methodologies that focus on how social discrimination is experienced. He uses case studies to discuss some of his formulations. The situation of Muslims as a social–religious minority is usually discussed in relation to the context of educational backwardness. More recently, studies have looked at the intersection of minority status, religious identity, class, and regional factors and how these have influenced the spread of education within the community. Alam (Chapter 10) takes the discussion to a different plane as he leads us into the madrasa, an institution that is more talked about but little studied. Focusing on ‘life within this institution’, Alam draws from the theoretical work of Foucault and Bourdieu to understand how a madrasa, where he did ethnographic research, ‘inscribes a certain habitus upon its students’. (p. 18) He explores the specific mechanisms and strategies used to ‘control’ students, the sites of control (especially the body), and what these practices mean from the perspective of the students. In an extremely insightful analysis, Alam suggests that though students are subject to a relatively harsh disciplinary regime within the madrasa, it inculcates a habitus that yields new modes of capital, especially symbolical capital. ‘The association with madrasas gives them status, which they would not have enjoyed in their earlier life in the villages and small cities from where they came’ (Chapter 10).

Page 15 of 21

 

Introduction The complex processes of reproduction of indigenous knowledge through modern educational institutions is dwelt upon by Abraham (Chapter 11) in the context of medical pluralism. She focuses on Ayurveda education and the manner in which it contests and collaborates with biomedicine, providing an instance of simultaneous reproduction of ontologically and epistemologically diverse systems. She looks more specifically at Ayurveda education in Kerala and at the curricular and extra-curricular institutional mechanisms and cultural practices that have emerged as it builds bridges between knowledge systems. She concludes that SoE in India needs to engage with indigenous systems, their educational institutions, and pedagogic practices that reproduce and recreate plural knowledges and composite cultures. *** Our review of just over five decades of the development of the sociology of education in India provides us with a vantage point to look back at the journey that it has taken and the promise it holds for both sociology and education. The development of the field has been linked with the nation state and welfare policies, which created relatively conducive environments for the growth of SoE in the UK and the US between the 1960s and 1980s, the pre-globalization era.This was, however, not the case in India. As a sub-discipline, SoE in India has been on the margins of sociology and has received greater policy attention as against institutional space in departments of sociology. This led to a neglect of spaces within and outside sociology and education departments where its practitioners were located. However, (p.19) there have also been limited conversations between sociologists of education to review the state of the discipline, engage with each other, and build a community of researchers, all of which are important for the development of SoE. Today, the study of education, including issues of equity, quality, and change, are concerns not only of sociologists of education but also scholars from other social sciences, non-government organizations, and private players who are entering this academic and policy space. However, the sociological imagination has a critical contribution to make as we still lack an understanding of education as a social institution and its interlinkages with poverty, cultural diversity, and the world of work. How do structural inequalities, cultural diversity, and identities of different social groups mediate institutional practices and influence learning? These are areas of research where sociologists of education in India have a critical role to play. This book is one step towards that goal. References Bibliography references:

Page 16 of 21

 

Introduction Abbasayulu, Y.B. 1978. Impact of Higher Education on Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class Students in Osmania University Jurisdiction. Hyderabad: Osmania University. Aikara, J. 1994. Sociology of Education. Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology: Third Survey. New Delhi: ICSSR. Althusser, L. 1971. ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’, in L. Althusser (ed.), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 127–86. Ambasht, N.K. 1970. A Critical Study of Tribal Education (With Special Reference to Ranchi District). New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Apple, M.W. 1979. Ideology and the Curriculum. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ———. 1995. Education and Power. New York: Routledge. Ball, S.J. 2004. ‘The Sociology of Education: A Disputational Account’, in Stephen J. Ball (ed.), The Routledge Falmer Reader in Sociology of Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–12. ———. 2008. ‘Some Sociologies of Education: A History of Problems and Places, and Segments and Gazes’, The Sociological Review, 56(4): 650–69. Bernstein, B. 1974. ‘Sociology and the Sociology of Education: A Brief Account’, in J. Rex (ed.), An Introduction to Major Trends in British Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 145–59. Beteille, A. 1965. Class, Caste and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. (p.21) Bourdieu, P. 1973. ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’, in R. Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change. London: Tavistock, pp. 71–112. Bowles, S. and H. Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Chitnis, S. 1974. ‘Sociology of Education—A Trend Report’, in A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol. II (ICSSR sponsored project). Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 166–232. ———. 1981. A Long Way to Go—A Report on a Survey of Scheduled Caste High School and College Students in Fifteen States of India. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.

Page 17 of 21

 

Introduction ———. 1982. ‘Sociology of Education in India: Emerging Trends & Needed Research’, in P.K.B. Nayar (ed.), Sociology in India (Retrospect and Prospect). Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 155–83. ———. 1985. ‘Sociology of Education’, in A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology 1969–1979, Vol. II (ICSSR sponsored project). New Delhi: Satvahan Publications, pp. 209–51. ———. 2006. Key Note Address at the National Seminar on ‘Sociology of Education: Looking Back, Looking Ahead’, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 9–10 March. Collins, R. 1979. The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press. Corwin, R. 2000. ‘Will the Sociology of Education Grow Up?’, Remarks prepared for ‘The 2000 Sociology of Education Association Conference’, The Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, CA, 25–27 February. Available at http:// professorronaldgcorwin.com/6901.html (accessed August 2010). Delpit, L. 2006[1995]. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Desai, A.R. 1959[1979]. Rural Sociology in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Desai, I.P. 1953. High School Students in Poona. Poona: Deccan College. ———. 1974. A Profile of Education among Scheduled Tribes of Gujarat. Surat: Centre for Regional Development Studies. Deshpande, S. 2001. ‘Disciplinary Predicaments: Sociology and Anthropology in Post-colonial India’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2(2): 247–60. Dhanagare, D.N. 1983. Peasant Movements in India, 1920–1950. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Drury, D. 1993. The Iron Schoolmaster: Education, Employment and the Family in India. Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Company. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. (p.22) Gore, M.S., I.P. Desai, and S. Chitnis (eds). 1967. Papers in the Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. ———. 1970. Field Studies in the Sociology of Education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. Page 18 of 21

 

Introduction Hargreaves, D. 1967. Social Relations in a Secondary School. New York: Humanities Press. Jayaram, N. 1977. ‘Higher Education as Status Stabiliser: Students in Bangalore’, Contributions to Indian Sociology (NS), 11(1): 169–91. Jose, G. 2003. ‘Make it Soft and Easy: The Undergraduate Syllabi in Sociology’, in M. Chaudhuri (ed.), The Practice of Sociology. New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 97–128. Kamat, A.R. 1985. Education and Social Change in India. Bombay: Somaiya Publications. Karabel, J. and A.H. Halsey (eds). 1977. Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Lauder, H., P. Brown, and A.H. Halsey. 2009. ‘Sociology of Education: A Critical History and Prospects for the Future’, Oxford Review of Education, 35(5): 569– 85. Mannheim, K. 1952. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago. Mukherjee, R. 1958. Six Villages of Bengal. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Oommen, T.K. 1984. Social Transformation in Rural India: Mobilization and State Intervention. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing. ———. 2009. ‘Implications of Shifting Locations: Trajectories of Sociology and Social Anthropology’, Occasional Papers (New Series) 2009/3, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi. Parkin, F. 1982. ‘Social Closure and Class Formation’, in A. Giddens and D. Held (eds), Classes, Power, and Conflict: Clasical and Contemporary Debates. Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 175–84. Rao, M.S.A. 1979. ‘Sociology in the 1980s’, Economic and Political Weekly, 14(44): 1810–15. Ruhela, S.P. (ed.). 1969. Contributions to Sociology of Education in India, Vol. 1. New Delhi: Jain Brothers. Srinivas, M.N. 1952. ‘Sociology and Social Anthropology’, Sociological Bulletin, 1(1): 10–37.

Page 19 of 21

 

Introduction Thapan, M. 1991. Life at School: An Ethnographic Study. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Unnithan, T.K.N. 1982. ‘A New Sociology for India—Review of Sociology in the 1970s and Perspective for the 1980s’, in P.K.B. Nayar (ed.), (p.23) Sociology in India (Retrospect & Prospect). Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 61–92. University Grants Commission (UGC). 1966. Report of the Review Committee in Sociology. New Delhi: UGC. ———. 1978. Report of the Review Committee on the Status of Teaching of Sociology and Social Anthropology. New Delhi: UGC. Weber, M. 1958. ‘The Chinese Literati’, in H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 416–39. Woods, P. 1983. Sociology and the School: An Interactionist Viewpoint. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Young, M.F.D. (eds). 1971. Knowledge and Control. London: Collier-MacMillan. (p.24) Notes:

(1.) The six universities were Bombay, Calcutta, Mysore, Lucknow, Osmania, and Poona. Bombay University was renamed University of Mumbai in 1996. It will be referred as University of Mumbai henceforth. (2.) A number of studies focused on the social backgrounds of school and college students and their attitudes and values, exploring the relationship between education, stratification, and modernization. See Aikara (1994) and Chitnis (1974, 1985) (3.) Oommen suggests that ‘both sociology and anthropology had passed through two distinct locations—the colonial state and the nation-state’ (Oommen 2009: 1). The emergence of anthropology is linked distinctly with colonialism and the study of the ‘primitive’; and that of sociology with the emergence of the nation state and modern industrialized societies. However, Oommen is conscious of the fact that to link sociology with the nation-state is against the very grain of the discipline. One of the consequences of such linking is that ‘sociology will become state-centric’ (Ibid.: 10). (4.) In addition to establishing the legitimacy of the study of Indian society and social structure, early energies were also focused on debates on whether the discipline should be named sociology or social anthropology. Srinivas’ position was that the label ‘sociology’ could be used to ‘refer to sociology as well as social and cultural anthropology’ (Deshpande 2001: 248). However, others did not quite agree, and this has led to institutional practices that segregate Page 20 of 21

 

Introduction anthropology from sociology and vice versa in many universities across the country. A department of sociology and anthropology in some instances was split into two departments as sociology and anthropology, marking out the separation between the two. In retrospect, we need to see the value added of these debates and their institutional consequences. (5.) Available at http://www.tiss.edu/Academic/schools.php (accessed 10 November 2010). (6.) It is important to remember that educational sociology taught in education departments was not acknowledged as ‘sociology’ by sociologists. Corwin, referring to the US, notes that ‘most educational sociologists were trained in education and used substandard methodologies and atheoretical approaches. And, they were preoccupied with narrow, pragmatic, short-term problems’ (Corwin 2000: 2). (7.) The references contain some contributions of these scholars that are pertinent for SoE.

Access brought to you by:

Page 21 of 21

 

Sociology of Education in India

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Sociology of Education in India A Personal Account* Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords This essay presents an account of the author's own personal and institutional experiences related to sociology of education (SoE)) in India. It explains that the author has been a sociologist of education for 45 years since 1964. It suggests that the establishment of the sociology of education (SoE) as an academic field in India started in 1964, with the appointment of the Education Commission which had the mandate to advise the government on how education could be used as an instrument of national development. This chapter highlights the accomplishments of Commission Member Secretary Shri J.P. Naik and the importance of the December 1964 seminar organised by the Commission in the history of SoE in India. Keywords:   sociology of education, India, sociologist of education, academic field, Education Commission, J.P. Naik, Education seminars

In this chapter, I reflect on my institutional experiences through the course of the 45 years of my career as a sociologist of education. For the first 26 years, between 1964 and 1990 to be exact, I taught sociology and researched in the Sociology of Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai. After that, I was an administrator of education, first, as the Vice Chancellor of the Shrimati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women’s University for six years and then, as the Director of Jamsetji N. Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians for five years. Page 1 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India The story of the establishment of the sociology of education (SoE) as an academic field in India starts in 1964, with the appointment of the Education Commission. This Commission had the mandate to advise the Government of India on how education could be used as an instrument of national development. Shri J.P. Naik, the dynamic Member Secretary of the Commission, believed that it would be useful to involve the social scientists in this task. He discussed the possibilities with Professor M.S. Gore who was the then Director of TISS in Mumbai. Gore promptly got in touch with Professor I.P. Desai, who at that point of time was the only sociologist in the country who had researched issues (p. 28) pertaining to education. Together the two of them decided that it would be useful to invite a group of sociologists from different parts of the country to help the Commission in its deliberations. This decision marks the beginning of the establishment of SoE in the country. Earlier, some scholars, notably I.P. Desai and his student B.V. Shah, had been doing some work on education. However, the move to provide the Education Commission with sociological perspectives and insights on education as an instrument of development launched the field and placed it on a new trajectory of growth. I was a lecturer at the Postgraduate Department of Sociology at University of Bombay (renamed University of Mumbai since 1996) when Gore and Desai were deliberating on the invitation to advise the Commission. On the threshold of a readership at the department, I should have been more than satisfied with my career. But the country was right in the middle of its Third Five Year Plan and alive with the excitement of development. I was 31 years old, already with 10 years of experience as a lecturer, and dreaming of an opportunity for development-related research. There was no scope for this at the university. In the hope that there would be opportunities at TISS, I took an appointment with Gore to explore possibilities. That appointment turned out to be fortuitous for me. When I met Gore, Desai happened to be sitting with him. They had been talking about Naik saheb’s request. When I explained that I was looking for a research job, they seemed interested, and asked me to meet them after two days. When I met them two days later, they told me about the proposed venture. They made it clear that they did not have a job to offer me immediately and that, in fact, they were uncertain that a proper position would come up at all. They indicated that if it did, the salary would be a pittance. They advised me against giving up a permanent job and a readership at the university for an uncertain future. However, when they realized that I had set my heart on developmentrelated research, they warmly agreed to accept me as their assistant. Thrilled to find the chance I had been dreaming of, I decided to join them immediately. Thus, I became part of the Gore-Desai team and stepped into the field that became my lifelong career. I worked without a salary for the first six months. Later, I was appointed to the position of research officer.

Page 2 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India The Commission was in a hurry and we plunged into the project immediately. The work was exciting from day one and our first (p.29) decision was to organize a seminar that would deliberate on how best the Commission’s needs could be met. We drew up an agenda for the seminar, compiled a list of social scientists to be invited to participate in it, and put together some basic information to guide our deliberations. I joined Gore and Desai in November 1964. The seminar took place exactly a month later, in December 1964, at TISS in Mumbai. This seminar is one of the most important chapters in the history of SoE in India.

The Decisions of the Seminar—A Blueprint for the Project The seminar decided to provide the Commission with material in two stages as follows: at the first stage, the Commission was to be provided with a set of papers designed to equip its members with concepts and perspectives on education that would be pertinent to the task they had on hand. In particular, the idea was to clarify the concepts of modernization, Westernization, development, and change; to define education as a social institution and as an instrument for change; to explain the relationship between the education system and other subsystems of society; to look at the internal working of the education as a system of roles, responsibilities, and functions; and to provide brief profiles of some of the problems facing education in the country, for instance, student unrest and the task of educating women and castes and tribes that were historically excluded from education. These issues were developed into a set of themes for papers and a list of scholars to be invited to author the papers was drawn up. Two decisions were taken in order to ensure that the papers covered the themes competently. First, the invited authors would be provided with guidelines for each paper and that they would be required to follow these guidelines closely. Second, the first drafts of all the papers would be completed and presented at a meeting at which the authors would discuss and offer comments on each other’s papers. Based on these discussions and comments, the authors would be required to finalize their drafts. The drafts would be carefully edited and then handed over to the Commission. All this was to be accomplished within a year. At the second stage, the Commission was to be presented with statistical data drawn from a country-wide survey of school and college (p.30) students, teachers, administrators, and parents of school students. The objective of the survey was to give the Commission an idea of the ground realities about these stakeholders and functionaries in education. It was to be designed to obtain some basic information on their socio-economic status, their attitudes, aspirations and values, and their readiness for social, economic, and political change for modernization and development. It was decided to conduct the survey in eight states chosen from the four regions of the country. Directors were to be appointed to conduct the survey in each state. These directors were

Page 3 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India also to be assigned responsibility for writing reports on the findings from their states. It was obvious that the administration of the project would be an ongoing responsibility and the seminar requested Gore to establish an office for the purpose at TISS. Gore was also requested to use expertise from TISS to the extent possible. Further, having decided that the project would be centrally designed and administered, the seminar appointed the Gore–Desai–Chitnis team as the coordinating committee responsible for further detailed planning and for the administration and coordination of the project. The responsibilities of the coordinating committee towards each of the two aspects/stages of the project were specified. For instance, towards the preparation of the papers, the committee was to finalize the themes for the papers and to prepare the guidelines for each paper. It was responsible for answering questions and fielding with suggestions that the invited authors were likely to have. It was expected to organize the meeting at which the first drafts of the papers were to be discussed; to receive the revised drafts; to edit these drafts; and finally, to put them together for submission to the Commission. With regard to the survey, the coordinating committee was to be responsible for designing the survey; preparing the instruments for fieldwork; providing the directors of the field study in each state with these instruments; answering queries of the directors and guiding them through the course of the fieldwork; receiving the completed questionnaires from each state after the completion of the fieldwork; tabulating the data from these questionnaires and dispatching the tables to the respective states; developing a detailed outline for the reports to be written by the directors for their respective states; and generally, coordinating the work of the eight directors responsible for the survey in the states. Finally, the coordinating committee was to be responsible (p.31) for writing a consolidated report that would bring together the findings from the survey in all of the states. The seminar also appointed a national advisory committee to advise the coordinating committee. It was understood that the members of the advisory committee would be available to the coordinating committee for whatever help it needed. The advisory committee included many participants of the deliberating seminar.

Inadequate Resources and the Saving Grace of Voluntary Support Since the project was invited by the Commission, we were confident that funds would be available. However, when we started working, we had no idea about where the funds would come from. J.P. Naik was a pillar of strength. He took personal interest in every aspect of the project. He persuaded the Commission to finance the papers and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to finance the survey.

Page 4 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India None of us involved in the project had any experience of budgeting for such a large venture, and we suffered for this. Our cost estimates for putting papers together and for conducting field studies in the eight states were reasonably sound. But we grossly underestimated the costs of running the coordinating office. We failed to visualize the phenomenal physical effort involved in unloading and transporting tons of paper to the printers, for packing, and dispatching the printed questionnaires to the states, and for receiving completed questionnaires from the states. We had not budgeted for manual help for this; the peons from TISS had to do all this work. We had made sure that facilities for printing in different regional languages, as required for carrying out the survey, were all available in Mumbai. But we had not taken into account the fact that these facilities were located more than 25 kilometres (kms) from TISS and therefore, we had not budgeted for the transport that was required. We had budgeted some amount for postage and other overheads, but our telephone bills and postage far exceeded these amounts. The Governing Board of TISS had agreed to house the project, but it ended up providing much more. It had to absorb all expenses that we had failed to provide for when submitting our budget estimates for funds. (p.32) We had also grossly underestimated our personnel needs. The foregoing statement on the responsibilities assigned to the coordinating committee gives a rough idea of the variety of the tasks involved. The preparation of guidelines for the papers, editing them, preparing them for submission to the Commission, and subsequently for publication, was in itself a challenging task. It had to be accomplished simultaneously with the larger task of designing details for the survey and then its execution. Drawing samples of school and college students, teachers, administrators, and parents from each of the states, designing questionnaires for each of these four categories of respondents, translating them into regional languages, getting them printed, and then dispatching them to eight centres were complex and massive tasks. So, too, were the tasks of receiving the completed questionnaires from each state, tabulating the data from questionnaires, sending tables prepared from the data to the respective field directors with detailed instructions for the reports they were expected to write, answering their endless queries, commenting on drafts of their reports, and finally, writing a consolidated report on the data from eight states. It is difficult to describe the volume of the work in the task of coordinating the field study. However, those who have experience of field research can surmise what was involved in coordinating a study that covered a sample of 240,000 respondents, consisting of four different categories, spread across eight states in four regions of the country. A total of 4,864 frequency tables and 17,000 cross tables were worked out from the data obtained. More than 20 social scientists were assisted by nearly 150 field investigators.

Page 5 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India We had naively believed that the three of us as the coordinating team, with the help of a typist-cum-clerk, would be able to manage these tasks. We were wrong. Gore gave as much time as he could, alongside his responsibilities as the Director of TISS. Desai, who was based in Surat, visited Mumbai frequently and stayed on for several days on each visit to help with the work at the coordinating office. I came to TISS at eight every morning and often returned home late at night. In peak periods, I carried work home. All three of us worked hard through the week and over weekends, carrying out any and every task required. But we were not equipped to handle all the tasks, for instance, designing the statistical format or the translation of questionnaires into regional (p.33) languages. Professor Ramachandran, the principal statistician at TISS, and Professor Vimal Shah, who was a member of the advisory committee, provided extensive support for sampling as well as during the processing of the data. We could not afford to get the questionnaires translated commercially and reached out to friends, many of them housewives, for help. Already stressed with the challenge of working with limited resources, we were confronted with an unexpected emergency. We had planned on an extensive use of computers for the tabulation of the data from the survey and had been promised funds for the purpose by the NCERT. However, the Indo-Pakistan war broke out at the time that the data from the survey started coming in. An emergency was declared and the funds assigned for the tabulation became unavailable. Begging bowl in hand, we went to the Tatas and to the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) in the country for free computer time. The office of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) at Mumbai and the IIT at Kanpur graciously offered us their computer facilities for free, but neither had programmes suitable for processing our data. The only way to solve the problem was to find voluntary help for this task. My husband, who is computer savvy, happened to be due for a vacation. Since I could not take a vacation with him anyway, he offered to use his vacation to develop a programme for us. That he knew professionals at TISCO as well as at IIT Kanpur very well was an added advantage. To work out the preliminary calculations required for decisions on the kind of tables we would obtain from the computers, we appealed to faculty wives at TISS and children, including our own, who, fortunately for us were on vacation from school, to help us out. We taught these volunteers to use slide rules and log tables. Fortunately, they enjoyed the novel experience and worked with speed and efficiency of an order that lifted our spirits. This extensive use of voluntary effort remains one of the most remarkable experiences of my career as a researcher. We were able to complete both stages of the project and deliver our promise to the Education Commission on time. This, and the many other returns from the project, more than compensated for the effort we put in. However, before I move on to describe these returns, I would like to share some of the experiences which I now see as valuable lessons in research.

Page 6 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India (p.34) Lessons from the Project These experiences are documented in the consolidated report on the survey entitled, Field Studies in the Sociology of Education (Gore et al. 1970). The following are some that I consider particularly useful. 1. Sampling : The Commission wanted a profile of education in the country. It was an awesome challenge to design a sample that was representative of India. We set out with great enthusiasm to design a sample frame that would capture all the variables that seemed to be significant. However, after considerable struggle, we came to the conclusion that it was not possible to accommodate all the variables that we intended to cover and we had to settle for those that mattered most in the context of the needs of the Commission. We were sorely disappointed that we were unable to achieve what we had initially aimed at. On the other hand, we had learnt there are serious limits to the number of variables one can cover in empirical studies that aim at covering the entire country. This lesson was immensely useful in the national-scale empirical studies that TISS subsequently undertook. 2. Limitations of Western Expertise : When we planned the survey, we decided that we would use a scale developed by a well-known North American scholar to gauge the attitudes, values, and aspirations of the respondents, in particular to assess their readiness for modernization. While pre-testing this scale, we found that it was difficult to obtain sharp responses to questions used as indicators in the scale. However, at that point of time, such was our faith in Western expertise that we decided to stay with the scale. When the data that came in were weak, we realized that the indicators developed from a Western perspective, and were not adequately sensitive to Indian perspectives, sentiments, attitudes, and situations. This was an important lesson. It alerted us to the limitations of Western perspectives in understanding or working with Indian realities, particularly in development-related projects. It also and sensitized us to the need to develop instruments appropriate to the Indian context. 3. Translation: The survey covered eight states and the questionnaires that we had prepared in English had to be translated into eight vernacular languages. We worked out a method of ensuring that (p.35) the translations were precise. In the process, we learnt some of the finer points of translation from English into the vernacular languages. Basically, we discovered that nuances of meaning are lost in translation from English into the vernaculars, and also that it is easier to translate from English into some vernacular languages than others. For instance, Urdu lends itself more easily to translation than Marathi or Tamil. 4. The Seasons and Local Calendars : We had not taken the weather into account when estimating the time frame for the project. That was a mistake. The printed questionnaires had to be dispatched to the different Page 7 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India states. We learnt that the best way to do this was to send them by road. That is what we decided to do, and did not visualize any problems. However, by the time the questionnaires were printed and ready for dispatch from the several presses at which they were printed, the monsoon descended on Mumbai. It was difficult to load the packaged questionnaires into the trucks as the areas in which the printing presses were located were slushy, muddy, and often flooded knee deep. Worse yet, some of the trucks carrying questionnaires were caught in floods enroute. Similarly, we had failed to take into account inter-state differences in schedules for holidays, vacations, and school and college examinations. The differences were quite substantial and, thus, created problems, both in the coordination of the project and in adhering to the time frame. The overall experience of handling such a large project was one of the major returns from the project. However, there were many other gains.

Returns from the Project The Publications

The papers submitted to the Commission have been published by NCERT as Papers in the Sociology of Education (Gore et al. 1967). The consolidated report on the findings from the eight states has been published as Field Studies in the Sociology of Education. The report contains a comprehensive statement on the project. Among other details, the report explains the rationale for the design of the survey and describes, at length, the manner in which the sample was drawn, the (p.36) instruments for the survey were prepared, and the fieldwork organized. It explains how the work was coordinated by the office at TISS and details how each of the several tasks involved in the coordination were accomplished. When I was assigned the task of reflecting on my institutional experiences as a sociologist of education, I revisited these two volumes to refresh my memories and was pleasantly surprised to find that they continue to be relevant. The papers are extensively used as a basic reader in SoE. I am told that young researchers in the field have been using the Field Studies in the Sociology of Education as a reference for research. It is gratifying to know this. While writing the Field Studies, we had specifically aimed at sharing the experience from the project for others to use. Reports for each state are available as mimeographs. Some of these are in print. These reports detail the specific features of the execution of the project in each state. The papers, the field studies, and the reports for the different states are now part of the basic literature in SoE in India. This is indeed very gratifying. The Establishment of the Unit for Research in SoE

It would not be unfair to claim that the project for the Education Commission led to the establishment and institutionalization of SoE in India. Prior to 1964, only a few sociologists, notably I.P. Desai and his students, had done research in SoE. Students at some colleges of education were given courses in the sociological Page 8 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India foundations of education but SoE had not found a place in graduate or postgraduate courses in sociology. More than satisfied with the papers and the reports from the empirical survey that it received, and convinced of the value of research of the kind that had been done for it, the Commission strongly recommended the establishment of a ‘Unit for Research in the Sociology of Education’ at TISS and a ‘Unit for Research in the Economics of Education’ at the University of Mumbai. The establishment of the Unit for Research in the Sociology of Education at TISS proved to be a firm stimulus for the growth of the field in the country. After the Unit was established, ministries of the Government of India and of the Government of Maharashtra, as well as bodies such as the World Bank and the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), kept commissioning TISS for development and policy-related research on education. This research stands as a substantial contribution to research in SoE. The studies include the (p.37) nation-wide survey of education of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), reported in my publication titled, A Long Way to Go (1981). There are also studies on the education of women, the working of the scholarships for the disadvantaged, on the working of hostels, on ashram schools. Several studies focus on the issue of equality in education, literacy programmes, school enrolment schemes, and several other themes. Reports on some of these studies are published. All are available at TISS. The establishment of the Unit also led to a growth in courses in SoE. With a view to serve the needs of TISS as an institution for postgraduate education in social work, the Unit specifically designed and taught courses relevant to students of social work. Among the most popular of these were the courses on ‘socialization’ and ‘education of the socially and culturally disadvantaged’. The Unit also participated actively in the several research methodology courses run by TISS. In an admirably innovative move, the Unit introduced the practice of team research in the independent field research that TISS routinely requires its Master’s-level students to do as part of the requirement for the degree in social work. The research done by each student in this context is generally in the nature of a learning exercise. The canvas covered is too small to be significant and collectively, the research does not add up to anything more than fragmented pieces of work. With the objective of harnessing these small bits of student research to produce something substantial, the Unit innovated the practice of team research. Students were organized into teams, guided to choose a theme pertinent to their concerns as social workers, and to design a team project that would enable them to collectively cover a universe representative enough to ensure that the findings from their individual research are collectively substantial. Some valuable publications were developed from this team research. For instance, there is one on the use of drugs on college campuses. The Unit also received, served, and continues to serve extensive demands from students enrolled for TISS’ PhD and MPhil programmes. The Unit also organized Page 9 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India several seminars and discussions on a range of issues pertinent to policy on, and administration of, education. Papers from these seminars carry valuable conceptual analyses of issues in education. Not unexpectedly, both the trend reports on SoE sponsored by the ICSSR have been authored by members of the Unit (Chitnis 1974, 1985). Thus, over the course of the four decades since the establishment of (p.38) the Unit, its staff and students have contributed extensively to research, teaching, reflection, and writing in SoE. A Network of Scholars Engaged in SoE

The bonds that developed between the scholars that Gore and Desai had brought together to meet the challenge thrown by the Education Commission have turned out to be strong and enduing. Forged from working together at an exciting and challenging task, they are very special. Most of us involved in the project done for the Commission were in our thirties or forties at the time that we first came together. Over the course of the decades since then, we have continued to reach out to each other as professionals. Many of us have teamed together to publish and research. Our younger colleagues, in turn, have become part of this network. The friendships formed in the process have enriched each of us personally. Those of us who are now seniors in the network fondly remember Naik saheb and talk with nostalgia about how he brought social scientists in the country together with an exciting opportunity for research. My Personal Gain

I had come to the TISS as a total novice, looking for an opportunity to do development-related research, and willing to work voluntarily. I was appointed to the position of a research officer, but on a salary that was meagre. I had to clear tasks that I had never anticipated. For instance, I had to scour through backstreets considered dangerous looking for vernacular printers, suitable truck transporters, and affordable wooden crates and waterproofing material to pack the questionnaires for dispatch. On a couple of occasions, I was warned to keep away from the neighbourhood. During peak periods of work, I would often come home late at night. But I was riding high on the euphoria of the opportunity to work on a development-related project, gaining volumes of rare and rich experience, and none of what I had to cope with mattered. Because I was the lone professional-cum-administrator appointed to the coordinating office, I had the opportunity to carry responsibilities and to handle tasks that would not normally have been entrusted to someone as young and raw as I was. I shared responsibility for every task pertaining to the project with Gore and Desai. This included: planning and organizing all meetings, including the seminar; designing the two (p.39) projects; the preparation of guidelines for the thematic papers; the instruments for the field studies and directions for the field directors in each state; answering their queries; sending out instructions; getting the questionnaires translated and printed; dispatching blank questionnaires; receiving completed questionnaires at the end of the survey in each state and getting the data processed; dealing with funding bodies as well as with Page 10 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India organizations like TISCO and institutions such as the IIT and publishing the theme papers; and finally, writing a report on the consolidated data from the eight states. This could easily have turned into a nightmare, but for the continuous mentoring and firm support that Gore and Desai provided. I had joined them as an assistant but they treated me as a colleague. From the very outset, they gave me full freedom, placed complete trust in me, and at the same time, gently, almost imperceptibly, nurtured me to grow into the challenging tasks that I had to deal with. I cannot even begin to describe the commitment with which they themselves worked and the humility and sharpness with which they learnt from the experiences we encountered. The example they set spurred me on. Gore is an elegant and sophisticated thinker. He is gifted with the capacity to develop and deal with concepts. He has a rare ability to carry others with him. Desai is no more. He passed away some years ago. He had a sound sense for ground realities, extensive experience of field research, and a delightful temperament and sense of humour. Together, the qualities that Gore and Desai possessed were a major asset for the project we had in hand. I came with nothing in particular to offer, except the courage to be frank, to doubt and to ask questions, and my excitement about the opportunity to work on the project. I like to believe that these qualities were useful to my seniors. They certainly helped me to learn from my mentors and from experiences from the project, and by the time the Unit for Research in the Sociology of Education was established at TISS, I was qualified to walk into the position of Reader in charge of the Unit.

At the SNDT Women’s University In 1990, I was appointed Vice Chancellor of the SNDT Women’s University. For full 26 years before that, at TISS, I had researched, taught, and lectured in SoE. In the process, I had acquired a good (p.40) understanding of the university system in the country. But this was only as much as one can through reading, research, participation in seminars, conferences, and meetings, and committee work. At the SNDT University, I experienced the system. As a participant observer, I could see how the system worked and failed to work. I could see how cumbersome bodies such as the senate, academic council, and executive council are. Universities are faced with academic issues and concerns and they get stuck in the quagmire of procedures. Their decisions are swayed by egos and by internal politics. More often than not, bodies such as the State Education Department and the University Grants Commission (UGC), responsible for the maintenance of standards, are so rigid with the norms they set that they defeat the purpose for which they exist. They cripple reform and restrict simple administrative measures towards efficiency and excellence. Within the administration, different functions, for instance, admissions and examinations, grow to be instruments of power and of corruption. Academic departments grow into empires that displace the larger objectives of education. I experienced the university as a system of relationships between administrators and academics, Page 11 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India between teachers, between students, and between teachers and students. I saw how battle lines are drawn between administrators and academics. Before I came to SNDT, I had done considerable research on problems pertaining to the education of the SCs and STs. At the university, I was closely involved with the administration of the policy of reservations for student admissions and for faculty and administrative positions. I saw how the rights of candidates from reserved categories are set aside, although prejudices are sometimes genuinely driven by concern for quality. I had to deal with battles fought by rejected candidates from the reserved categories, including threats of self-immolation. Despite my firm commitment to the policy, I sometimes, in all honesty, had to rule that their claims were not fair. Similarly, I had to handle protests and demonstrations by unions within the university and by those bodies such as the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad. I also saw how lofty ideals of education have to be bent to enable universities to function within their limited resources, to make way for popular demand, or simply because the functionaries in the system believe in the examination-oriented certificate dispensing system within which they work. As I experienced all these several facets of the university as an ongoing concern, I slowly recognized the stresses, strains, and inadequacies through (p.41) which universities in the country have to wend their way and learnt to appreciate what universities accomplish despite their many flaws. As Vice Chancellor, I had the opportunity to represent the SNDT University at meetings of the Association of Commonwealth Universities. In this capacity, I was one of the nine members of the Commonwealth Commission on Higher Education that was appointed in the 1990s. This gave me the opportunity to visit universities in other Commonwealth countries, study them at close quarters, and to learn how the colonial connection had influenced and shaped different countries. As convener of the Indian chapter of the Commonwealth Universities’ Student Exchange Programme, I had some experience of the internationalization of higher education, a phenomenon which is now well established. As Vice Chancellor, my duties towards the university were those of an administrator. But I never stopped being a researcher and as a researcher, I was always a participant observer. The six years of my term as Vice Chancellor were invaluable to me as a sociologist of education. They gave me a practitioner’s perspective and enriched my understanding of higher education. I revised many of my purely academic concepts about higher education and developed awareness of how important it is to temper the academic approach to understanding education with insights from practical experience. The six years at SNDT University have brought about another major change in me. Although I continue to be critical of higher education, my criticism is now less brash and I feel obliged to make sure that it is constructive.

Page 12 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India At the J.N. Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians In 1996, I completed my term at the SNDT University and took up the Directorship of the J.N. Tata Endowment for the Higher Education of Indians Abroad. I worked with the Endowment for a little over five years. In the course of these five years, I gained yet another perspective on education. First and foremost, I had an intimate experience of corporate social responsibility. The J.N. Tata Endowment was established by Jamsetji Tata for deserving Indians to study abroad, more than a century ago, long before the concept of corporate social responsibility was formally articulated. A nationalist at heart, Jamsetji was motivated to provide (p.42) scholarships because he deeply resented that Indians were not appointed to senior positions in the British administration and believed that this was because they did not have the education that the British deemed necessary for the purpose. After independence, the Tatas looked upon the scholarships as means to reward excellence in students and to provide qualified human resources for the country. As Director of the Endowment, I was basically expected to ensure that the scholarships served these two objectives. However, my advice would also be sought for decisions on funding for educational projects provided by some of the other Tata Trusts. These Trusts try to serve a broad spectrum of need in formal and non-formal education at all levels, from literacy or simple health education programmes to advanced research. Together, my work for the Endowment and for the other trusts gave me an intimate view of how a socially responsible corporate body defines and executes its social commitments. This was a rare and precious experience for me as a sociologist of education. Work with the Endowment provided me with several other valuable insights into education. For instance, while ensuring that the scholarship served its objectives, namely, to reward excellences and to provide the country with appropriate human resources, I realized that the conventional definition of excellence and concepts of human resources needs on the basis of which the Endowment had been giving scholarships was shortsighted. Excellence is equated with outstanding academic performance and it was believed that the country primarily needs highly qualified technologists and professionals. Not unexpectedly, IIT graduates, medical students, and urban students from relatively elite institutions, aspiring to study at Oxbridge or at Ivy League universities in the United States (US), were chosen. Since the interviews for the scholarships were conducted in English, fluency in the language imperceptibly became a plus point. In an effort to remain alert to the country’s human resource needs, I realized that we had been neglecting the country’s needs in other fields, for instance, agriculture, animal husbandry, history, political science, law, the fine and performing arts, and so on. As I looked for deserving candidates in these fields, I realized that their capability is not always measurable in terms of their academic performance. Also, they are generally unable to put themselves across if interviewed in English. I saw that excellence Page 13 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India has many faces and realized that the Endowment must search for them and recognize them in order (p.43) to ensure that it is just and fair in its awards. The Endowment has since been consciously responding to this responsibility. I also learnt a great deal about the attitudes and values of students who aspire to study abroad, for instance, many Indian students, and students of management in particular, are unwilling to study in India if they fail to gain admission to the apex institutions in the country. They prefer to study at lowranking institutions abroad, regardless of what it costs. In the process, the country loses precious revenue for higher education. This phenomenon needs to be studied. I saw that many parents are willing to stake their properties, their savings, their provident funds, everything they possess, to finance the education of their wards, particularly sons, at universities abroad. I wonder what the children do in return—whether they would ever compensate for the sacrifices the parents make. I wonder how students can allow their parents to make these sacrifices without losing their own self-respect. Or again, the students who reach out to the Endowment for scholarships are the cream of the student population in the country, and some are well rounded. But I often came across students who lacked general knowledge. Very few are acquainted with the problems that plague the country. They tend to blame the poor for poverty and for the failure to universalize education. One notices very little commitment to the advance of the country. Most students seem to be driven by ambitions for personal prosperity and success.

Looking Back and Looking Ahead As I look back, I realize that but for my grounding in SoE, it would have been extremely difficult for me to deal with the many challenges that I faced at the SNDT University as an administrator. My understanding of higher education was purely academic when I joined the university. Nevertheless, my knowledge about how universities in India are structured helped me to understand how it functioned and to recognize flaws in its functioning. I was familiar with the policy of reservations. I had read about student unrest and other problems at universities and could understand and anticipate problems. Similarly, when fulfilling my responsibilities at the Endowment, I realized that it was a major asset to have a background in SoE. I have since believed that it would be useful to provide functionaries in education—teachers, administrators, those who are responsible for scholarships and other beneficial schemes, as (p.44) well as policymakers—with courses that provide them with sociological insights into education. Bachelor of Education (BEd) and Master of Education (MEd) courses cover this need to an extent. But the discipline needs to take up the responsibility more actively by organizing in-service workshops, seminars, and other means of serving these functionaries.

Page 14 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India As I have mentioned earlier, while a background in SoE thus helped me in my administrative positions, the experience from these positions enriched my sociological understanding of education. Very little of what actually happens in education is researched by sociologists. Research themes are rarely drawn from the functioning of the system. Concepts in SoE are not adequately infused with experience. The failure to research ongoing realities in education and to enrich sociological concepts with insights from experience is a major shortcoming in the discipline. This shortcoming must be overcome, particularly for the discipline to develop knowledge relevant to the development of courses for functionaries in education. In the years to come, one of the challenges for scholars and researchers in the discipline is to interact with functionaries in education and stimulate osmosis between their ideas and the experiences of these functionaries. I would like to return to my experience at TISS briefly and to make a suggestion from that experience. The Unit for Research in the Sociology of Education was admirably productive. However, it did not have funds for independent research and was confined to commissioned projects. Its research agenda was driven by the requests that came. When research in the discipline was in its infancy, this did not matter. Moreover, unlike university departments, the TISS is specifically committed to serve the research needs of bodies such as the central and state governments, the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the World Bank, and commissioned projects fitted into this commitment. But as time went on, the discipline suffered. Commissioned projects were designed to serve the immediate needs of policymakers and administrators. There was no room to advance into a deeper understanding of the issue researched and much less to initiate research on larger concerns and issues. It was not even possible to independently pursue valuable leads from the projects done. Although many of us wanted to do all this, the Unit had no resources to build in that direction. Now the situation has improved slightly since my days at the Tata Institute, but key challenges still remain. By and large, institutions (p.45) engaged in social science research in our country have no standing funds for independent research. Consequently, they are forced to depend on grants from bodies such as the ICSSR, the UGC, and others. They are donor driven. Going by my experience at TISS 40 years ago, I believe there is at least one way out of this situation. Challenged to conduct a survey that covered the entire country, we had then brought sociologists from different parts of the country to create a team that could jointly and collectively handle the task. Later, in order to optimize returns from the research normally expected to be done by students individually as a requirement for the Master’s degree, we had organized students into teams, which collectively covered areas too large or complex for individuals to cover single handed. Sociologists of education at TISS, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Jamia Milia Islamia University, and other centres for research in SoE can come together, pool time and other resources that they can spare, and cooperate Page 15 of 16

 

Sociology of Education in India for team research. Together, they can conduct one or two projects carefully designed to advance the discipline. Run as a continuous programme, this teamwork could yield rich returns not only in terms of the research done but also in terms of building the strength of the discipline. References Bibliography references: Chitnis, S. 1974. ‘Sociology of Education—A Trend Report’, in A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology (ICSSR sponsored project). Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 166–232. ———. 1981. A Long Way to Go–A Report on a Survey of Scheduled Caste High School and College Students in Fifteen States of India. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. ———. 1985. ‘Sociology of Education’, in A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology 1969–1979 Vol. II (ICSSR sponsored project). New Delhi: Satvahan Publications. pp. 209–51. Gore, M.S., I.P. Desai and S. Chitnis (eds). 1967. Papers in the Sociology of Education in India. Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. ———. 1970. Field Studies in the Sociology of Education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. Notes:

(*) This was the keynote address at the National Seminar on ‘Sociology of Education: Looking Back, Looking Ahead’, held at Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 9–10 March 2006.

Access brought to you by:

Page 16 of 16

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India Disciplinary Boundaries and Institutional Spaces Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0003

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the place of the sociology of education (SoE) in Sociology and the interface between sociology and education in India. It argues that while education is critical to sociological development, it enjoys a lower status in the social sciences, and that SoE continues to be marginal issue in sociology. Considered as a softer option within the social sciences, education occupies the margins of sociology as an academic discipline. The author describes the criticality of education, the social and economic transformations due to globalization and liberalization, the shifts in the boundaries of different disciplines, and the increasing emphasis on trans-disciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches and applications in the social sciences. Besides exploring the impact of institutional spaces and disciplinary boundaries on the history of SoE in India, the author charts recent changes in approach, and how sociologists today are doing applied research in education to provide important inputs in policy formulation and programme implementation. Educationists are also looking beyond the school to understand what is happening to the student in the classroom. The author also chronicles the development of the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES). Keywords:   sociology of education, institutional space, education and policy, education and social development, sociological development, social sciences, ZHCES, discipline boundaries

Page 1 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India During the last few decades, sociologists have been taking increasing research and scholarly interest in education. At the same time, education has also come to occupy centre stage in the public policy domain and has moved beyond the confines of departments of teacher education. This chapter focuses on the interface between education and sociology and the place of sociology of education (SoE) in sociology. Education occupies the margins of sociology as an academic discipline because it is considered as a softer option within the social sciences. It is being argued here that while education is critical to social development, and more and more sociologists in India are writing on it and are willingly participating in the process of policy, planning, and applied research, it enjoys a lower status in the social sciences while SoE continues to remain marginal in sociology. This chapter is being written against the backdrop of increasing emphasis on the criticality of education, and of social and economic transformations due to globalization and liberalization, and the accompanying shifts in the disciplinary boundaries with increasing emphasis on transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches and applications in social sciences. Education has come to occupy a critical space in the social sciences generally, and in sociology specifically, because of societal pressures emanating from critical social and political forces such as (p.47) its instrumentality in promoting ‘development’. For instance, it has been very much a part of the public discourse because of its close links with economic development and now, with social and human development. Again, thanks to the ‘development’ critique, education, especially primary education, has been brought to the centre stage of discussions relating to the ‘development’ of the not-so-developed countries, or what are euphemistically called developing countries. On the other hand, globalization and structural adjustment have impinged on the education system, especially on the higher education system. Hence, education is being constantly critiqued while new agendas are being set for it. Therefore, it may seem that educational problems and their study, and hence SoE, may become legitimate academic interests within the larger domain of sociology, more specifically the teaching of sociology (Chanana 2002). However, this is not so and the relationship remains uneasy. Does it have something to do with the hiatus between sociology and education or with the position of sociology within social sciences? Is it specific to sociology or is it general to social sciences or for that matter, to natural sciences as well? Or is it a bit of everything? One of the indicators is the space given to it in the undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Indian universities. This point will be substantiated later. Additionally, it is supported by the author’s experience of having been located in the Centre for Educational Studies in the School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, for more than three decades. Unlike the departments of education which revolve around the Bachelor of Page 2 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India Education (BEd) programme, in this centre, social scientists teach and research on issues and problems on the wider relationship of society, politics, and economy to education. The genesis of the centre is discussed in detail later. Moreover, the hiatus between sociology and education has been justified on the ground that there are differences in theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and also in substantive areas of study. For example, our generation of sociologists was trained towards ‘building a body of verified knowledge about education (society) and only secondarily with the problem of applying their findings and conclusions to the concerns of the educational practitioner’ (Pavalko 1976: 4). It was also emphasized that sociology was different from disciplines such as social work and education, which is discussed later in this chapter. (p.48) As a result, even though most research on education by sociologists has had policy implications, yet, not everyone used to spell it out. But the situation has changed now. As mentioned earlier, sociologists are doing applied research in education and providing important inputs in policy formulation and programme implementation. On the other hand, educationists are also looking beyond the school to understand what is happening to the student in the classroom. According to Torres and Mitchell: The task has been magnified. The functions traditionally assigned to education—particularly to the schooling of promoting skills, cognitive training, and preparation for citizenship—are either becoming obsolete in the view of some scholars or at least put into question by the changes in the process of work and the dynamics in educational environments. (Torres and Mitchell 1998: 2) Moreover, the centrality of education for social mobility, and social and economic development was brought home once again after independence, in the 1990s. This happened because the hope that education will be instrumental in pushing radical changes in society has been belied and there is tremendous pressure to change the situation. There is also the understanding that the sources of inequality lie outside the school. Thus, it is appropriate to understand how the process works in order to use schools or education in the drive towards greater social justice which requires multi and trans-disciplinary approaches and perspectives. However, this still does not change the situation so far as the hegemony of the disciplinary boundaries and the institutional domains is concerned, a point elaborated later. But before taking up the disciplinary and institutional constraints and pressures exerted both by sociology and education on the sociology of education, let us look at the broader issue of sociology as a discipline within the social sciences. Page 3 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India Sociology in Social Sciences According to Joas, Since its inception nearly two centuries ago, sociology has always been partly an effort to overcome intellectual fragmentation…Sociology has, more than any other discipline, always reflected on the shakiness of its disciplinary basis…It was indicative of the social and intellectual challenges that its original proponents and their successors starting from Comte to Spencer to Durkheim rarely agreed on much beyond the goal itself. Joas (2004: 305–6) (p.49) While affirming that there were efforts for intellectual unification, each effort was superseded by a new one. Joas also mentions that several sociologists have referred to the multiplicity of views and orientations. In this context he refers to Mannheim, Parsons, and Merton and states that by the 1930s, when Mannheim surveyed the condition of the international intellectual world, he thus stated what Comte had said a full century earlier (Joas 2004: 306). Mannheim (1936: 5–6) referred to the ‘burgeoning of divergent opinions and the multiplicity of ways of thinking and the alarming fact that the same world can appear different to different observers’. Parsons (1937: 774) said much the same thing, ‘…we are told that there are as many systems of sociological theory as there are sociologists, that there is no common basis, that all is arbitrary and subjective’. Much later, Merton (1975: 28, 51) also referred to the ‘plurality of theoretical orientations’ and stated that the history of sociology was marked by a ‘chronic crisis of diversity, competition and clash of doctrine’. Later, sociologists became concerned about the intellectual fragmentation within the discipline due to an overemphasis on specializations, that is, a shift from theoretical plurality to the substantive areas. Sociological theory, which was expected to provide coherence to empirical research, has also become a specialization. According to Crane and Small, sociological theory is thus ‘organisationally disconnected from other specialities…’ (Crane and Small 1992: 229–30). Young says that sociological ‘theory tends to be treated separately from the special concerns of sociologists which are usually identified as a “sociology of…”’ (Young 1971: 24). According to him, ‘the institutional basis of specializations is also an interesting area of inquiry’ (Young 1971: 34). Another development which is recognized is the breaking down of disciplinary boundaries and the centrifugal pressure of post-disciplinary developments ranging from the sub-disciplinary to the interdisciplinary level. On the one hand, the plurality of orientations and approaches and intellectual dialogue is welcomed. On the other, ‘there is today a widespread feeling of crisis concerning the disciplinary boundaries which can be discerned in sociology but can, in fact, be detected in all social sciences’ (Joas 2004: 308). According to Levine, this is happening because ‘the scientific disciplines are less and less able to provide the Page 4 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India institutional frame for the vital intellectual debates of the present. These mainly take place in sub disciplinary specialities, transdisciplinary forays and supra disciplinary synthesis’ (Levine 1995: 299). He envisages that (p.50) sociology could play a pre-eminent role in the social science dialogue due to its classic tradition. He draws a parallel between the identity of the disciplines and that of nation states, for example, the integration of the nation states into supranational networks. He says that ‘Like nation states, the disciplines are here to stay, but in forms more circumscribed than in the past. They will remain valuable for supplying elements of professional identity,’ but to a limited extent (Levine 1995: 294). In view of these developments, intellectuals and social thinkers in the West have issued calls for intellectual synthesis as an antidote to fragmentation (Camic and Joas 2004). However, while calls for unification have been made, there is no accord about their substance. According to Wallerstein (2004: 316), ‘such calls are used by scholars to reject earlier contributions and to propose their own theoretical stance. Therefore, consensus on what the synthesis is or should be continues to elude although it does not devalue the goal itself nor their historical importance…These ideas have yet to stem countervailing, centrifugal tendencies towards intellectual fragmentation’. He goes on to say that ‘the major intellectual, moral and political issue facing the world…facing the social sciences, is that the world is going through a murky and chaotic transition to an alternative world system or systems. To attend to this intellectually we need to… stop worrying about our institutional niches and turf’ (Wallerstein 2004: 318). The fragmentation is also reflected in the institutional location of sociology in different universities and departments. It is because disciplines and specializations have to do with distribution of resources, pupil and teacher time, and funds and materials. How carefully the hegemony of one department, and not discipline, over the other is maintained is reflected in the state of the professional organizations and associations the world over. It is not simply a problem of dominance of personalities but also of the substantive areas, methodologies, and international standing of the faculty—in sum, it is a problem of turf.

Education and Sociology Historically, the main difference between sociology and education which has been underscored is: sociology has been and is mainly theoretical and empirical, whereas the latter was and has been applied and normative. Additionally, it was not the responsibility of the sociologists to provide (p.51) solutions to social problems of the day which attracted the attention of the policymakers and which deserved research attention in order to provide solutions to the educational problems. Again, sociologists were interested in the relationship between school and society and in much larger areas. Teacher educators and trainers, educationists and educational administrators, on the other hand, have been and Page 5 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India are more concerned with the practical aspects of the situation and solutions to the educational problems in the classroom, for example, student achievement, curriculum, and teacher efficacy. Moreover, education has also depended heavily on psychology for theoretical perspectives, methods, and models and therefore, its status as an independent discipline is also questioned. For sociologists who interrogate education, education is not just the substantive area or content as religion or family are in the sociology of religion and of family respectively. What complicates matters is that education is also the subject or a discipline with an institutional basis. Again, sociologists of education have to interact with the education experts, teacher trainers, and educators located in the departments of education in the universities and other educational institutions. According to Dale (2001: 10), the consequence of this institutional location of sociology of education in the departments of education, which were closely involved in professional training, was that SoE has never enjoyed high status in sociology. This is in spite of a rich and long tradition of the contributions of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Talcott Parsons, Pierre Bourdieu, and Basil Bernstein, to name just a few, who have left their imprint in SoE. Even in India, M.S. Gore and I.P. Desai played a seminal role in the recognition of SoE as a specialization in the departments of sociology. The concerns reflected in their writings and lectures resonate in the contemporary concerns (Levinson and Sadovnik 2002). To give just a few examples, the social and cultural reproduction through education and the criticality of language in social inequality in schooling continue to be pertinent in the fast-changing society where the role of education in promoting social equality is continually being challenged. Richardson (1986: ix–x) traces the roots and genesis of education to the classical European tradition wherein education was viewed as the instrument of major social changes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He also mentions the contributions of Spencer, (p.52) Durkheim, and Max Weber in the development of SoE. ‘The depth of these classical roots gave to SoE an early momentum which contributed to its restoration as a substantive field. The topic of education gained early prominence because it could easily be integrated with the prevailing issues of economic and political transformation’ (Richardson 1986: x). Nevertheless, education has had the problem of being recognized as a discipline, unlike the other social sciences, because of the fact that it depends heavily on the latter, especially on psychology, for theoretical contributions and methodologies. In England, educational sociology was the stepchild of psychology…and until the 1950s had virtually no competition from sociology…in the United Page 6 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India States, the growth of educational sociology was confined largely to the organisational arena, seeing the formation of a National Society for the Study of Educational Sociology and the establishment of the Journal of the Educational Sociology in 1926. (Richardson 1986: xi) Richardson goes on to say that the organizational growth did not have a corresponding development of theory or empirical research. Other sociologists have attributed this limitation to the narrow focus of those concerned with education (Brim 1958: 10). Richardson says that both in the United States (US) and in England, educational sociology remained an underdeveloped area well into the 1950s and the 1960s.1 There was change in focus in the 1950s in England, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the US, when the role of education in eliminating social inequality and promoting social mobility came to the forefront as a result of vast expansion of secondary schools. Accordingly, the faculties of education have teacher education departments along with several others which focus on research. The importance of research, and of the interface between education and society, has been realized and therefore, the faculties of education in several countries have departments looking at different dimensions of education. Most of these departments are also interdisciplinary so that social scientists, such as sociologists, have come to occupy a central place in these faculties

Education and SoE in India Within India, the situation is somewhat different, although within and between disciplines, the question of boundaries and turf is no less important. First, there are departments of education instead of faculties (p.53) of education and most of these departments have been exclusively devoted to training secondary school teachers. In other words, they generally offer BEd programme along with Masters of Education (MEd). Teacher educators and trainers who train preschool, primary, and elementary school teachers have been outside the purview of higher educational institutions or the Indian universities and thus, have not been the legitimate concern of the (teacher) educators. The faculty members who tried to change the situation and included the training of primary and elementary teachers, as in Delhi University, are exceptions.2 Others tried to expand and make teaching of social sciences and research as integral to the structure and organization of faculties of education by establishing departments to pursue these. They, too, have not succeeded much in their efforts and have remained faculties of education mostly in name.3 However, it has been acceptable in the departments of teacher education to include SoE as a paper or course at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. Since sociologists looked at the social context of education with an emphasis on caste, class, family, etc., and not on student achievement, curriculum, teacher training at the secondary level, etc., there were no boundary disputes with education. Additionally, so long as the institutional and organizational space was Page 7 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India left to ‘education’, there were no problems in giving a little space to SoE in the departments of education. But now, the situation has changed since sociologists in the departments of sociology are also looking at traditional areas of concern to the teacher educators. The issue of boundaries has become pertinent. Therefore, a hierarchical division is sought to be created between those who train teachers and those who do not, that is, those who look at issues and problems relating to teacher education, namely, student achievement, curriculum and pedagogy, teacher efficiency, etc., and those who look at wider societal issues. Thus, the teacher educators have begun to differentiate between ‘liberal’ and ‘professional educators’. As education has become more and more important in the public arena and as social scientists have begun to undertake serious educational research, more boundaries have been drawn around teacher education so that those who do not have BEd degree are labelled as the ‘liberal educators’ in comparison to the teacher educators who are ‘professional educators’. The control of the teacher education departments is also reflected in the monopoly of the organizational space that they exercise within (p.54) the institutions such as University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). The UGC is an institution which promotes disciplines, that is, the substantive areas as well as the institutions. It also provides for infrastructure development, faculty positions, and for the expansion of the institutional structure. This distinction has been used to maintain disciplinary and institutional boundaries so as to keep the ‘liberal educators’ out of organizations such as the UGC and NCTE and from the academic posts in the departments of education. Additionally, the departments of education are not known for undertaking research (excluding the large number of doctoral theses that are churned out) either on different aspects of the school education that affect the teacher educators and teacher trainers directly or even on wider issues emanating from the school–society interface.4 In such a situation, one is forced to ask the question: is this boundary academic and intellectual or only a problem of turf? Does the study of education occupy more legitimate academic and organizational space in sociology when ‘education or lack of education’ and its link with social development have become critical and important part of the public discourse in the globalized world? Funds are available in aplenty from the international and national funding agencies for applied research. Therefore, more and more social scientists, including sociologists, are turning towards education and undertaking applied research within a narrow frame. Although there is no count, yet it may be asserted with some confidence that the number of doctoral theses submitted in the departments of sociology in India would have gone up in the last two decades or so. However, there is unlikely to be a corresponding increase in the number of sociology departments offering the Page 8 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India courses on SoE. This is in spite of the fact that several sociologists prefer to speak and write on the sociological dimensions of education and are very active in the public discourse. They also like to be involved in the process of policy formulation and planning. All this provides visibility to the sociologists. It is reasonable to assume that they would also be encouraging some of their doctoral students to work in the area of education. But it is doubtful that they would be supporting the teaching of the courses on SoE in their departments. In 1999, out of 53 departments which responded to a survey under the auspices of UGC (Chanana 2002), only 16 had listed SoE as an optional course, which may or may not have been offered. In the absence of (p.55) latest statistical evidence, but impressionistically, based on knowledge of some departments, it is reasonable to assume that the situation has not changed for the better. Because, after all, SoE is a very soft sub-discipline and presumably requires no special training or understanding.5 As a result of this perception about, and status of, education, there is very little independent academic research on education.

Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies (ZHCES): Genesis The genesis of the ZHCES (hereafter referred to as the Centre) lies in the realization that there was a need to establish an interface between social sciences and education. Soon after JNU was established, a working group, consisting of the well-known national-level educationists, was constituted. It met in early 1970 and prepared a report stating the rationale for setting up the Centre. The framework within which this report was embedded had been drawn from the Education Commission 1964–6 (NCERT 1966) and what it had to say about the interface of education and social sciences. Following from that, the working group emphasized the need for the social scientists to look at educational problems, which was also highlighted by the Education Commission 1964–6. The most obvious first point of departure in the set-up envisaged by JNU for the Centre for Educational Studies would be seen to be in putting together a team of persons who may preferably belong to different disciplines, have a high level of basic competence in their own fields and evidence interest in educational problems…this rules out the traditional structure of the Department of education manned by persons skilled in the arts and techniques of teacher education but uncertain of their footing in any of the diverse disciplines of higher education. (JNU 1970: 1) The report underlined the seminal role that social science disciplines should play in understanding the social, political, and economic contexts of educational problems at a time when drastic social changes were taking place in the country. It was as if an old agenda had been reset for the social scientists in the area of education. For instance, the Education Commission had stated in the mid-1960s that ‘in educationally advanced countries, education has developed considerably Page 9 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India as a social science and a separate academic discipline. The realization that, it is an instrument of change—social, (p.56) political and economic—has farreaching implications not only for education as an intellectual discipline of great scientific and philosophic import but for other disciplines as well’ (NCERT 1966: 125–6). It also highlighted the fact that so far, social sciences had kept aloof from education on the one hand, while education, on the other, was also very narrow in its scope. Later, in 1988, the then Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, appointed a one-person committee to undertake a review of the Centre. Professor Prayag Mehta, who undertook this review, had the following comment about the state of teacher education at that time: Traditional teacher training institutions in our country have been suffering from isolation from university life, isolation from schools and isolation from one another. In addition to such an isolation, education in our country has been generally identified with pedagogy and is mostly being taught in training institutions, attended mostly by those who plan to enter the teaching profession…(Mehta 1988: 1) While highlighting the narrow visions of the social sciences and of education, it was also emphasized that the protection of disciplinary domains, as well as the core areas of concern (the inter and intradisciplinary stratification), had led to the exclusion and devaluing of educational concerns and vice versa. The need to move away from teacher education was highlighted, as also to have a broader perspective, so that education would play a leading role in the social and economic life of the country. Thus was born the Centre with sociologists, psychologists, economists, and historians appointed to run the MPhil and PhD programmes. It was located in the faculty of social sciences. This structural and institutional location was expected to bring educational studies at par with the social sciences and also, to end the marginalization of the sub-disciplines of SoE, economics of education, etc. The expectation was that the social scientists would use their theoretical perspectives and their training and craft to enhance the understanding about education. Therefore, the substantive areas that were to be studied, as well as the institutional location, had been very well thought of. The Centre was expected to lend an interdisciplinary perspective to the study of educational problems and situations. It was also decided by those of us who articulated the rationale for the academic programme in educational studies that while educational problems and processes will be the main focus, yet, the disciplinary roots and training (p.57) had to be recognized and supported so that our students get recognition in them. It was also anticipated that departments of education would recognize the degree in educational studies only of those students who had either a BEd or MEd and not those with social science degrees. The Centre tried to implement the mandate of the working group Page 10 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India through an interdisciplinary programme at the MPhil level and through its PhD researches. Therefore, the Centre offered courses in the social science disciplines along with expanding the focus to the sub-disciplines of SoE, psychology of education, history of education, economics of education, etc. Thus, the discipline base was meant to provide legitimacy to the students or our products within the faculty of social sciences and in the university that we may not have had in the faculty of education.6 Although JNU was started as a research university, very soon, political pressures resulted in the introduction of MA programmes in the early 1970s. At that time, the School of Social Sciences, while approving the Master’s programmes in history, geography, sociology, etc., also approved an MA in education. However, the Centre did not introduce this MA along with the other disciplines since educational studies was an experimental and a new interdisciplinary programme. The faculty members needed time to consolidate and to learn from their experience. More than two decades later, the Centre decided to introduce an MA in educational studies so as to distinguish it from an MA in education offered in the teacher education departments. Needless to say, the effort did not succeed in spite of a very broad-based support for it within the social science community of JNU. Our institutional location within the School of Social Sciences did not help eventually. Without going into the details of it, one is not sure if the faculty members who tried to push the programme were looked at as trained social scientists or as educationists and therefore, it became contingent upon a few social scientists to ensure that they were not diluting the social sciences. How much of this obstructive posture of a very small minority of faculty was motivated by intellectual and academic concerns, how much of it was political, and how much of it was because they were dealing with education, the softer of the soft specializations, is not clear The prospect of having a Masters programme in educational studies in the faculty of social sciences could be averted, while the establishment of the Centre was a fait accompli. Therefore, the question that arises is: how much of it had to do with sharing the resources of the faculty or the School of Social Sciences, (p.58) namely, the rooms and other infrastructure, the limited number of plan posts, and the funds, and how much to discipline boundaries? In the absence of definite or clear answers, it may be imputed to the politics of higher education.

SoE and Sociology The last few decades have, however, witnessed new developments in theory and methodology in the social sciences from which sociology is not untouched. Educational research too has adopted new methodologies. Simultaneously, and as mentioned earlier, there has been a broadening of what is understood as education. All these have challenged and changed the ways in which research is undertaken and represented, not least in educational studies. This has come about in response to the new theoretical perspectives mentioned next and have started the process of rethinking and ways of doing research in education. Page 11 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India According to Torres and Mitchell, ‘the new perspectives are also moving beyond the question of school knowledge, linking the sociologies of knowledge tradition with the classroom-based “pedagogical interest of the curricularists in both classroom interaction and school knowledge”’ (Torres and Mitchell 1998: 2). Moreover, the new perspectives in the SoE also refrain from perceiving the different perspectives such as Marxism and neo-Marxism, on the one hand, and the positivism and structural functionalism as the opposites. These new perspectives tend to be interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and comparative. They also recognize the limitations of both and try to move on using the combination of approaches and methodologies while questioning the traditional understanding of the concepts and their universality, evaluative stance, and objectivity based on empiricism. ‘The debates among paradigms and approaches, ranging from modernist to postmodernist perspectives and structuralist to post structuralist models, indicate that any pretension to establish a sense of certainty and analytical precision in the world, which is increasingly unpredictable and imprecise, may be pompous and even naïve’ (1998: 3). However, serious sociological research on education and teaching in SoE has yet to respond to the new opportunities and has thus remained marginal. How much of it is academic and how much is political and (p.59) practical, it is difficult to say. In India, serious research on education is not yet an academic pursuit. Most of what we have in the last 15 years or so is the educational research funded by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government with their own priorities, agenda, and short-term goals. Again, sociologists, by and large, have neither been interested in the educational system generally, nor did they try to link the social institutions to educational growth and development.7 On the other hand, educational researches too have generally overlooked the need to contextualize the institution of education within the family, kin group, and society, which were traditionally researched by social anthropologists and sociologists. This ‘academic division of labour’ (Mukhopadhyay and Seymour 1993: 2–3) had discouraged systematic investigation of the potentially powerful interrelationships between the formal educational system and the social institutions of society. Before proceeding further, I would like to say that along the way and in course of my career, I have met quite a few sociologists and educationists with whom it has been a pleasure to work because they had open minds and were less worried about protecting the disciplinary and institutional turfs. Their main interest was in promoting the discipline to which they belonged, in understanding the problems relating to sociology and/or education. Nonetheless, they remain exceptions.

Page 12 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India Conclusions: Many SOCIOLOGIES—SoE The history of social sciences is replete with the discussion of the differentiation between social sciences and humanities on the one hand, and natural sciences on the other. The debates about disciplines, their boundaries, and their impact on development have been of larger interest for quite some time. For example, in 1959, C.P. Snow, the British scientist and novelist, in a now-famous Rede lecture, referred to the division between arts or humanities on the one hand, and sciences, on the other, as representing two cultures. According to him, the breakdown of communication between the two was a major barrier to the solution of the problems of the world. A few years later, however, he also referred to a mediating third culture. In the contemporary situation when the existing world system is in transition to an alternative world (p.60) system or systems, Wallerstein underscores the need to ‘overcome the concept of two cultures and stop worrying about our institutional niches and turf…There is a larger need for reconciliation, the reconstruction of a singular epistemology for all knowledge, not just for sociology’ (Wallerstein 2004: 318). While Snow referred to the larger division and hierarchy of disciplines, Max Gluckman focused on the interrelationship between anthropology and sociology, and also on specializations within anthropology or boundaries within a discipline. In doing so, his major concern was to define the field and the method of study in the context of the changing society and therefore, the changing boundaries between and within disciplines (Gluckman 1967). The history of sociology also tells us that it has had to struggle to establish an identity within the social sciences. Thus, there have been and are soft and hard disciplines, specializations, and sub-disciplines. If sociology has been viewed as a soft discipline, SoE is a soft sub-discipline or specialization because of the nature of content and the substantive area. Although it should not be so any longer because of the criticality and centrality of education in a rapidly changing society, yet, it is the location of disciplines within institutional domains that inhibits and prohibits the expansion of the boundaries of sub-disciplines and disciplines and from being given legitimate space within disciplines and institutions respectively. Thus, the debate on disciplines and their boundaries has been going on forever. According to the report of the Gulbenkian Commission on Restructuring the Social Sciences entitled, Open the Social Sciences, disciplines contribute to the ‘disciplining of intellectual work, the empirical control of knowledge and the socialization of new producers of knowledge…’ (Wallerstein 1996). No doubt, there are advantages and disadvantages of the formation of disciplines and the boundaries among them. However, without supporting the ‘postmodern blurring of all distinctions between disciplines and…between professional and lay knowledge’ (Joas 2004: 301), one would like to reaffirm the plea to ‘open

Page 13 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India sociology’ (Wallerstein 1996), as was stated by the Gulbenkian Commission about the social sciences. Specializations or disciplines cannot be identified by reference only to their substantive area of study, for example, schools and education form the content of a large number of disciplines but what allows one (p.61) to identify a discipline is the field and its interpretation, the context, the purpose, the approach, and the methodology, although even the differences among these cross-disciplines are becoming less distinct. What is significant is that both the institutions and disciplines can be restrictive if those in the mainstream disciplines and departments think that sociologists of education are diluting sociology, instead of viewing positively what they are contributing to the understanding of the educational processes and outcomes from a sociological perspective. Additionally, so long as the sociologists of education continue to embed their work and researches within sociological frameworks and perspectives, if at all it is possible to claim exclusivity to them, they will contribute to the growth of the discipline. In sum, if we were to move away from the struggle to control of disciplinary organization, institutional domains, and from the stratification or evaluation of substantive problem areas, the situation will be quite different. References Bibliography references: Brim, Orville G. 1958. Sociology and the Field of Education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Camic, C. and H. Joas. 2004. ‘Introduction’, in C. Camic and H. Joas (eds), The Dialogical Turn: New Rules for Sociology in the Post-disciplinary Age. Lanham, MD, and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1–19. Chanana, K. 2002. ‘View from the Margin: Sociology of Education and Gender’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(36): 3717–21. Crane, D. and H. Small. 1992. ‘American Sociology since the Seventies: The Emerging Crisis in the Discipline’, in T.C. Halliday and M. Janowitz (eds), Sociology and its Publics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 197–234. (p.63) Dale, R. 2001. ‘Shaping the Sociology of Education over Half-a-Century’, in Jack Demaine (ed.), Sociology of Education Today. New York: Palgrave, pp. 1– 29. Gluckman, M. (ed.). 1967. Closed Systems and Open Minds: the Limits of Naivety in Social Anthropology. Edison, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Available at http://books.google.co.in/books? hl=en&id=X5qMLZIQaqwC&dq=Max+Gluckman (accessed 20 April 2012).

Page 14 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). 1970. ‘Report of the Working Group Appointed by Jawaharlal Nehru University to Establish a Centre for Educational Studies’. Unpublished report, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Joas, H. 2004. ‘The Changing Role of the Social Sciences: An Action-Theoretical Perspective’, International Sociology, 19(3): 301–13. Levine, D.N. 1995. Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, D. and A.R. Sadovnik. 2002. ‘Introduction’, in D. Levinson, P.W. Cookson, and A.R. Sadovnik (eds), Education and Sociology: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge Falmer, pp. 1–15. Mannheim, K. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Mehta, P. 1988. ‘Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies: A Brief Study’. Unpublished report, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Merton, R.K. 1975. ‘Structural Analysis in Sociology’, in P.M. Blau (ed.), Approaches to the Study of Social Structure. New York: Free Press, pp. 21–52. Mukhopadhyay, C.C. and S. Seymour (eds). 1993. Women, Education, and Family Structure in India. Colorado: Westview Press. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). 1966. Education and National Development: Report of the Education Commission 1964–66, New Delhi: NCERT. Parsons, T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press. Pavalko, R.M. (ed.). 1976. Sociology of Education: Book of Readings. Itasca: Peacock Publishers. Richardson, J.G. 1986. ‘Introduction’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, pp. ix–xxiv. Snow, C.P. 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Available at http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&id=OyHm4sc6IPoC&dq=C.P (accessed 20 April 2012). Torres, C.A. and T.R. Mitchell (eds). 1998. Sociology of Education: Emerging Perspectives. New York: SUNY Press.

Page 15 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India (p.64) Wallerstein, I. 1996. Open the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. The report of the Gulbenkian Commission, ‘Open the Social Sciences’, available at http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/gulb.htm#gulbdesc (accessed 20 April 2012). ———. 2004. ‘The Actor in the Social Sciences: A Reply to Hans Joas’, International Sociology, 19(3): 315–19. Young, M. (ed.). 1971. Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education. London: Collier and McMillan. Notes:

(1.) According to Richardson (1986), the coming of age of sociology of education in the US was signified in 1967 when the Journal of Educational Sociology was renamed Sociology of Education, after it was brought under the auspices of the American Sociological Association. Similarly, in England, this development happened in 1980 with the founding of the British Journal of Sociology of Education. The change in the title of the journals signified, to some extent, the emerging importance of studying the educational problems in the discipline of sociology, along with a simultaneous break from the earlier concerns with limited application-oriented problems. (2.) Faculty of Education, University of Delhi, is a very good example where the issue of training primary and elementary school teachers became an issue of turf rather than that of academic interest. (3.) University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia, both central universities, are very good examples. Late Professor S. Shukla, who was the Dean in faculties of education at both the universities, tried unsuccessfully to transform the departments to faculties. (4.) Commenting on the quality of research in teacher education departments, the Education Commission 1964–6 had stated that ‘Education and research is still in its infancy. Its quantity small and the quality is mediocre or poor…’ (NCERT 1966: 585). (5.) Another example has more to do with institutional location, that is, the now discontinued discipline or subject panels of the UGC to provide support and assist the departments in the universities across the countries in their growth and development. These panels were expected to be very important and critical in the intellectual growth of the discipline and of the faculty members in the relevant departments. At one time, I was a member of the subject panel of sociology. It undertook two major tasks during my membership, namely, the revision of the syllabus of the National Educational Test (NET) for doctoral researchers and the sociology curriculum. Each one of us contributed equally to the task. However, after the exercise, I got the feedback that some members Page 16 of 17

 

Sociology of Education and Sociology in India were apprehensive that I may not be able to come up to the task because I was not in a department of sociology. My professional contribution by way of research and publications was not central to this concern. Here comes the issue of institutional location—your capability as a sociologist is not only perceived to be less because you are a sociologist of education but also because you are not located in a department of sociology. (6.) According to the report of the Centre prepared by Professor Mehta in 1988. unlike products of traditional university departments of education and teacher training colleges, students of JNU Center have found research and faculty positions in diverse social science institutions having a broader educational perspective. The former students have been engaged in significant areas of work like public policies, teaching at regional colleges of education, adult education, educational administration, teaching at undergraduate colleges etc. (Mehta 1988: 5) (7.) The 1960s and the 1970s saw an interest in the social background of students in higher education in India.

Access brought to you by:

Page 17 of 17

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles *

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the conception of education as a so-called ‘soft’ discipline in India. It explains the concept of soft and hard disciplines, and discusses the nature of education, knowledge, and their status as disciplines. It describes the character of the domain of education and the territorial interaction among various educational groups. This chapter also explores the epistemological and sociological approaches in organising knowledge communities along disciplinary lines, and explains the possible reasons why education was considered a soft discipline. It also analyses the impact of the knowledge economy on the disciplinary status of education. The author concludes by pointing out that, to the extent that it is concerned with children and the practices of public institutions within a democratic polity, education, cannot close and circumscribe its discourse community. However difficult it may be, it may be far more significant and paying to invest in ways to educate the wider common sense visà-vis education. For this, ways must be found to communicate the complexity of the problems lucidly and without compromising, demonstrate the value of knowing the discipline, and also to be able to argue against the simplification and misidentification of problems and their treatments. Keywords:   education in India, soft discipline, knowledge economy, education knowledge, disciplinary status, educational groups, knowledge communities, common sense and education

Many of us who research on and teach education in institutes of higher education have been socialized to think of education as a discipline. Yet, we find not only this status challenged, but we also frequently encounter challenges to Page 1 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * our claims as experts, and to the form and structure of our discourse—both from members of the public and, more disconcertingly, from fellow academics from other disciplines. Some of these experiences can be explained through the idea of ‘soft discipline’. More recent work on the characteristics and interactions of disciplines drawing on both their epistemological and sociological dimensions further help to put such encounters into perspective. My paper will start by first presenting and discussing the constencts of ‘discipline’ and ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. Changes in contexts of funding related to knowledge production and the public sphere have brought disciplines into new relationships with each other, education included. This chapter discusses and debates these matters and reflects on the nature of education knowledge and action and its disciplinary status. Within the field of higher education in India, the status of education as a discipline is contested. This would not be apparent if one looks at the formal organization of study of education in the university. The (p.66) existence of departments of education within the university can be taken as the most significant indicator of the achievement of this status: ‘…the most concrete and permanent enactment is the department; this is where a discipline becomes an institutional subject’ (Evans quoted in Becher and Trowler 2001: 67; emphasis in original). In the formal space of the university department, systems of employment, and certification are worked to define and regulate entry and membership in a community. However, in addition to these formal institutions, there are other ways in which disciplines are ‘…enacted and negotiated…the national “invisible college”, individuals exchanging preprints and reprints, conferences, workshops…’ (Evans quoted in Becher and Trowler, 2001: 67). In the case of education in India, such enactments and negotiations are not well developed; they are fragmented, arbitrary, and sporadic. This is not because the arena of educational action and research is in a moribund state. On the contrary, one of the reasons why this chapter intends to reflect on the status of the discipline is the recent upsurge in activities in what have traditionally been academic backwaters and hinterlands. There is a growing interest in research and research-based action in education in academia, state policymaking circles, the non-governmental organization (NGO) and development world, and among educated individuals (often engineers and managers) who want to shift careers and engage in work that is more socially relevant and personally meaningful. This chapter reflects on the current character of the domain being shaped by various groups, including the university, in interaction with each other. Becher uses the evocative metaphor of ‘tribes’ and ‘territories’ to characterize academic groups and their domains and territorial interactions, perhaps only partially in jest.

Encounters 1. During a faculty meeting at an interdisciplinary institute, which included mathematicians and physicists, the education group presented Page 2 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * its work on capacity building of middle-level functionaries of the government education system, particularly those who work with teachers. After this work was presented, the gathering offered a range of personal experiences of schooling and points from which to reflect on the poor state of schooling today. One enquiry was regarding the Akshara Dasoha (mid-day meal) programme of (p.67) ISKCON.1 Had we, the education group, examined the ‘knowledge capsules’ that they provided to the students along with the meal? It was as if the presentation on capacity building of middle-level functionaries had not been made. 2. At a meeting of the steering committee of the National Curriculum Framework 2005, there were several questions raised about the need for a chapter on the nature of learning and the use of the word ‘constructivist’. Those objecting felt that the chapter was too technical and dense and that an education curriculum document does not really need this. A scientist-turned-science educator, who had worked with a large group of scientists that had contributed to developing school textbooks, felt that such terms were not necessary and mere jargon. Later, a group of social scientists, some of whom had also been involved with textbook writing, also condemned this concept along with others, such as ‘local knowledge’ and ‘meaning-making’, as ‘dangerous’. 3. A social scientist who was involved in a collaborative field action project wanted the education colleagues to leave the ‘baggage’ of formal education and to learn from the field regarding what interventions to design and how to design them. This social scientist was critical of Indian government schoolteachers for not seeking membership in academic associations, although in India such associations do not exist. Claims were later made to making ‘new’ discoveries: an ‘HM effect’ to describe the fact that the quality of leadership in the school directly impacts on the school’s overall functioning and quality. 4. An information technology (IT) professional approached a department of education, wanting to be directly enrolled for pursuing a PhD in education to conduct research on Vedic education and value education. An Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer wanted a definition of quality that could be used to measure if teacher training was having an impact. Operational beliefs in the anecdotes just reported include some or all of the following: education is not really a discipline as it has neither unique theory or unique methodology; or if it is a discipline, then it is still at a very formative stage and does not have any worthwhile traditions of discourse or research, and lacks definition of basic terms. Intuitions and common sense regarding what is good and worthwhile (p.68) to do, based on experiences, are generally valid starting points for action in the public sphere of education. Everyday vocabulary in which education is discussed, that is, personal theories constructed from Page 3 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * personal experience are sufficient for formulating policy and to carry out research. What is necessary to be able to do research in education is keen interest, a good problem-solving intelligence, and ability to learn from the field; the domain itself seems to lack any visible knowledge or expert professional community. The knowledge in the so-called disciplinary domain can be ignored for various reasons: because it is likely to be irrelevant, ‘decontextualized (produced in Western contexts and imported)’; mediocre and not authentic because it is not produced by rigorous methods and it is produced without field engagement; and because it is too theoretical or demanding too much and complicating ‘obvious’ issues, and therefore lacking field relevance and applicability. These beliefs may operate singly or in combination, supporting each other. The encounters themselves, as expressions of knowledge/power, are disconcerting to education researchers who have been socialized to think of education as a discipline, or as a meta-discipline, given the constitutive character of its relationship with other disciplines which is an inherent and accepted characteristic of education studies. It is natural that the research community of the discipline of education should be in constant interaction with related disciplinary communities. The inquiry on which this chapter is based arose in order to place experiences such as those recounted earlier in perspective. It required an epistemological and sociological understanding of knowledge communities and their interactions, in order to develop an understanding of the discipline of education. I will start by presenting this and will end with reflections on what may be changing in more recent times and why.

Knowledge Communities: Epistemological and Sociological Approaches Knowledge communities organized along disciplinary lines are an established part of the university. Disciplinary characteristics as well as boundaries are largely accepted and understood intuitively within academia. Disciplinary boundaries are created and maintained in universities through structural organization, and these boundaries (p.69) largely define the epistemic groupings. In the arena of the university, knowledge activities are directly world generating, world maintaining, and world redefining, and therefore these are epistemic communities of knowledge/power (Foucault 1980; and Holzner 1968). Socialization into one’s disciplinary community involves learning not only about one’s own discipline but also about how to view other disciplines. Understanding categorizations, particularly the significance of differences as well as similarities, and interactions between academic groups, requires an epistemological and sociological perspective. A popular way of categorizing disciplines since the 1960s is in the use of the terms ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. Hard and soft have come to signify intellectual hardness/ difficulty versus softness/easiness. Storer (1967) suggested that the basis of this differentiation was ‘rigour’—the ‘standards’ applied to the selection of problems Page 4 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * and to the acceptance of findings. According to him, in the hard sciences, there is generally likely to be a relatively higher level of rigour, while in the soft sciences, where criteria such as high level of rigour are lacking, it is likely that such non-scientific criteria as relevance to common values or to practical problems, elegance of style, or even the unexpectedness of one’s findings vis-àvis common sense will play a larger part in determining the acceptance and success of a contribution. Biglan (1973a, 1973b) tried to formalize this characterization of ‘soft–hard’ in one of the earliest studies on this subject by examining the characteristics of a range of ‘bodies of knowledge’ or disciplines. He placed various disciplines in a two-dimensional plane, along the axes of ‘paradigmatic–non-paradigmatic’ and ‘pure–applied’.2 By doing this, Biglan was able to draw attention to the specific epistemological characteristics that distinguish disciplines from each other. He noted how the presence or absence of a paradigm organizes the disciplinary discourse and disciplinary community. Subsequent work has further drawn attention to the manner in which paradigm-based disciplines are able to have far more economic forms of communication, realize a cumulative discourse, and also collaborate more easily, as a direct outcome of working within a paradigm (for example, Beyer and Lodahl 1976; and Storer 1972). These are the characteristics of most of the sciences, which are then assumed to set the norms for other disciplines. However, non-paradigmatic disciplines, on account of the epistemology of their knowledge areas, have different forms of communication and research practices. (p.70) Schwab (1964) had noted that disciplines also bear different relationships to each other in terms of overlaps in areas of focus or influences on each other, and disciplinary boundaries shift as knowledge develops leading to coalescing of areas of study or differentiation. More recently, library scientists have noted the changing relationships between disciplinary areas, and the movement of terms between disciplinary areas, and have attributed this to knowledge producers either themselves migrating or borrowing and using paradigms from other areas of knowledge. Based on this, it has been proposed that some disciplines may be characterized as ‘lending’ and others as ‘borrowing’ (Losee 1995). The sociological study of disciplines, beginning with studies in the sociology of science, has drawn attention to the communities of practice in which disciplines are enacted.3 Beyer and Lodahl (1976) have described disciplinary fields as providing the structure of knowledge in which faculty members are trained and socialized to carry out the tasks of teaching, research, and administration, and to produce research and educational output. ‘Disciplinary worlds are considered separate and distinct cultures that exert varying influence on scholarly behaviours as well as on the structure of higher education’ (Del Favero 2004: 1723). These communities not only make inquiry possible but also enable the transmission of both explicit and implicit learning in the particular area of Page 5 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * knowledge: ‘discipline means method [,] implying some kind of authority for or in didactics or pedagogy…for learning and teaching, studying and searching for, being more disciplined that disciplinary’ (Lemelin 2000). Even soft disciplines (non-paradigmatic and applied), with no unique theory and with weak coordination, can still be recognized as disciplines through their communities of practice.

Education: A Soft Discipline? Based on this understanding of the epistemology of disciplines, disciplinary differences, and disciplinary communities, if we regard education as a discipline, what kind of discipline would it be? Using Biglan’s framework, education can be recognized directly as among the most ‘soft’ disciplines. It is non-paradigmatic and it is wholly ‘applied’ in the sense of being concerned with a practice. Disciplines which are paradigmatic are inherently organized, as the paradigm serves an important organizing function: ‘it provides a consistent account of most (p.71) of the phenomena of interest in the area, and, at the same time, serves to define those problems which require further research’ (Biglan 1973a: 202). Paradigmatic disciplines thus tend to be cumulative in their knowledge growth, and provide for collaborative research and ease of communication with high definition of terms. In contrast, non-paradigmatic disciplines tend to be reiterative in their discourse form. The social sciences broadly are nonparadigmatic, although they aspire to achieve a paradigmatic status, to varying degrees. Clearly, in comparison with sociology or economics, education is far less ‘developed’ on the paradigm scale. In any case, its primary motivating drive is not ‘understanding’ or ‘truth’, but better practice. So, not only is it not paradigmatic, it is also not very concerned about paradigm construction per se, and is more concerned with knowledge-in-relation-to-a-practice. This is not to say that education knowledge is unconcerned with explanation; in fact, making the transition from a primarily normative and reflective focus on the experiential (that is, teaching) to an analytic focus on the theoretical (that is, research), and a suspension of the urge to ‘fix things’, is a key and difficult switch required by the discipline (Labaree 2000). But overall, the disciplinary stance is towards social action. The perception that ‘soft = easy’ in the case of education is heightened not only by the absence of a strong paradigm-building movement within the discipline but also due to the fact that theories in this discipline come from other disciplines—philosophy, psychology, sociology, and more recently, also economics, linguistics, and history (although history does not claim to theorize). This further lends support to the suggestion of some academics that education is not a distinct discipline because it does not have distinct/distinguishing theories which are unique to it. Storer (1972) has suggested that education be called a ‘conjunctive domain’ rather than a discipline as not only does it not have a distinctive theory, but it has also evolved to include a range of phenomena linked to a special social need or problem, rather than a natural cluster of abstract Page 6 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * phenomena. This proposal may merit more consideration, but it does not in any way negate the merits of ‘disciplined’ induction or varying degrees of expertise that can be discerned within the domain. As such, the absence of a unique and distinctive theory cannot count against any domain’s claim to being a discipline. On the contrary, the project of ‘education studies’, which originated in Britain in the mid-twentieth century, explicitly set out to renew educational discourse by (p.72) systematically promoting the foundational disciplines and stimulating the development of a pluralist and eclectic approach to the study of education, as opposed to the notion of a unitary and autonomous field of knowledge represented as ‘educational research’.4 This state of non-uniqueness of theory is not true of education alone. Other areas such as geography, social work, and pharmacology also do not have unique theories. Disciplines may be organized and recognized as communities of practice around theories/paradigms, methods, or subject areas, and uniqueness of theory is not necessary for a claim to disciplinary status. In a recent conversation, Professor Winch suggested that we may consider knowledge/ culture transmission to the young, or ‘learning/teaching’, as the unifying subject focus of education. Oliveira (cited in Bray 2007: 345–9) has suggested that the discipline should be called ‘educology’, that is, the study of education, to more accurately communicate its particular concern. In the sense of a community of practice into which one is socialized, education also qualifies as a discipline. Donald, in a study across eight different discipline types, noted that ‘[e]xpertise was the term most widely used to describe the ability to function in this discipline, based on the importance of educational context and the need for good judgment’ (Donald 2002: 202; emphasis in original). ‘Expertise’, as discussed here, need not be understood in a negative sense as authority, but in a positive sense as is used in cognitive science research. For example, ‘Research on expert–novice comparisons consistently show that experts not only possess more knowledge in their subjects than do novices, they also think about problems in their area in a more complex fashion…[this] sophisticated problem solving is actually a reflection of a more complex epistemology’ (Palmer and Marra 2004: 313). Methodological sophistication in education requires a great deal of flexibility (Labaree 2000). The community of practice of education not only enables the transmission of this tradition of critical, flexible enquiry, but it also enables the transmission of tacit knowledge, the ability to recognize ‘what counts as a relevant contribution, what counts as answering a question, what counts as having a good argument for that answer or a good criticism of it’ (Rorty quoted in Gerholm 1990: 267).

Page 7 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * But this ‘conjunctive’ character of the discipline, that is, the dependence upon multiple foundational disciplines from which education theory is derived, and in turn constituted, has more consequences for the functioning of the disciplinary community. Whitley (1984) draws (p.73) attention to the degree of coordination within disciplines and its effect on the structure of the discipline. Given the multiple disciplines from which education theorizing is drawn and constructed, and its focus on action in an public institutional space, education is a weekly coordinated discipline, with a high degree of ‘task uncertainty’—thus, the field is also not well structured and divided into separate yet interdependent specialisms (Whitley 1984), and there are multiple points of entry into the discourse of the field.

Consequences of Softness: Hard Battles I have engaged in this discussion of the ‘softness’ of education in order to, first and foremost, characterize its epistemological features with a focus on those features that make its disciplinary status contentious. I have also discussed its epistemological dependence on other disciplines. At the same time, I have argued that its claim to being a discipline must also be conceded. Both its softness as well as its dependence on other disciplines are epistemological features of the domain. These epistemological characteristics are also key in understanding why academic colleagues socialized into alternative disciplinary cultures, and the educated public, relate to the disciplinary knowledge of education and expertise of education researchers in the manner described in the anecdotes at the start of this chapter. In this section, I will be drawing out how disciplinary cultures which are different from education interact and produce power–knowledge encounters, with particular consequences for the discipline of education. Ontological Reinvention and Instability

On account of the perception that education is not just soft, but very soft, education remains at the bottom of the academic pecking order, with its disciplinary status constantly challenged and referred to as a field of study by other academics. This order of pecking is based on a perception of rigour and validity—methodological or theoretical—not only of one’s own discipline but also of other disciplines in relation to one’s own. This translates into a perception of ontological and epistemological superiority (the world is as I [as a representative of my discipline] know it to be as my way of knowing is true to the world) which also provides the basis of a moral superiority (therefore, (p.74) my judgements of why things are the way they are, what is wrong, and how to set it right are better than those of the practitioners of other disciplines). The academic pecking order is not a given, but operates as an ordering through the constant pecking. Educationists, without a unique disciplinary method or theory, therefore constantly find that the ontology of their concerns—schools and the schooling system—as they know it, is reinvented by academics from other disciplines who Page 8 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * have either assumed that this is virgin territory (because there are no visible markers that they are used to, of occupation) or challenge that there may be anything valid in what is known (because in any case, educationists have poor rigour and hence, there cannot be any ‘real’ knowledge already out there, and what is already there is likely to be useless so one need not bother about finding it). Educationists may also find that their proposal on how things should be named and talked about is challenged by other disciplines who find this unnecessary ‘jargon’. Circumscribed Domain

The discipline’s historic roots lie in the preparation of teachers: its dominant form has been applied and practical–oral, particularly in the Indian context. Education department faculty have tended to see their work as being primarily the preparation of teachers for an education system that is designed by others. In other words, in spite of the range of activities that are of concern, including curriculum, policy, administration, design of materials, education of special groups, etc., university departments have tended to focus on only preparing teachers for the classroom, thus accepting a position of receiving decisions relevant to education regarding aims, curriculum, structure, and certification that are taken elsewhere, often by groups that include academicians from the mainstream disciplines—who, in a manner of speaking, produce the master design within which education faculty are expected to function. This was the position envisaged for the department of education, by the Radhakrishnan Committee (see Sarangapani 2004). Departments of education thus have tended to be apolitical and statist and, by default therefore, also contributing to a conservative rather than transformative role of education in society. Although often exposed to the study of sociology and philosophy, these foundational disciplines are often perceived to be raising concerns which are beyond the scope of the teachers (or teacher educators) (p.75) purview or action (‘yes, we know, but what can we do about it?’). Only child-centricism has been embraced as a direct concern of teachers.5 This buttresses the view that the problematization of education lies outside the discipline, in other disciplines or in the political–public sphere, and the discipline of education itself, by and large, lacks an encompassing self-reflexive discourse. When we view the history of reform in curriculum, as exemplified in the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme (HSTP), this view is by and large validated. In this programme, university scientists became involved in school science curriculum and in-service teacher education, drawing primarily on their own intuitive understanding of science education and with virtually no involvement or dialogue with any university department of education, and in fact carried out through the creation of sites of innovation, outside of the perceived conservative stranglehold of education departments!

Page 9 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * Those of us who have been introduced to a more self-reflexive and wider understanding of the discipline, following the influence of New sociology of education (SoE) brought into Indian mainstream education discourse by Sureshchandra Shukla and Krishna Kumar, regard the ‘statist-teacher education centric’ as a restrictive and problematic tension to be negotiated and re-formed within the discipline. Ours is a heroic mythology which includes integrating the work of HSTP and Eklavya into the discourse of the discipline and to radically reconceptualize even teacher education, as in the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BElEd) programme of Delhi University (Sarangapani 2008). Needless to say, our view of the discipline does not place it in the position of being handmaiden to the education forays of other disciplines!

Intradisciplinary Fragmentation The disciplinary foundations of education lie in not just one but several epistemologically and culturally distinct disciplines. The community of the discipline is thus a semi-segregated one, along disciplinary boundaries. The members of the education community often identify with and try to engage with the community of their basic foundational disciplines—philosophy, economics, history, psychology, etc.—from which they draw the basic form of their theorization, or to the disciplines which are the content of school teaching and for which they have worked on methodology—science, history, mathematics, etc. The (p.76) meaningfulness of membership within the education community, that is, the ability not only to speak to and understand each other from within different discourse traditions but also to find this engagement mutually beneficial, is poorly realized in the Indian context. Furthermore, problems of differences in the disciplinary paradigms, for example, between psychology and sociology, or between the natural sciences and the social sciences, which are normally ignored by academic groups as long as they can comfortably work within their own disciplinary boundaries, are thrown into sharp relief when these groups come together for activities such as teaching students of education at the MA level.6 This does not happen in the course of ones research because here one can work in the comfortable boundary of the disciplinary tradition in which one has chosen to anchor ones research problem, except when one has to present and defend at Departmental forums such as boards of study or research seminars. Within this fragmented terrain, the pecking order of disciplines often operates in sharply felt, personalized forms, where people are seen as personifying their discipline, and criticism of the inadequacies of the discipline are to be heard with double entendre as they simultaneously constitute a critique of the person, along with a despairing sense of inevitability as how can you ever cease to manifest the values (or rather the lack of them) of your primary socializing discipline?

Page 10 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * Contextual–Universal–Regional Tension

An additional source of fragmentation of the community is on account of differences between disciplinary views on the salience of context, and the importance of generalization. Some of the disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, economics, and management emphasize universal features, while sociology and history emphasize the context and the particular. Further, as education systems function within specific administrative units and are products of particular regional histories, policies, and institutions, the relevant problematics are shaped by particular socio-cultural–political–economic features and historical experiences of societies. Given that education is an ‘applied’ discipline with concerns about schooling and the way it is conducted, the discourse of the community naturally tends to centre on these concerns, and hence reveals a fairly high level of regional specificity, often engaging with issues which may not be unrecognizable, but would be at a different order of significance in another society. Thus, on the one hand, the aims (p.77) of education in modern societies (or societies that are modernizing) and schools as institutions of modern societies, lead to commonalities and commonsensical features that appear across nation state boundaries. At the same time, an emic view leads to dismissing the validity of these universals in education or school knowledge as unwarranted assumptions that are likely to be misleading. Education requires an understanding of both the universal and the particular as well as the understanding of which to invoke where—honed through experience and mentoring and experience.

Concluding Remarks: Effects of the New Knowledge Economy New forms of interdisciplinary aggression are being shaped by the emerging new knowledge economy into which higher education as a whole is being thrust and to which all disciplines are adapting. The foundational disciplines have been key in the development of the discipline of education, with scholars in these disciplines contributing the basic theories on which educational knowledge has been constructed. However, they have traditionally been ‘pure’ as opposed to the applied and ‘worldly’ character of education. In the context of the new knowledge economy, disciplines position themselves not only in relation to each other with academia but also in relation to public concerns. There is not only prestige and importance attached to being influential, listened to, and deferred to by others, but also the ability to stake a claim on and secure funding. Becher and Trowler (2001: 8) point out that the new regime of knowledge production, which they call ‘mode 2’, which is trans-disciplinary and problem oriented, and whose natural home seems to lie outside the university, places disciplines in more ‘entrepreneurial modes’. Here, knowledge not only must be useful and multiple use oriented, but it must also be able to secure funding from diversified funding base—both on a continuing and ongoing basis for development and expansion.7 In this scenario, it benefits the practitioners of other disciplines to emphasize the generalizing features of their disciplines—both their theories and Page 11 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * their methodologies—to be ‘applied’ on education phenomena. In the arena of research and theorizing, anthropology, economics, and even social engineering through mathematical modelling have made such forays into education (p.78) recent time, while in the arena of practice, management and IT are the two knowledge domains that claim to have generic solutions that can be applied to educational problems. To be able to do this, as and when it is convenient, the framing of educational knowledge has to be kept soft, and to this end, the academics from these disciplines prefer to begin with commonsensical knowledge of education and question the need for formalization of educational knowledge. This is a predatory orientation to the educationists’ turf. In the space of education action—the space of policy, programme, and field intervention/innovation—education researchers seem to be in the company of, and apparently also in competition with, management experts, NGO personnel, and numerous scientists and social scientists. The management experts seem to know the language of public administrators better, in contrast to the education researchers who likely find it difficult to sound immediately relevant and significant in the analysis of what is happening and how to set it right. The NGO personnel are often concerned with trying to immediately change the experience of children in classrooms and they come across as genuine and motivated, while the education academic often has little to suggest to bring direct results to the classroom. The reform framework that invokes the larger system or the content of teacher preparation or school supervision, requires long gestation, complex efforts, and large funding. A perception of irrelevance or marginal relevance seems to be one that extends into the space of academia, and is shared by fellow academics. Thus, as education researchers, we find our claims to having some specific expertise to contribute to research and public policy and action contested and challenged by members of the public, from within government and also from within the academia. Posed as a problem worthy of enquiry, the predicament of education and the accompanying angst of education researchers provide us an opportunity to reflect on the changing character of academic activity and higher education in a newly forming knowledge economy. Although still at an initial stage, these changes are already having a widespread impact in research funding in higher education. Disciplines and disciplinary groups face the need to establish their ‘usefulness’, to operate in a more ‘entrepreneurial’ manner, and to deal with competition from new sites of expertise, research, and knowledge production which are outside the university. Given the high priority that education (basic/ elementary (p.79) and higher) assumes in national and international agendas, it is also not surprising that education is the disciplinary domain where the full scope of contestations and drama is vividly constituted. Given the importance that education is poised to play in the next few decades, the involvement from other disciplinary groups is only likely to grow.

Page 12 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * I have, so far in this discussion, viewed the differences between disciplinary communities in terms of the differences in the nature of their subject, and consequent differences in the organization and practices of the associated communities. Huber (1990) points out that in addition, one may also factor in the cultural capital that is brought in by people and recognize that disciplinary communities are also different in terms of the social background of its members. This is likely to be relevant in context of the discipline of education in relation to other disciplines. For the time being, one must end this foray into self-reflexive engagement with the state of the discipline and one’s own experiences as a member of its community. It is moot what would constitute a reasonable response to this state of affairs. Some disciplines in a similar situation have tried to ‘harden’ themselves. But this response in the case of education would not be meaningful. Education, to the extent that it is concerned with children and the practices of public institutions within a democratic polity, cannot close and circumscribe its discourse community. However difficult it may be, we need to accept this predicament. It may be far more significant and paying if we invest in ways to educate the wider common sense vis-à-vis education which is at the root of these perceptions. For this, we must find ways to communicate the complexity of problematics lucidly without compromising, demonstrate the value of knowing the discipline, and also to be able to argue against the simplification and misidentification of problems and their treatments. Rather than taking a moral high ground and asserting one’s expert status, we would need to demonstrate the legitimacy of this status by contributing actively to shaping the discourse in the public space. References Bibliography references: Becher, T. and P.R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edition. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Beyer, J.M. and T.M. Lodahl. 1976. ‘A Comparative Study of Patterns of Influence in United States and English Universities’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 104–29. Biglan, A. 1973a. ‘The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3): 195–203. ———. 1973b. ‘Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3): 204–13.

Page 13 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * Bray, M. 2007. ‘Scholarly Enquiry and the Field of Comparative Education’, in M. Bray, B. Adamson, and M. Mason (eds), Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Hongkong: Springer and Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hongkong, pp. 341–62. Del Favero, M. 2004. ‘Academic Disciplines—Disciplines and the Structure of Higher Education, Discipline Classification System, Discipline (p.81) Differences’. Available at http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/ 1723/ Academic-Disciplines.html (accessed 20 July 2008). Donald, J. 2002. Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Edited by C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books. Gerholm, T. 1990. ‘On Tacit Knowledge in Academia’, European Journal of Education, 25(3): 263–71. Holzner, B. 1968. Reality Construction in Society. Cambridge: Schenkman. Huber, L. 1990. ‘Disciplinary Cultures and Social Reproduction’, European Journal of Education, 25(3): 241–61. Labaree, R. 2000. ‘Nature of Education’. Available at http:// www7.nationalacademies.org/core/ Labaree_remarks_research.html (accessed 20 July 2008). Lattuca, L.R. and J.S. Stark. 1994. ‘Will Disciplinary Perspectives Impede Curricular Reform?’, Journal of Higher Education, 65(4): 401–26. Lemelin, J.-M. 2000. ‘“Transcendence or Immanence” for the Round Table: What is a Discipline?’ Seminar of the Department of French and Spanish, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, 15 February. Available at http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~lemelin/discipline.htm (accessed 4 April 2008). Losee, R.M. 1995. ‘The Development and Migration of Concepts from Donor to Borrower Disciplines: Sublanguage Term Use in Hard and Soft Sciences’, in the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Chicago: Learned Information, pp. 265–74. Available at http:// sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Library/Srvices/chapter8.html (accessed 20 July 2008). McCulloch, G. 2002. ‘“Disciplines Contributing to Education”? Educational Studies and the Disciplines’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Special Issue, 50(1): 100–19.

Page 14 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * Moses, I. 1990. ‘Teaching, Research and Scholarship in Different Disciplines’, Higher Education, 19(3): 351–75. Palmer, B. and R.M Marra. 2004. ‘College Student Epistemological Perspectives across Knowledge Domains: A Proposed Grounded Theory’, Higher Education, 47(3): 311–35. Sarangapani, Padma M. 2008. ‘Give a Dog a Bad Name and … : What Funded Research is doing to Third World Education Knowledge’ paper presented at workshop ‘After Ethnography’ June 19–20, Department of Education, University of Oxford. Sarangapani, P.M. 2004. ‘Universities: The Invisible Dimension of Elementary Education’, in K. Chanana (ed.), Transformative Links (p.82) between Higher and Basic Education: Mapping the Field. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 95–107. Schwab, J.J. 1964. ‘Structure of the Disciplines: Meanings and Significances’, in G.W. Ford and L. Pubni (eds), The Structure of Knowledge and Curriculum I, Chicago: Rand Mcnally, pp. 6–30. Storer, N.W. 1967. ‘The Hard Sciences and the Soft: Some Sociological Observations’, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55(1): 75–84. ———. 1972. ‘Educational Research: A Conjunctive Domain for Scientific Inquiry’, Educational Researcher, 1(3): 15–17. Whitley, R. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Notes:

(*) This chapter appeared in Contemporary Education Dialogue, vol. 8, no. 1, 2011, pp. 67–84. (**) I am grateful to Professor Geetha B. Nambissan and Dr S. Srinivasa Rao who allowed this chapter, which was always intended for this volume, to be carried in the journal first. I benefited from the review processes of both this volume and the journal edition in tightening up arguments and focusing on key insights. (1.) This is the mid-day meal programme run by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). (2.) Biglan uses the Kuhnian idea of paradigm. His third axis of life–non-life is of less interest. (3.) In an attempt to bring back considerations of the nature of subject matter in different disciplines, articles in the special issue of the European Journal of Education, vol. 25, no. 3, 1990, bring together the sociological and cognitive/ Page 15 of 16

 

Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles * epistemological dimensions of socialization and practice of disciplines. Also, see Lattuca and Stark (1994); and Moses (1990). (4.) See McCulloch’s (2002) discussion on the origins, success, and challenges to this project. (5.) ‘Child-centricism’, without an attendant awareness of society and politics, contributes an awareness of and focus on the child which remains narrowly psychological, and while humane, still need not be critically radical or transformative. When ‘child-centrism’ positions itself against the teacher, this creates a fundamental contradiction for the idea of education. (6.) For example, a sociologist colleague recently remarked with some concern that she felt our Masters students seemed individualistic and did not seem to be concerned for others. She attributed this to the influence of some of the other courses/disciplines in the programme and also said she felt that she had failed as a teacher of sociology. (7.) In this characterization, I have drawn upon the characterization of organization in entrepreneurial universities discussed in Becher and Trowler (2001: 8).

Access brought to you by:

Page 16 of 16

 

Opening Up the Black Box?

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Opening Up the Black Box? Sociologists and the Study of Schooling in India Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the sociology of schooling in India, and describes the contours of this field of research. It highlights the failure to realize the full potential of sociological research in India, and to open up the so-called black box of schooling. The author feels that Indian schools and classrooms are among the most under-researched segments of the sociology of education (SoE), and this neglect has led to a glossing over of complex processes that mediate school experiences and influence learning in children. She stresses the need for sociologists to study learning contexts and schooling processes in order to better understand the potential and limitations of the institution of formal education in India. In this context, the author discusses the complex practices and processes of discrimination, disadvantage, as well as spaces that provide opportunities for exclusion of lower caste students, or dalits, within educational institutions. The author feels that SoE has a critical role to play in bringing in the language of possibility for the equitable inclusion of such excluded groups. For this, the building of a theoretical and empirical understanding of schools as institutions within Indian society—keeping in mind their linkages with the larger social context—becomes very important. Keywords:   sociology of schooling, Indian classrooms, learning in children, student exclusion, student discrimination, sociological research, Indian schooling, Indian classroom, sociology of education, Indian schooling processes, Indian learning contexts, Dalit students

Page 1 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? Given the preoccupation with equality of opportunity, equity, and more recently, concerns of exclusion and inclusion in education in India, it is surprising that sociologists have paid little attention to the learning context in schools and processes that underlie and influence teaching and learning in classrooms. The hierarchical nature of Indian social structure, sharp economic disparities, as well as the social and cultural diversities that characterize the lives of children across the country suggest that learning experiences are likely to vary. While the diversity of backgrounds from which children come suggests that they bring varied cultural values and social skills to school, they are also exposed to and engage with different institutionalized learning environments. Diversities in the social, economic, and cultural backgrounds of children and the institutional norms and practices within an increasingly stratified school system make the formal learning context extremely complex and an important area of sociological enquiry. However, the Indian school and classroom is among the most underresearched area in the sociology of education (SoE). In this chapter, I dwell on the sociology of schooling in India and map the contours of this field of research. I point to the failure to build upon the early promise of sociological research and to meaningfully open up the black box of schooling in India. I argue that the neglect of the study of schools has led to a glossing over of complex processes that mediate school experiences and influence learning of children. This is particularly important in relation to the education of children belonging to the most marginalized groups in Indian society. I point to the need (p.84) to understand the manner in which larger structural and organizational factors mediate and shape children’s learning experiences and lead not only to processes of disadvantage and deprivation in education, but to privilege and advantage as well. I suggest that there is need for sociologists to engage with learning contexts and processes of schooling in order to understand the institution of formal education and its limitations and possibilities in Indian society.

Outside the Portals: Sociologists and Schooling in India The Introduction has dwelt, at length, on the early initiatives by the Kothari Commission (1964–6) to bring sociologists to the study of education. It was rightly felt that a sociological perspective could make an important contribution to understanding the relationship between education and society and the role that education could play in national development—key concerns of the Commission. The early sociologists brought the structural functionalist perspective and the modernization paradigm to the understanding of the ‘education and society’ relationship. Thus, for instance, schools were seen as social institutions and as a subsystem of society. They were also expected to play a critical role in inculcating values and attitudes that were necessary for a modernizing society and to enable the shift from tradition to modernity (Gore et al. 1970; and Shah 1965).

Page 2 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? The Field Studies in the Sociology of Education (Gore et al. 1970) as well as the study of the educational problems of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students carried out across a number of states in India (Chitnis 1981) were path breaking and pioneering—ambitious in their scope and mammoth in their coverage. In the backdrop of the building of a democratic and secular nation, the former focused on whether education had led to a shift from traditional to modern values among students and teachers and on equality of educational opportunity. The latter took ahead the concern with equality of opportunity in education by focusing on SCs and STs (communities that have historically faced discrimination and neglect in Indian society), their access to schools and colleges, participation in institutional activities, problems they faced in their education, access to incentives, aspirations, attitudes, and so on. As early as the 1970s, (p.85) these studies pointed to inequalities in education and the need to look at practices and processes within educational institutions. Until the 1980s, empirical research continued to be within the broad functional– liberal framework and focused on the relationship between education, stratification, and social change, with a view to understanding the economic and social basis of educational access, attitudes, and aspirations of students, peer interaction, and so on (Bhatia and Seth 1975; and Shah et al. 1971). Jayaram’s (1977) study of higher education highlights a conflict perspective as he highlights the role of education in ‘status stabilization’. He concludes that ‘higher education functions as a status stabilizer, contributing to status retention in urban areas’, based on an analysis of the ‘social origins of students in higher education’ and by ‘examining more closely the pattern of occupational inbreeding among medical students’ (Jayaram 1977: 188). Given the macrostructural perspective that informs the research, Jayaram’s study does not enlighten us as to the institutional practices that may have enabled ‘status retention’. The early work by sociologists brought a much-needed sociological perspective to the study of education and highlighted, in particular, the relationship between education and social stratification. The studies provided important insights regarding teacher attitudes and the experiences of SC and ST students that suggested that education was largely playing a ‘reproductive role’ and that institutional practices and processes needed focused research attention. The fact that sociologists failed to do so was partly because they were constrained by the limitations of the reigning theoretical frameworks in mainstream sociology at the time in India, that is, structural functionalism and subsequently, Marxism. Equally important was their neglect of SoE as a sub-discipline and the failure to seriously engage with contemporary sociological research in education that was making significant strides, especially in Europe and the United States (US) (dealt with in the introduction). The result was that schooling in India remained

Page 3 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? a black box, well until the 1980s, when the first tentative attempts were made to look inside the school.

Into the Classroom: Opening Up the Black Box That the black box of schooling was neglected by the macro-theoretical perspectives of functionalism and Marxism has been acknowledged by sociologists of education (Karabel and Halsey 1977). The New Sociology (p.86) of Education (NSoE) emerged in the United Kingdom (UK) in the 1970s as a critique of structural functional paradigm and the neglect of the study of schooling. Based on the theoretical perspectives of symbolic interactionism and phenomenology, it drew attention to school realities as socially constructed, and forcefully highlighted the importance of interrogating school knowledge and the ‘taken-for-granted’ problems of educators (Karabel and Halsey 1977). Earlier on, Bernstein (1975) had already begun to provide sophisticated theoretical frameworks for the study of the social orders of the school, curriculum, and its transaction. Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1977) theory of ‘symbolic violence’ drew attention to power relations and processes of exclusion and reproduction within schools. Both Bernstein (2003) and Bourdieu (1973) highlighted the linkages between social class, family, and schooling in relation to educational disadvantage and privilege. Subsequently, critical theorists, building on the Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, found theoretical space to explore agency and ‘resistance’ (Aronowitz and Giroux 1985). There have been very few systematic studies of schools in India, their organization, structures, and classroom processes. De Souza (1974), Kapur (1986), Malvankar (1988), and Thapan (1991) are among the sociologists who, prior to the 1990s, focused attention on the social reality within schools. The earliest of these was De Souza’s (1974) study of 24 ‘public’ schools. His purpose was to ‘explain in sociological terms the social and cultural structure of the public schools as elite institutions of secondary education, and to discuss their relationship with the wider society of which they form a part’ (De Souza 1974: 8) and to do so on the basis of empirical data. The study, which was carried out in 1968, uses a structural functional perspective and in particular, Etzioni’s framework of organizations.1 He identifies schools as ‘normative organisations’ on the basis of their ‘compliance structures’ and attempts to understand their ‘internal environment’ as well as their relationship with the ‘external environment’ (De Souza 1974: 5). While De Souza’s study must be seen as a pioneering effort in what was a largely barren field of research, the reader fails to get a sense of the ‘distinct cultural and social structure’ of public schools, the most elite and exclusive of educational institutions. Though the author makes an important observation at the outset that ‘there are significant variations between the schools…in the mode of organization, the composition of the student population and (p.87) the quality of the academic programme’ (De Page 4 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? Souza 1974: 3), we are not told what variations were seen in the schools in relation to cultural ethos and organizational practices. This was largely due to the theoretical framework of the study which focused attention on the organizational dimensions of social and ‘cultural structure’, rather than on processes and social relationships through which they were constituted, as well as the use of structured questionnaires to generate data. Almost a decade after De Souza wrote his book, Thapan (1991) began an ethnographic study of an elite residential ‘public’ school, Rishi Valley (which was meant to be included in De Souza’s study but ultimately, did not form part of it). Her framework, questions, and methodology depart distinctly from De Souza’s. Thapan’s research is located in the traditions of the NSoE2 that is informed by theories of symbolic interactionism and phenomenology. Her concern is to understanding the ‘social phenomenon’ of life at school, viewed as constructed by various actors in the process of social interaction in everyday school life. Thapan draws upon the theoretical contribution of number of key representatives of the NSoE (Peter Woods, David Hargreaves, and Basil Bernstein) in order to study the interface between a specific ideology on which the school is based and its organizational structure, specific practices, and social relations among participants. She uses Woods’ (1983) framework of concepts of ‘contexts’, perspectives, cultures, strategies, and negotiation, as well as ‘subjective career’ of participants, and Goffman’s (1959) ‘dramaturgical’ conceptualization to build her theoretical framework to ‘render the educational field sociologically intelligible’ (Thapan 1991: 220–8). Unlike De Souza, Thapan’s analysis helps us understand how institutional ideology, structures, rituals, and practices (‘consensual’ and ‘differentiating’), as well as diverse subcultures that pupils and teachers participate in, together create the socio-cultural reality that is Rishi Valley School. Though Thapan does show that there are contradictions and contestations that emerge largely as a result of the variance between the ideology of the school and the orientations of teachers (pedagogues and professional teachers) and social expectations (mainly from parents, largely middle-class professionals), these appear to be negotiated and contended with. Her reflections in the introduction to the second edition of her book in 2006 show that the school has changed with times—there is a greater sharing of values, structured spaces for expressions of ‘dissent’, and a clear shift towards meeting ‘social’ expectations for (p.88) academic excellence. This isn’t surprising as it must be remembered that Rishi Valley caters to an affluent class of parents and hence, the social divide between home and school is unlikely to be significant as in the case of, say, state-run/funded schools. Hence, concerns of social and cultural marginalization and educational disadvantage do not figure in her work. This is reflected to some extent in Malvankar’s (1988) study of schools.

Page 5 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? The focus of Malvankar’s (1988) ethnographic study of three English-medium secondary schools (state aided but under private managements) in Goa in the mid-1980s is on understanding ‘teachers’ work’. Using an interactionist framework, she views ‘teacher’s work as an interplay between their intentions and professional orientations on the one hand, and the societal and institutional factors that shape the work situation on the other’ (Malvankar 1988: 253). At the institutional level, intra-faculty relations and ‘institutional bias’ (Pollard 1982, cited in Malvankar 1988) are identified as factors that shape the context of teachers’ work and their orientation to work. However, more important are her findings regarding strategies that teachers adopt when teaching students, a majority of who belonged to lower socio-economic strata and also came from Marathi or Konkani-medium primary schools. Thus, pedagogy used by teachers was largely confined to writing on the board for students to copy, memorize, and reproduce verbatim during examinations as they said that students lacked knowledge of the medium of instruction, English. The children in the lower classes where such methods were particularly pronounced ‘had no option but to relate and adapt to the instructional objectives of the teacher…Even though they understood the lesson when explained in Konkani, they could not adequately express themselves in written English. In order to pass examinations, reliance was placed upon memorization of answers or notes which staff dictated’ (Malvankar 1988: 259). However, Malvankar also notes that while factors such as the medium of instruction that are ‘external to the school’ influenced the work context, ‘they provided a ready excuse to justify, especially in SIS and UIE (two of the schools) the method of teaching in the lower classes’ (Malvankar 1988: 258). Student’s inability to cope with their lessons often led to their negligible participation in class. Teachers did not acknowledge this and in one school, ‘lack of participation’ was explained by teachers ‘as a result of “shyness” or “inhibition” on the part of students. The nature of (p.89) interpersonal relations between students and teachers was also a factor that constrained participation by pupils in one school, while in another where it was “friendly”, there was “some scope for free expression in the classroom”’ (Malvankar 1988: 258). Importantly, teachers had their own constructions of what students from these backgrounds ‘could manage’, and this influenced classroom teaching and hence, the cultural resources made available to pupils. That social class and power relations mediate the definition of the school and classroom context, making some children particularly vulnerable where social relationships and learning opportunities are concerned, is suggested by Malvankar in her study. She observes, ‘Teachers, along with school authorities, assume greater power vis-à-vis students and parents, especially in schools which are non fee paying, financed by the state and cater to children from the lower socio-economic strata of society’ (Malvankar 1988: 253). In India, the learning context in schools is rendered complex not merely by the fact that it is mediated by class and power Page 6 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? relations, but because there are intersections with caste and adivasi/minority3 status as well as gender, factors that influence access to social and cultural resources in diverse ways. Social Disadvantage and School Processes

The educational disadvantage of economically and socially vulnerable groups in relation to class/caste and ethnic location in Indian society was highlighted in the early sociological studies that pointed to unequal access to education of children from these social groups, relatively greater dropout from school, and poorer performance and school completion rates. In other words, researchers highlighted the fact that the liberal promise of equality of educational opportunity was not borne out. The work of Ahmad (1979), Chitnis (1977, 1987), and a number of other sociologists of education who have done significant work on the education of SCs and STs have reiterated these findings. Poverty as well as caste and ethnicity were seen as enduring constraints to the access and progress of children in schools. The increasingly stratified nature of the education system and ‘unequal schooling’ as a key factor in the reproduction of inequality in India also received growing attention (Jayaram 1977; and Velaskar 1990). Velaskar, drawing on traditions of neo-Marxists (Bowles and Gintis 1976; and Giroux 1983, among others), has forcefully highlighted the role of schooling in social reproduction, (p.90) emphasizing that it ‘has created and strengthened new inequalities’ (Velaskar 1990: 141). While these studies suggest that schools have a role to play in creating or reinforcing inequalities in education, there was little attempt to show how schools were actually complicit in doing so. There are, of course, pointers in a number of studies to negative teacher attitudes and stereotypes regarding SC and ST communities and women (reflected in derogatory remarks and typifications); representation in textbooks (marginalization as well as representation of ‘lower castes’ and women in subservient roles); the examination system (as a facade of meritocracy); and stratified schools (Chitnis 1987; Kumar 1979; and Nambissan 1996). As mentioned, the ‘NSoE’ brought attention to the socially constructed nature of school reality, and also interrogated school knowledge—the official or ‘legitimate’ curriculum as well as the hidden curriculum—norms, values, and messages that are communicated in schools (Karabel and Halsey 1977). In the Indian context, these concerns are particularly important given the hierarchical social structure, graded inequalities, and marginalization of cultures of the more vulnerable and diverse social and ethnic groups. I have pointed to some insights that emerged from the transaction of school knowledge and social relationships in Malvankar’s (1988) ethnographic study. Kumar’s (1989) observation and subsequent interpretation that the silence of a tribal student in response to a teacher’s question in class may have been because his answer would have affirmed his own ‘backwardness’, given the demeaning representation of his community in the textbook, is insightful in that it highlights the relationship between pupil’s identity, school knowledge, and learning. From the perspective Page 7 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? of the teacher, the silence of the student would normally be seen as resulting from his incompetence and lack of ability. This is an area that needs to be explored systematically keeping in mind Bernstien’s typology of the possible range of student involvement and orientation (from ‘commitment’ to ‘detachment’ and ‘alienation’) in relation to the means and ends of different ‘orders’4 of schooling (Bernstein 1975). In his study of schools as ‘agencies of symbolic control’ and the classroom as ‘one of sites wherein the discursive construction of class takes place…’, Talib (1992: 94) explores the learning context that is made available to children of unskilled manual workers (belonging to SCs) and the nature of their participation in the transaction of the curriculum in one municipal school. Bringing together the theoretical contributions (p.91) of Goffman (1968), Willis (1979), and Woods (1979), Talib focuses on formal, and especially informal, processes through which the pupils and teachers ‘construct their realities’. He problematizes the curriculum which he views as a ‘selective’ depiction of the world of the dominant and strong’ and one that excludes the lives of the pupils, ‘especially if they hail from marginalized sections of society’ (Talib 1992: 81). However, he also points to the limits of the ‘hegemonic footprints of education’ and the agency of pupils as they ‘internalise and also evolve complex cultural strategies to ignore and forget pedagogic knowledge presented to them at school’ (Talib 1992: 81). Like Willis (1979), he concludes that in this process, ‘pupils play an active role in facilitating the process leading to their “certified degradation” and partially create the conditions wherein they drop out or fail in the examination’ (Talib 1992: 81). Teachers in the municipal school in Talib’s study stated that they belonged to ‘a higher caste and class background as compared to their pupils’ (Talib 1992: 87). Though his study largely highlights the social distance between teachers and their pupils in relation to class rather than caste, Talib points out that the teachers’ engagement with their pupils appears to have been influenced by their ‘utter ignorance of the conditions prevailing at the quarry’ (Talib 1992: 87) (where the children’s parents worked), their perceptions and stereotypes about the lack of support that children received from within their homes, apathy of parents, and so on. He observes that one of the teachers ‘…felt it next to impossible to communicate with the children for he was convinced that they were inherently incapable of acquiring any education. Nothing in the curriculum could get across to them, however hard he tried. These were children of uncouth parents and their carefree socialization had made them grow up in an unbecoming manner’ (Talib 1992: 88). Talib adds that ‘The failure of working class children to acquire education was attributed by the teachers to their pupils’ inadequacies and not to the inadequacies of the school curriculum and of the teachers. It epitomized the blaming-the-victim-syndrome’ (Talib 1992: 93). The reference here is the ‘deficit model’ that informs lay beliefs and common sense understanding stemming from the social and economic location of the Page 8 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? families. However, though we are informed that the children belonged to a range of sub-castes within the SCs (Dalits), the intersection between caste and class and how it mediates the learning context within schools from the perspective of both teachers and pupils remains unexplored. (p.92) An important insight that has implications for pedagogy as well as processes of assessment, but needs to be built upon by researchers, is Talib’s observation that ‘the learners who are declared “unfit” to acquire further education turn out to be more “alienated” or “retreatist” than “incompetent” in the pursuit of learning’ (Talib 1992: 94; emphasis added). What is the competence being assessed is a moot question. In the late 1950s, Parsons had pointed to the ‘cognitive’ as well as ‘moral component’ of achievement and that in elementary school grades and in the construction of the ‘good pupil’, these components ‘are not clearly differentiated from each other’ (Parsons 1959: 304). The moral component comprises elements such as ‘respect for the teacher’ and ‘good work habits’; in other words, meeting of teachers’ expectations in general. He also notes that ‘…the purely intellectual tasks are relatively easy for the pupil of high intellectual ability. In many such cases it can be presumed that the primary challenge to the pupils is not his intellectual, but his “moral” capacities’ (Parsons 1959: 304). Parsons was, of course, looking at the school in functional terms and teachers as ‘agents of society’ enabling the transmission of cultural norms and values that functionalists believed were ‘consensual’. While one may take issue with the functionalist framework in the study of school–society linkages, the ‘cognitive’ as against the ‘moral’ dimensions of learning in school and their interface, especially when students belong to different social classes and are differently positioned in relation to school culture, need to be kept in mind. Talib’s teachers were clearly viewing their pupils through a moral lens that influenced their classroom pedagogy and relationships with children and impacted educational outcomes. Bernstein (1975: 38) makes a distinction between the ‘instrumental order’ (‘behavior and activities…to do with acquisition of specific skills’) and the ‘expressive order’ (‘behavior and activities…to do with conduct, character and manner’) of the school and emphasizes that learning is influenced (among other factors) by how pupils and their families, as well as teachers, are oriented to the means and ends of these orders. Going well beyond Parsons’ ‘cognitive–moral’ dimensions of assessment, Bernstein points to: …the critical importance of both the organizational structure of and knowledge structure of the school and the principles of transmission. In other words, how the expressive order is transmitted, how the instrumental order is transmitted, (p.93) what is transmitted by both, what the official and unofficial goals are, of both orders, will structure the role position of teachers and pupils, affect the nature of pupil and teacher relationships

Page 9 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? and their respective friendships and pressure groups and affect the pupils’s relationship to his family and community. (Bernstein 1975: 48) The relationship between social class, socialization, and the nature of cultural transactions between home as critical in the student’s orientation to and learning in school are recurring themes in Bernstien’s (1975) work. Bourdieu’s (1973) foregrounding of the uneven access to cultural capital by children of different social classes also helps us situate learning within a complex of family, social class, and educational linkages. Keeping the foregoing discussion pertaining to school ‘orders’ and family–school linkages in mind, I now look at the schooling of Dalits (SC) to highlight the need to view the schooling of marginalized and vulnerable social groups in India in a far more complex manner than has hitherto been done.

Schooling of Dalits: Contexts and Processes A number of studies show that ‘ex-untouchable’ caste status continues to powerfully structure the experiences of Dalit children in schools.5 The findings of Sayed et al.’s (2007) in-depth study of a range of state-funded schools in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, two educationally backward states in India, are pertinent. Using the framework of ‘social exclusion’,6 they found that teachers’ construction of ‘educability’ (defined as ascribed ability) in relation to Dalits (and adivasis) influences their treatment of pupils belonging to these communities. For instance, they observe that ‘Accusations [by teachers] of parents’ venality, intemperate behavior and “backwardness” abound’ (Sayed et al. 2007: 91). This is linked to teachers’ perceptions that home environments of these pupils are not conducive to learning. While the latter is based on stereotypes of ‘low castes’, it is also framed by un-interrogated middle-class assumptions that the family will provide academic support to children. The absence of such support from Dalit parents (who are poorly schooled) leads to the pronouncement of ‘lack of interest in their children’s education’ on the part of parents (Sayed et al. 2007: 91). The schools (12 of the 13) ‘practiced serious forms of stereotyping with respect to the question of educability…It was observed that teachers often discussed the Valmiki home environment as being an impossible one for children to study in (p.94) and therefore blamed parents for a lack of interest in their children’s education’ (Sayed et al. 2007: 92–3). Quotes from two upper-caste teachers are revealing: The third grade class teacher, an upper-caste (Brahmin) woman said, ‘these Mehtars [SC] are illiterate or have very little education and because of this there is no mahoul (atmosphere/environment) in the house for studies. The parents drink and fight and are unable to help their children with homework. The school now has children of poor parents who do not care about their children’.

Page 10 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? Korkus (adivasis) are dirty, their parents are filthy and they will never change. I am tired of teaching Korku children because no matter how many times I explain and how many times I hit them, nothing seems to go into their heads. I give them homework, which they can never do and then they do not show up in school the following day. (Sayed et al. 2007: 93) Pedagogic practice in state-run schools is broadly the conventional ‘chalk and talk’, copying from the blackboard and encouraging of learning by rote. This was mentioned earlier in Malvankar’s (1988) study as well. Sayed et al. (2007) and Talib (1992) also show that corporal punishment is commonplace in the classroom when children fail to comply with the pedagogic expectations of teachers. Poor performance, failure, and discontinuation of their education by a disproportionately large number of Dalit and Adiviasi children are usually seen to result from their inability to cope with the ‘instrumental’ order of the school. However, from the studies that have been discussed, it appears that it is the failure of children from the marginalized groups to meet the ‘moral’ compulsions and expectations of the school (Bernstien’s ‘expressive order’) that actually frames the teachers’ ‘stance’ towards them in relation to the instrumental domain and places them at a serious disadvantage. On the other hand, the cultural capital that upper/middle-class/caste children bring to school is likely to place them at a relative advantage in relation to the moral order of the school. Where the instrumental order is concerned, even if the pedagogy used is conventional, the middle-class family is still at a relative advantage as it offers, what Bernstein (2003: 205) calls, the ‘official pedagogic site at home’ that will supplement the time spent in school. For the poor, ‘there cannot be an effective second site of acquisition with an effective official pedagogic context and support…still less so as the child grows older. Failure becomes the expectation and reality’ (Bernstein 2003: 206). Thus, the cultural capital that the uppercaste/middle-class children bring to school is (p.95) likely to enhance their participation and performance in relation the ‘expressive’ and ‘instrumental’ order of the school, and sets what is seen as the ‘level’ playing field and pedagogic expectations for all children despite the fact that they are unequally equipped for it. The need for a relational framework that looks at advantages and disadvantages is hence important (Nambissan 2010a). Though studies have pointed to the discrimination that Dalits in India have historically faced because of their caste location and the continued stigmatization of their identities as ‘ex-untouchables’, the manner in which the latter shapes the social relations within schools and pedagogic practices and classroom processes, and thereby learning, is yet to be the focus of serious research attention. In my most recent work (Nambissan 2010b) on the experiences of Dalit children in two sites in Rajasthan state, the city of Jaipur and a village less than 100 km away, I have been able to show that there are complex practices and processes of discrimination, disadvantage, as well as spaces that provide opportunities for inclusion within educational institutions. Page 11 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? My earlier work drew upon secondary data and research studies that were informed by broadly liberal and conflict perspectives and were largely based on interviews and discussions with teachers, Dalit pupils, and their parents, rather than a systematic study of school and classroom processes (Nambissan 1996, 2006). Thus, I was earlier merely highlighting unequal patterns of school participation and ‘negative’ teacher attitudes towards Dalit children and suggesting that there was unequal access to school resources. I have now attempted to concretely map spheres of exclusion and inclusion in schools, and also to explore norms and practices that shape the re-contextualization of caste relations within the institution. I could see more clearly the complex interface between social identity, the experience of schooling, and educational outcomes. I was beginning to understand social relationships, institutional norms, and practices within which disadvantages and advantages were being constituted. In the schools that Dalit children from the village attended, caste hierarchies (informed by notions of purity and pollution) were visible in spaces where food and water was distributed, in the division of labour within the classroom, and in ‘sacred spaces’ and rituals (Nambissan 2010b). These practices differentiated pupils, as highlighted by interaction perspective, but more importantly, they were iniquitous and (p.96) debilitating for Dalit pupil’s sense of self-worth, dignity, and equally important, their identity as ‘learners’. These were not merely a result of ‘strongly classified’ curriculum and pedagogy and the boundaries between ‘valid’ and ‘common sense knowledge’ and the building of ‘subject identities’ (Bernstein 1977), though these are critical issues that define learning experiences. They stemmed primarily from caste relations, its material and ideological practices—in relation to privilege and discrimination and subordination which were now being constituted within the routine of schooling as well (Nambissan 2010a). Though I did not at the time use Bernstein’s (1975) framework of school ‘orders’, on reflection, I see the importance of understanding the interface of the expressive and instrumental orders of schooling. For instance, in the sites I studied, Dalit children experienced exclusion in social relationships primarily because of their caste identity (the moral/social/expressive order); they tended to receive unequal teacher attention and support in their studies (the instrumental order); and their caste identities tended to shape their participation in different activities as well as inform their relationships with teachers and peers (interface between the two orders). There was thus an intermeshing of the expressive and instrumental orders with the latter embedded in the former. However, while I do point to marginalization of Dalit children and their unequal access to cultural resources and social relationships in schools as well as their experience of ‘symbolic’ and physical violence, I suggest but do not demonstrate how these factors actually constrain processes of learning within the classroom.

Page 12 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? While sociologists have richly contributed to understanding of the institutional context in which learning takes place and have highlighted processes of stratification, differentiation, and hierarchies of power that shape the social reality within schools and influence the construction of diverse ‘schooled identities’, they have stopped short of dwelling on what this means for the ‘cognitive’ domain of learning or participation in the ‘instrumental order’ of the school—the acquisition of skills and ‘bodies of knowledge’. The latter is seen as the domain of psychologists and educators (Pollard 2004: 286). Pollard sees the importance of the constructivist paradigm in understanding the ‘ways in which learning is influenced by culture and by interaction with others…individual learners are seen as being active in such processes, constructing, understanding and “making sense” of new experiences and challenges’ (p.97) (1996: xiii). He builds on this understanding and in the research that he has since undertaken, explores processes that are implicated in learning: for instance, children’s ‘learning stance’ (their identities and dispositions towards learning), their ‘control over the learning process’, and the ‘opportunities and risks’ they would be prepared to take in relation to specific tasks/challenges are seen as crucial for the construction of knowledge (the process by which learning happens), which again influences learner identities, their learning stance, and so on. The role that ‘significant others’, and more specifically the knowledgeable adult (teacher), plays in the processes that underlie the construction of self, identity, and the ‘construction of knowledge’ is also highlighted. The ‘opportunities for learning’ made available and the ‘quality of assistance’ that the teacher provides are also seen as crucial (Pollard 1996: 3–14). Though Pollard does foreground the fact that children have unequal access to material and cultural resources which shapes their participation in the learning process, the specific structures of inequality within Indian society and how they mediate children’s construction of the self, their ‘learning stance’, and identities, as well as adult support that is provided, is extremely complex and requires deeper reflection and study.7 My review of studies on the schooling of Dalit children suggested that when students belong to socially vulnerable and economically marginal groups, they are especially disadvantaged within the classroom, for instance, as reflected in teachers’ perceptions of their ‘educability’. For Dalit pupils in the Jaipur study (Nambissan 2006), the representation and recognition of their stigmatized caste identity within the school was clearly of relevance as it placed them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis teachers and peers. It adversely affected their relationship with knowledgeable adults (teachers) who, in the constructivist paradigm, play a key role in enabling students learn and negotiate the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky 1978). However, ‘caste identity’ was also a part of the cultural capital (in addition to family support and other economic and cultural resources) that non-Dalits brought to school, and yielded teacher and pupil support and social relations and networks of advantage. They were better located to meet teacher expectations in the moral/expressive as well as the Page 13 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? instrumental domain as compared to Dalit students. However, a few teachers who were ‘sensitive’ to Dalit students were found to provide moral and emotional support rather than support in relation to ‘intellectual tasks’. In a few cases where academic support (p.98) was offered, it was largely to enable better rote learning (giving of notes/old question papers) (Nambissan 2010b). It must be remembered that teachers were also not professionally equipped to understand and address the challenges that discrimination and disadvantage posed for the institutional contexts, as well as the processes of learning in the shaping of which they have a crucial role to play. *** Though sociologists in India have made significant contribution to the study of inequality in education, there has been a lack of serious attention to opening up the ‘black box’ of schooling and understanding the context and processes of learning. This has resulted in a narrow and distorted discourse on what happens within schools. In this chapter, I have explored how structures of discrimination and disadvantage that are inherent in Indian social structure mediate the experiences of schooling and influence learning within the classrooms, using the theoretical resources offered by SoE, particularly the work of Basil Bernstein and Andrew Pollard. The contributions of scholars and educators from the critical tradition (Apple and Beane 2007; and Delpit 2006) who look at the interface between structure and agency, understanding and exploring of contradictions and contestations within institutions and creating appropriate learning contexts, as well as the building of critical consciousness have shown that the school is still an important space where we can bring in a language of possibility for equitable inclusion for hitherto excluded groups. However, for this, it is important that we build a theoretical and empirical understanding of schools as institutions within Indian society keeping in mind their linkages with the larger social context. It is here that SoE has a critical role to play. References Bibliography references: Ahmad, K. 1979. ‘Towards a Study of Education and Social Change’, Economic and Political Weekly, 14(4): 157–64. Apple, M.W. and J.A. Beane (eds). 2007. Democratic Schools: Lessons in Powerful Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (p.100) Aronowitz, S. and H.A. Giroux. 1985. Education under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate over Schooling. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Page 14 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? Bernstein, B. 1975. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 3. Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ———. 2003. ‘Social Class and Pedagogic Practice’, in The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse, Volume IV: Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge, pp. 69–93. Bhatia, C.M. and V.K. Seth. 1975. ‘Hierarchy in the System of School: Political Economy of Education’, Sociological Bulletin, 24(1): 13–28. Bourdieu, P. 1973. ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’, in R. Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change. London: Tavistock Publication Ltd, pp. 71–121. Bourdieu, P. and J.C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, trans. by Richard Nice. London: Sage. Bowles, S. and H. Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradiction of Economic Life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Chawla–Duggan, R. 2007. Children’s Learner Identity as Key to Quality Primary Education: Eight Case Studies of Schooling in India Today. UK: The Edwin Mellen. Chitnis, S. 1977. ‘Education and Equality’, in A. Kloskowska and G. Martinotti (eds), Education in a Changing Society. London: Sage, pp. 73–106. ———. 1981. A Long Way to Go—A Report on a Survey of Scheduled Caste High School and College Students in Fifteen States of India. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. ———. 1987. ‘Education and Social Stratification—An Illustration from a Metropolitan City’, in R. Ghosh and M Zachariah (eds), Education and the Process of Change. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 80–100. De Souza, A. 1974. Indian Public Schools: A Sociological Study. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Delpit, L. 2006[1995]. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Giroux, H.A. 1983. Theory and Resistance in Education: Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Page 15 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? ———. 1968. Asylums. Middlesex: Penguin. Gore, M.S., I.P. Desai, and S. Chitnis. 1970. Field Studies in the Sociology of Education. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. (p.101) Jayaram, N. 1977. ‘Higher Education as Status Stabilizer: Students in Bangalore’, Contributions to Indian Sociology (NS), 2(1): 169–91. Kabeer, N. 2000. ‘Social Exclusion, Poverty and Discrimination: Towards an Analytical Framework’, IDS Bulletin, 31(4): 83–97. Kapur, M. 1986. ‘The Moral Education of Primary School Children: A Sociological Perspective’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Delhi, Delhi. Karabel, J. and A.H. Halsey (eds). 1977. Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Kumar, K. 1979. ‘Educational Experience of Scheduled Castes and Tribes’, in S. Shukla and K. Kumar (eds), Sociological Perspectives in Education. Delhi: Chanakya Publications, pp. 328–47. ———. 1989. Social Character of Learning. New Delhi: Sage. Malvankar A. 1988. ‘Teachers’ Work: A Case study in Three Secondary Schools in Goa’, International Journal of Educational Development, 8(3): 253–63. Nambissan, G.B. 1996. ‘Equity in Education? Schooling of Dalit Children in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, 31(16–17): 1011–19. ———. 2006. ‘Terms of Inclusion: Dalits and the Right to Education’, in R. Kumar (ed.), The Crisis of Elementary Education in India. New Delhi: Sage, 224–65. ———. 2010a. ‘The Indian Middle Classes and Educational Advantage: Family Strategies and Practices’, in M.W. Apple, S.J. Ball, and L.A. Gandin (eds), The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge & Francis Group, pp. 285–95. ———. 2010b. ‘Exclusion and Discrimination in Schools: Experiences of Dalit Children’, in S. Sukhadeo and K.S. Newman (eds), Blocked by Caste: Economic Discrimination and Social Exclusion in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–86. Parsons, T. 1959. ‘The School Class as a Social System’, Harvard Educational Review, 29(4): 297–318. Pollard, A. 1982. ‘A Model of Classroom Coping Strategies’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(3): 245–62.

Page 16 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? ———. 1985. The Social World of the Primary School. London: Cassell. ———. 1996. The Social World of Children’s Learning: Case Studies of Pupils from Four to Seven. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. ———. 2004. ‘Towards a Sociology of Learning in Primary Schools’, in S.J. Ball (ed.), Routledge Falmer Reader in Sociology of Education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer, pp. 285–99. Sarangapani, P. 2003. Constructing School Knowledge: An Ethnography of Learning in an Indian Village. New Delhi: Sage. (p.102) Sayed, Y., R. Subrahmanian, C. Soudien, and N. Carrim. 2007. Education Exclusion and Inclusion: Policy and Implementation in South Africa and India. London: DFID. Shah, B.V. 1965. ‘Sociology of Education—An Attempt at Definition and Scope’. Sociological Bulletin, 14(2): 64–9. Shah, V.P., T. Patel, and W.H. Sewell. 1971. ‘Social Class and Educational Aspirations in an Indian Metropolis’, Sociological Bulletin, 20(September): 113– 33. Sundar, N. 2004. ‘Teaching to Hate: RSS’ Pedagogical Program’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(16): 1605–12. Talib, M. 1992. ‘Ideology, Curriculum and Class Construction: Observations from a School in a Working Class Settlement in Delhi’, Sociological Bulletin, 41(1–2): 81–95. Thapan, M. 1991[2006]. Life at School: An Ethnographic Study, 2nd edition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010. ‘Imagining Citizenship: Being Muslim, Becoming Citizens in Ahmedabad’, Economic and Political Weekly, 45(3): 45–50. Velaskar, P. 1990. ‘Unequal Schooling as a Factor in the Reproduction of Social Inequality in India’, Sociological Bulletin, 39(1–2): 131–45. Vyogotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Willis, P. 1979. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Westmean: Saxon House. Woods, P. 1979. The Divided School. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Page 17 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? ———. 1983. Sociology and the School. An Interactionist Viewpoint. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Notes:

(1.) De Souza (1974) engages with but does not find appropriate Goffman’s (1968) concept of ‘total institution’ for the study of public schools in India. (2.) De Souza’s (1974) study would fall within the ‘old sociology of education’, a category created to include macro frameworks such as functionalism and Marxism. (3.) A number of ethnographic studies in the late 1990s and the last decade have focused upon schooling and identity and provide a window into how curriculum, pedagogy, rituals, symbols, and a range of practices provide space for the construction of the ‘nation’ and inculcation of ‘citizenship’ ideals. They show that narrow and hegemonic imaginations of ‘nation’ and ‘citizenship’ distort the experience of schooling, especially making children from minority communities extremely vulnerable. There are detrimental implications as well for the larger social fabric (Sundar 2004; and Thapan 2010). (4.) The reference here is to Bernstein’s (1975) distinction between the ‘instrumental’ and ‘expressive’ orders of schooling, dealt with a little later. (5.) See Nambissan (1996, 2006) for an overview of research in this area. (6.) Sayed et al. observe that ‘The term “exclusion” describes the outcomes of being “left out” or “locked out” of the public, market or community resources and institutions…The term refers both to notions of “process” as well as “outcomes” and their overt/covert manifestations, and spans the micro, meso and macro levels of institutional interplay. Further race, and caste are “bivalent” forms of exclusion, rooted both in economic and cultural discrimination (Kabeer, 2000)’ (Sayed et al. 2007: 24). (7.) Two pioneering studies that explore the construction of children’s identities as ‘knowers’ and ‘learners’ within schools are those of Chawla–Duggan (2007); and Sarangapani (2003). Chawla–Duggan draws on Pollard (1985) to understand the factors that influence children’s ‘approach to school’, their ‘learner identities’, and the strategies they adopt within school contexts. Her study shows that children are differently equipped with social, cultural, and material resources that lead to ‘differential success’ in school. However, the manner in which children’s social identities mediate their experience as learners is not explored though her respondents, including those who belong to Dalit, backward caste, and Muslim communities. Sarangapani highlights the central role of the teacher as the epistemic and pedagogic authority who ‘completely controlled what would be treated as knowledge to be received by students’ (Sarangapani 2003: 131) and thereby shapes their identities and stances as ‘knowers’ and Page 18 of 19

 

Opening Up the Black Box? ‘learners’. While not drawing away from the richness of analysis and ethnographic detail in Sarangapani’s work, it would have been important to understand how the key dimension of caste location (given the presence of Dalit students in the school) played out in pedagogic relations, construction of identity, and learning.

Access brought to you by:

Page 19 of 19

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India A Critique and a New Research Agenda Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords This chapter explores the sociological aspects of educational inequality in India. There is little coherent understanding of changing patterns of educational inequality, and few clear-cut pointers to explanations for continued nonparticipation in, and non-completion of schooling on the part of a significant number of children. The author believes that this state of affairs arises out of the theoretical inadequacies and political conservatism that characterizes much of the study of educational inequality. The author also critiques the new research agenda by analysing the issue of unequal educational access and attainment in elementary education, with a focus on those subordinated by caste, class, and gender, and identifies crucial areas that are missing in our understanding of the influence of social processes in student participation in education and in shaping the educational system. The author points to the need for a critical systemic exploration of the education system as a subsystem of society in which school structure, organization, and processes are to be placed in wider political economy and stratified social structure based on wealth and social status. The author concludes by stressing the need to open up the issue of educational inequality to wider debates operating at the level of economy, polity, and society, and to adopt wider perspectives in sociological studies of the education system. Keywords:   educational inequality, Indian educational system, caste, class and gender, systemic exploration, research agenda in education, educational access, educational attainment, elementary education, participation in education, education system, sociological studies

Page 1 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Inequality in education is a central theme of educational research in most liberal democratic societies where education is viewed as an equalizer of opportunity and life chances and purposively geared to serve these goals. In India, the subject of educational inequality holds enormous social significance, given the invidious historical relationship between caste–patriarchal stratification and education that condemned shudras, ati-shudras, and women as unfit for knowledge. Hierarchization of knowledge and people was closely tied, with the most socially prestigious forms of knowledge being the exclusive and unchallenged property of high-caste men, and that of lower castes and women being deemed culturally valueless. The colonial state’s cultural imperialist agenda thrived on a selective incorporation of these traditional social notions, and even though its educational policies and arrangements made a few cracks in old summations of status and power, the dominant impact was the strengthening in the new forms of old linkages between caste, patriarchy, and formal education. The establishment of a sovereign democratic Indian nation marked a radical departure as the state set itself on the path of capitalist modernity and declared liberal egalitarianism (p.104) as official state ideology. In this changed socio-political context, formal education was expected to serve as a vital instrument in the quest for social justice and equality. The scrutiny of educational developments in terms of the Indian state’s commitment to the equalization of educational opportunity constitutes an abiding research agenda of educational scholarship. An extensive body of research from a range of disciplinary and ideological perspectives has attempted to investigate the extent to which equality objectives of state education policy were achieved. From the outset, research pointed to two opposing and concomitant trends: the vast strides made in educational expansion and enrolment at all levels; and the stubborn persistence of educational inequalities between privileged and disprivileged children in access, survival, and learning outcomes. Even today, as burgeoning enrolments characterize the national scenario, we face the troubling fact that the primary locus of educational inequality continues to lie in the sphere of elementary education. The problem is of a magnitude that makes the state of Indian education a part of the internationally debated world crisis, and consequently a target of global intervention. Education policy, programmes, and research of various ‘defaulting’ nations are enmeshed with global shapers and funders of education in the context of a tighter link between education credentials and global economy. In India, educational reforms were followed by the implementation of massive internationally funded programmes aimed at universalization of elementary education. The concern with tracking, monitoring, and evaluating processes and outcomes of the new initiatives spawned a huge generously funded research production. As against the pre-liberalization situation wherein education as a

Page 2 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India national enterprise stood rather neglected, education is now, often, a subject of heated debate and there is a virtual explosion of empirical research. Notwithstanding the voluminous amount of empirical literature however, we still stand inadequately illuminated regarding the changing situation of educational inequality and the extent to which educational expansion and multi-pronged efforts towards quality education have improved educational opportunity, attainment, and life chances. We have been unable to decipher whether we have moved towards greater equality in education. How have patterns of inequality and imbalances changed over time and why? Has the situation worsened in any way? What are the new forms of inequalities that have taken root? What have (p.105) been the forces of change? Such key questions stand unaddressed. There is little coherent understanding of changing patterns of educational inequality. There are few clear-cut pointers to explanations for continued nonparticipation in, and non-completion of schooling on the part of a significant number of children. As against older theories that linked dropout, stagnation, and educational failure to culture, language, families, and poverty of disprivileged children, the dominant trend today is to dismiss the significance of social background and poverty and attribute blame to the inefficient workings of schools, in particular the government schools and their teachers. The field is rife with claims and counterclaims and there is much ambivalence and confusion regarding the directions of change, the most significant sources of inequality, and the egalitarian implications of new policy changes. The basic contention of this chapter (which must be read as an essay in selfcriticism) is that this state of affairs arises out of the theoretical inadequacies and political conservatism that characterizes much of the study of educational inequality. Research is conducted more from developmentalist or public policy perspectives and is not theoretically oriented. Sociology has not dominated the field and sociologists of education too have been largely content to follow policymakers’ definitions of educational problems. Based on the critical overview of research in sociology of educational inequality (henceforth SoEI), we attempt to demonstrate how research on educational inequality is divorced from a consideration of structural relations. SoEI does look at ‘social contexts and factors’ but not as part of a theoretical configuration, and without a theory of social structure or stratification, it fails to underscore the embeddedness of education in the structures of power and domination: caste, patriarchy, class, ethnicity, economy, culture, and the state. We need to explore this embeddedness, for it has major implications for the problem of inequality in education and society. The primary thrust of the critique attributes centrality to the structures of caste, class, and gender and to the state and state–economy– society relations in understanding of changing patterns and forms of education inequality. While the need for an exhaustive methodological and content review is long overdue, it is not our aim here to conduct one. Rather, the objective here is to take stock of existing research and raise key issues regarding the character Page 3 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India and direction of research with a view to a preliminary theoretical clarification of the area. (p.106) The chapter takes as its central concern the issue of uneven and unequal educational access and attainment in elementary education with a focus on those subordinated by caste, class, and gender. It does not engage with research in the area of curriculum and pedagogy, which is vital not only to a fuller understanding of the dynamics of educational inequality but also important in its own right as exploration of the connection between knowledge and power. However, we hold that the enduring failure to make available basic provision, leave alone equitable access, suggests a deep malaise, the unravelling of which is important from social democratic and social justice perspectives. In an acutely stratified social order, access to schooling remains the first barrier to cross and a most significant issue from the point of view of the historically excluded subordinated groups. Increasingly, their hopes are pinned on gaining a firm foothold in education. Flowing from the critique, the chapter outlines the broad contours of a new agenda for sociological research. It argues for a deeper critical sociological engagement that would adopt wider perspectives on the education system and open up the issue of educational inequality to wider debates operating at the level of economy, polity, and society. The chapter draws attention to crucial missing areas in research and to theoretical perspectives that would help make important connections and understand wider social processes that shape the system and influence participation in education. One cannot overemphasize the significance of this exercise at the present conjuncture when debates on societal inequalities have been displaced by new globally defined economic and social goals and agendas that are consonant with the ideological shift from liberalism to neoliberalism. Powerful bilateral and international organizations now set the terms of national public and academic debate as well as of research. There is intensified effort to accord legitimacy to and buttress neoliberal ideology, as a new national political philosophy seeks to undermine old ideologies of state egalitarianism. Academic research must not fall into the trap of narrow equity-based models that weaken critical knowledge production. These work uncritically with new assumptions and agendas and also in close alignment with the state and its new delivery agents. The domineering international language of discourse, speaking glibly of complex educational issues, displaces academic discourse and serves to obscure rather than clarify the emergent educational situation. (p.107) Moreover, the politics of educational research, embedded as it is in the wider politics of knowledge, ignores or downplays the significance of critical social science study emphasizing the need to get on with the task of ‘educating’. Confronted by this blatant displacement of its academic agenda, it would be inexcusable if a critical sociology of education (henceforth SoE) did not squarely confront currently Page 4 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India dominant research paradigms and question the ideological and political assumptions of current inquiries into educational inequality. The argument is presented in three parts. The first broadly traces the trajectory of research, providing a thematic overview and examining frameworks/ perspectives that have been used. The second part of the chapter delineates the major points of critique. The concluding section recapitulates a future agenda for research as it unfolds through the critique.

The Trajectory of Research in SoEI Before moving on to examine research in SoEI, it is important to understand that education did not figure prominently in the wider academic debate on social inequality in India. Sociologists were keen to confront social challenges and capture the dynamism of a changing social order (Joshi 1986). The first review of the sociology of social stratification identified the processual aspects of changes in structures of stratification as a central theme (Singh 1977). As a society attempting to move from a closed caste–feudal system to an open democratic– egalitarian class order in a context of decolonization and planned economic and cultural changes, the study of continuity and change was focused on transformations in the ideology and structure of caste stratification and the new forms it assumed. Rural stratification received greater theoretical and methodological attention as compared to urban stratification and was studied from a wide range of perspectives.1 Studies of stratification, however, did not devote much attention to the role of the newly institutionalized formal education system in these change processes: whether in shaping class formations, enhancing status mobility, or changing caste ideology. Despite its significance in engendering a new urban class structure in colonial times, sociologists did not think it important to see whether iniquitous (p.108) patterns underwent changes to make education a new dynamic force in disintegration of unequal structures in post-colonial times. Rather than systematically investigate its role in shaping new stratificatory structures, education was either undermined as a bourgeois institution by Marxist sociology or its change agent role as ‘meritocratic’ selector was unproblematically assumed by uncritical functionalists. The latter position treated education as one of the generic factors along with those of democratization, industrialization, urbanization, etc., as responsible for the breakdown of the old order. The general neglect of the study of urban class– caste structures also constrained the study of education as an integral constituent of the new structures of opportunity, new labour markets, and processes of occupational change and mobility that were set in motion by the modernizing state and the capitalist industrial economy. There did not develop any Indian counterparts to Western structural functionalists and methodological empiricists who developed stratification–mobility models to analyse the role of education in occupational placement/and status attainment. Rather, education Page 5 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India was taken cognizance of as merely one element along with occupation and income in nominalist/attribution-oriented conceptualizations and empirical operationalizations of social stratification. The early emergence of a separate sub-discipline of SoE may perhaps have been responsible for this neglect. The SoE owed its origin to an overarching policy concern of a new nation state: making education a master instrument of modernization and social change. It was normatively underpinned by a state ideology of political liberalism that emphasized equality and social justice, but was also substantially infused by the philosophies of developmentalism, modernization, and state welfarism. The atmosphere was hopeful as the first major Education Commission in post-independence period was put in place to provide a blueprint for a national education system geared to social transformation. From the outset, equality of opportunity was SoE’s key concern, and the examination of the relationship between stratification and education was defined as significant to its theoretical agenda. The discipline was grounded in the dominant structural functional approach and liberal philosophy and this was reflected in the pioneering set of theoretical writings (Gore et al. 1967). Whether explicitly stated or implicit in the mode of problem formulation, this approach laid the conceptual foundation for the sociological analysis of educational inequality. (p.109) Conflict or Marxist theories popular in stratification studies were not explicitly explored. However, at least two contributions in the volume reflected conflict orientations. M.S.A Rao in an implicitly Weberian analysis drew attention to the essentially political character of education and forms of social control that characterized the development of modern education in India from its inception (Rao 1967). The Marxist sociologist A.R. Desai pointed to the linkages between education and its linkages with social class and the capitalist reconstruction of Indian society (Desai 1967). Despite these promising beginnings, SoE attracted few sociologists and, as we will see, there exists till date a paucity of genuine sociological research and theoretical discussion in the field. Researchers with diverse disciplinary backgrounds—sociology, history, education, psychology, political science, economics, and public administration—have contributed to the study and debates on the issue. The review conducted here is based on a selection from this multidisciplinary body of published work and also draws upon earlier reviews of research in SoE.2 It is not exhaustive in scope but selective, representing a particular genre, or illustrative of a point or argument being made in the chapter. Sociologically oriented research on the themes of unequal access and participation attainment is included. The discussion is organized around three thematic areas: (a) expansion; (b) social distribution of schooling and its social determinants; and (c) schools as sources inequality.

Page 6 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India The Expansion of Schooling

Despite the sustained nationalist critique of the miserly spread of mass education in colonial times, what might have been thought would be a basic issue in the post-colonial study of educational development—that of equitable expansion and diffusion of educational facilities—did not evoke systematic and serious study. The colonial encounter had shown that the spread of schools was not random but a motivated process, and subordinated groups and women had to struggle to gain access. Vast regions were left unserved or underserved. Yet, few efforts were made to track the extension of opportunity to unserved populations, areas, and groups. A politico-sociological study revealed the politics of educational expansion in the early post-independence period (Rudolph and Rudolph 1972). The study revealed the politico-institutional processes that shaped educational policy and the political use and influence that characterized (p.110) educational implementation. Further, the study cautioned that the Indian system should not be seen as a pan-Indian one and emphasized the significance of studying expansion and systems regionally. These early explorations did not provoke further study. Some fact-finding studies identifying backlogs and imbalances were periodically conducted from bureaucratic–administrative perspectives, generally as part of development agendas of individual states. The studies suggested ubiquitous and massive imbalances in patterns of educational provision: rural–urban, inter-state, and inter-regional. Given their orientation, most did not go beyond factual treatment of the phenomenon. Later, a few scholars undertook historical analysis and contributed to understanding of the complex factors that are associated with spatial developments. They pointed to linkages between social, economic, and political forces (for example, structural dimensions of village/region, caste segregation, and regional differentiation) and accounted for territorial and caste/class-based inequality of provision and spread.3 For instance, Tharakan’s (1984) study attempted to explain the spectacular educational rise of Kerala as compared to other states. It pointed to a complex configuration of historical factors: economic, social, and political changes, including the rise of elites from different castes and communities, and geographic factors as well. More recently, Dreze and Gazdar (1997) studied education as a part of Uttar Pradesh’s burden of developmental inertia and identified the absence of schooling facilities in terms of number as well as functionality as one of the prime causes for the state's educational backwardness. Policy changes in the 1980s heralded a new political will to correct infrastructural shortfalls. The framing of a brand new educational policy in the context of economic liberalization led to educational restructuring and largescale programmatic innovations that impacted education delivery and governance. Even as it marked a shift in official discourse from equality of opportunity to equity (understood quite narrowly as statistical parity), hopes of equitable access were generated by area-specific targeted approach to provision Page 7 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India towards the perennial goal of universalization. Very few studies have been done about the geographic coverage achieved. More recently however, the issue of provision in Dalit and adivasi-dominated areas is being addressed as part of the general concern regarding persistent educational disparity between them and the rest of the population. Though, overall, provision has improved, (p.111) inequalities in types of provision have widened, as recent research shows, and geographical location continues to be a significant predictor of access.4 The Social Distribution of Education and Social Determinants of Educational Inequality

For the ‘equality empiricists’ of India, the problem of unequal access is largely conceived in terms of the social distribution of education and its social determinants. Within this major and popular area of work, both primary databased surveys and secondary databases have been used as methodological routes.5 Looking across this vast corpus of work from the 1960s to the present, we can broadly identify three recurrent themes that dominated early research. First, the concern with equitability of educational distribution within a given population has translated into studies of access to school and ascertaining inequalities in survival, participation, and attainment, which is measured in terms of completed years of schooling as well as achievement levels. The central concern is who is getting or not getting access and why, with a particular focus on disparities between traditionally privileged sections of society and those underprivileged or excluded on the basis of caste, class, tribe, poverty, or religion. There are innumerable studies in this area. A dominant theme has been the study of socio-economic, caste, and gender status of enrolled children in order to indicate disproportionate utilization. Others have sought to establish differentials between groups in terms of dropout, survival, wastage, and stagnation. Attainment is comparatively less studied but whatever evidence exists indicates a relationship between socio-economic background and academic achievement. The area continues to remain understudied. The second dominant theme concerns educational progress of historically oppressed, marginalized, and alienated sections of society such as Dalits and adivasis as well as rural and urban poor children. As an academic response to another public policy issue of the impact of positive discrimination in education, the mid-1970s saw the conduct of a massive survey of Dalit (and adivasi) high school and college students spread across 15 states of the country. It unravelled socio-economic and pedagogic problems related to the education of largely firstgeneration learners (Chitins 1981).6 Despite its theoretical and methodological limitations, the study indicated sharp inter-state, intra-caste, and gender disparities in educational attainment within the Dalit (p.112) category. It also explored relational aspects which suggested that the educational experience of the students was shaped by caste prejudices and segregation. Most importantly, the study drew greater academic attention to the educational situation of these groups and proved to be a path setter for a spate of policy-oriented surveys that revolved around issues of educational participation, progress, performance, Page 8 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India social ‘adjustment’, and educational aspirations and experiences of Dalits and adivasis. Comparative micro studies on wastage, stagnation, and dropout were also conducted. Additionally, government-sponsored research on utilization of various school-level provisions such as scholarships, hostels, ashram schools, etc., contributed to the proliferating literature. Findings consistently showed gaps between stated policy on the one hand, and practice and outcomes on the other. The emanating picture was of increasing access but also marked continuities in terms of poverty and economic deprivation, familial background, and unequal social relations. Studies reinforced the prevalence of regional, gender, and intra-caste disparities among the groups. However, characteristic of this phase of educational research, studies did not enter much into the social dynamics of educational deprivation. Socio-psychologically oriented enquiries employed notions of ‘educability’ as a lens to study educational problems of socalled ‘backward’ groups. Differences between socio-economic groups in scholastic attainment are also sought to be explained in terms of a range of psychological variables: cognitive, mental, perceptual, and intellectual abilities; self-concept and personality; and adjustment, attitudes, motivation, and aspiration. Increasingly however, the significance of socio-cultural contexts influencing cognition and classroom learning is being recognized. Studies have moved beyond limiting individual-oriented notions and attempted to establish links between caste, social, economic, and cultural deprivation, and family environment on the one hand, and learning levels on the other.7 The third important axis of inequality is that of gender, acknowledged as a key social barrier to school enrolment, and especially of access of girls. Much of the earlier research has routinely included gender as a variable in tracking quantitative progress and ascertained levels of gender disparity, identifying constraints to educational access, participation, and attainment.8 Prior to the more radical phase of the women's movement of the 1980s, non-feminist perspectives on education (p.113) perceived education as functional to women's competent performance in the gender division of labour. Challenging such ideas and locating the issues in wider definitions of development, liberal feminist analyses underscored the shackles imposed by sex–gender systems that restricted access and educational content for women (Kelly and Elliot 1982; and Smock 1981). In a rare dialectical–historical treatment of education and social change, Kamat (1985a) argued how educational developments are inextricably bound with socio-economic and socio-political contexts. He sought to analyse the problem of caste, class, and gender-based opportunity in education in terms of broader relationships between caste stratification, social class, and politics. Thus, the social analysis of educational advance in the first three decades of postindependence period located disparities firmly within the context of rural class and power structures and caste relations. Reinforcing these perspectives, Acharya’s studies (1985, 1996) of educational inequalities in Bengal adopted a Page 9 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India class-based framework of analysis. Operating within a liberal perspective, Chanana (1988) brought us the first set of Indian feminist writings on education from multidisciplinary and historical perspectives. In the context of the overarching impact of gender socialization, the meanings and consequences of education for women were debated. Current Trends

The study of educational inequalities continues with vigour and a greater sense of urgency in the current phase of liberalization and structural adjustment. The national goal of universalization of elementary education has shifted from the periphery to the political centre. Both state and civil society are interested to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of the provisions of educational policy of 1986 and of the programmes couched in its wake to attain equity and quality. It has taken the form of massive researches conducted across or within major states, especially the socio-economically backward states. The studies adopt multidimensional approaches and combine multiple methodologies with a view to investigate a number of contextual and correlational variables of educational participation and attainment and examine the gravity and size of multiple types of inequalities. A range of economic, social, and political factors associated with macro and micro processes of schooling are explored. While a positive change in (p.114) the climate for education and a growing public demand for education is emphasized by most studies, the dominant impression that stays from a reading of these studies is of a bleak, familiar reality that seems almost unchanging in many regions. Unravelling the interaction between social and educational processes, the studies identify a number of positive and negative factors associated with educational participation that are well known but need constant reiteration.9 At the micro level, economic constraints (poverty, unaffordablity, livelihood responsibilities, dependency burdens), social obstacles (caste, class, gender biases of all kinds), and educational barriers (school conditions, ethos, and culture) are seen to influence educational participation. Issues of inter and intra-state imbalances in enrolment are being addressed in a major way: why is it that in the same national universe, even in comparable situations, some areas register educational progress and some do not? Why do socially disadvantaged groups in some parts perform better than others (Aggarwal and Sibou 1994; and Vaidyanathan and Nair 2001)? The former study identified economic prosperity and diversification, integration in urban economy as well as social movements and mobilizations as factors that stimulated educational demand in rural areas (Vaidyanathan and Nair 2001). The study also indicated tremendous variations in schooling resources made available and drew attention to intra-tribal, intra-Dalit variations (Vaidyanathan and Nair 2001). On the education of girls, studies reveal the depressing fact that educational prospects of rural poor girls continue to be linked to marriage chances. Nonenrolment and discontinuance continues to be higher for girls, and rates of Dalit

Page 10 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India educational progress vary greatly between regions. Social class, education, and occupation are significant factors affecting enrolment of Dalits. An in-depth study aimed to provide a deeper understanding of the decisionmaking processes underlying the phenomena of participation and nonparticipation in schooling, with a focus on the poor and socially excluded sections such as Dalits, adivasis, girls, and Muslim minorities (Jha and Jhingran 2002). The study established the enduring significance of caste, poverty, and ethnic minority status for schooling and showed complex contextual variations between and within the social categories. It also showed the roles of familial processes, caste discrimination, and destabilizing economic processes such as child labour and seasonal migration in foreclosing possibilities of regular schooling for children of (p.115) such households. Most importantly, the study unequivocally restores the significance of poverty for a child's education. Many of the findings of the larger studies are corroborated by a large number of smaller studies conducted across the country.10 An anthropological account (Parry 2005) of complex socio-cultural and schooling processes in two urban villages and an industrial town of Chhattisgarh depicted schooling as framed by village economic life, caste and gender identities, and cultures and childhoods that are embedded in these cultures. Conflicting pressures of environment, homes, and schools with which children negotiate shape their outlooks to schools (Parry 2005). School Systems and Schools as Sources of Inequality

We need to make a distinction between schooling systems (by which one would mean the entire organization of the educational apparatus, in terms of its major components, normative structures, and functions) and schools. Studies on the system or systemic aspects are few and not necessarily concerned with inequality. The first national policy’s commitment to the common school system did not lead to enquiries regarding the evolution and nature of the education system and whether and what kind of a public education system was taking root. An early alert on inegalitarian implications of private expansion was sounded by studies in the political sociology of educational development. These early studies focused attention on sectarian factors in the sponsorship and organization of educational institutions, and explored the role of private entrepreneur and caste associations. In fact, they brought out the influence of caste relations and discrimination and adverse effects of institutional apathy on the spread of rural schooling. The adverse implications of social homogeneity for social values of equality and cultural tolerance were also underscored (Gould 1972; Madan and Halbar 1972; and Narain 1972). Viewing education in the wider context of the state's relationship to child labour, Weiner (1991) implicated the state in the creation of appalling conditions of life for poor children and for the failure to institute a public educational system. Locating the main reason in backward-looking conservative beliefs and attitudes Page 11 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India of policymakers and bureaucrats, Weiner blamed both the state and powerful classes for their weak commitment to equality and national values. A recent study explores institutional structures, processes, and dynamics based on (p. 116) in-depth studies in two Indian states (Sharma and Ramachandran 2009). It examines a wide range of educational realities in their politico-social contexts and the ‘internal dynamic’ of politicization. Political control of resources results in the intensification of self-aggrandizement among state actors, and as the dynamic of rent seeking and patronage networks eats into the system, the politics of manipulation and control undermine the character and functioning of the government school system. Other studies have pointed to the relevance of perspectives from reproduction theory to the political economy of educational expansion and analysis of school systems. They argue that through differentiated and hierarchical structures, content, and processes, the school system mediates and makes unequal futures, thus serving caste, class, and gender reproduction and hegemony (Britto 1987; and Velaskar 1990, 2005b). Similarly, there are analyses of the role of dominant groups in shaping the system (Haq 1999; and Kamat 1985a). Subsequently, however, the linkages between internal and external structuring of school systems and the hierarchical structuring of society remained an unexplored area. A recent study has looked at role of schools as vehicles of class segmentation (Waldrop 2004). Parry’s (2005) ethnographic account cited earlier also documents differences in types of schooling and how they translate into hugely different life courses and anticipated life outcomes for children belonging to different class strata. Today, the structure of organization of public and private schooling has seen considerable change and the implications that it holds for the educational interests of the poor has brought forth a spate of research. The impact of policy changes on government schooling and the equity effects of ‘new privatization’ (the commercially oriented private capital investment in schools) are both matters of grave concern. In scrutinizing the state’s intention of making education a fundamental right, several studies laid bare the huge gap between people’s aspirations and the delivery of teaching–learning in government schooling. The landmark Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) report can be seen as a vivid documentation of policy outcomes in terms of lived realities of state neglect by the children of the poor (PROBE Team 1999). Apart from PROBE, a significant body of research by a number of serious public policy researchers has provided valuable insights on issues of school quality, curriculum, classroom process, and learning outcomes.11 Several studies have focused on teachers, drawing attention (p.117) to their inefficiencies as well as the difficulties faced by them (Bhatty 1998; Sharma 1997; and Vaidynathan and Nair 2001). Research has also identified systemic constraints to the achievement of targets (Banerji 2000; Kaul 2001; Khasnabis and Chatterjee 2007; Leclercq 2003; and Rana and Das 2004). Overall, studies catalogue a general decline of Page 12 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India the state system. Research is now taking greater cognizance of the ill effects of hierarchical access, including the fragmentation and differentiation that marks government schooling (Ramachandran 2004). Over the past decade, there have been some important efforts to synthesize findings from District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), flagship programmes of the state conducted in partnership with international organizations and national civil society organizations. A major study assessing the impact of DPEP sought to take stock of quantitative improvements, and also undertook qualitative explorations of classroom, community, and implementation processes. It exposed the parallel systems at work and their inegalitarian consequences and unravelled processes in villages and classrooms that further corroborated the significance of caste and gender (Ramachandran 2004). Social relations and processes as aspects of inequality in schools have, however, not been as systematically studied as the distributional and functional aspects. The National Focus Group on Problems of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Children brought together studies on caste discrimination in schools (National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] 2005). It provides an account of the multiple ways in which Dalits are discriminated against in state schools.12 Similarly, there are studies of gender discrimination but they have most prominently looked at curricular issues. There is an overall greater sensitivity to caste, class, and gender issues in schooling, and sporadic documentation shows that casteism exists in various forms in schools across the country: open exclusion; subtle neglect; physical violence; and caste abuse. The situation is worse in impoverished and culturally orthodox areas where the practice of untouchabilty is severe. Research on the effects of new privatization shows that private schooling for the poor is established as an urban and rural phenomenon, albeit with inter-state, intra-state, and rural–urban differences in spread (De et al. 2000; De et al. 2002; Jefferey et al. 2005; Kingdon 1996; Tooley and Dixon 2003; and Vaidyanathan and Nair 2001). In (p.118) attempting to assess the equity effects of types of schools, issues of the social composition—caste, class, gender—of private schools and of the quality of private versus government schools have evoked the interest of researchers. It is noted that private schools strengthen inequality by serving boys of the better-off sections. The effect of state–private sector partnerships is also an emergent area of concern.

A Critique of Research As is amply evident, the extensive body of research has generated rich data on multiple dimensions and processes of inequalities in educational participation and attainment. Despite the limitations which we discuss next, the studies have pointed in many important directions. But most of this research has been mainly descriptive, not analytical. The major body of work, as seen through the perusal of existing research reviews as well as first-hand study, can be described as Page 13 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India largely empiricist. The main critical observation regarding SoEI is that it is an empirically driven field, and given its statist policy orientation, is politically status quoist and not theoretically inclined. Many of the surveyed studies are excellent descriptive research, rich in data and insights, but the majority are cast in ad hoc, empiricist modes. Unlike its Western counterpart where it developed into a theoretically rich field, the discipline of SoE in India has seen few theoretical developments or epistemological shifts and suffers from the charge of empiricism. The trend contrasts strikingly with developments in the closely related field of sociology of stratification which was constituted by theoretical analysis and development of varied perspectives. The atheoreticism that characterizes SoEI precludes a deeper understanding of patterns and forms of educational inequality, the directions in which they are changing, and solid explanations of unequal situations. Twenty years after its inception, Chanana (1991), surveying literature produced between 1983–8, lamented the failure of SoE to take cognizance of the radical theoretical and methodological shifts that had emerged in the discipline in the West. The perceptive critical reflections of policy and practice were underlined by liberal democratic political philosophy (Ahmad 1979; Gore 1982, 1994; and Naik 1997). Even the context of persistent invidious inequalities did not lead to the questioning of functionalist assumptions regarding education’s role (p.119) and their applicability in a caste-stratified social order that rested on opposing worldviews and ideologies. More importantly, research did not lead to explorations of critical theoretical perspectives widely available in stratification studies or in the SoE (Barrett 1980; Bidwell and Freidkin 1988; Collins 1971; Giroux 1983; Karabel and Halsey 1977; McCarthy 1997; Troyna 1993; and Wolpe 1978). In fact, over the years, there has been a dearth of genuine sociological research grounded in sociological theory and concepts and there are virtually no theoretical discussions in the field. There are few theoretical efforts that attempt to systematically capture and explain key dimensions of educational change. SoEI is also characterized by glaring gaps and key issues vital for understanding unequal patterns and structures have not received the primary and comprehensive attention they deserve: most importantly, the patterns of school expansion and provision; and the (political) evolution of the educational system itself. Way back in the 1970s, Philip Foster had cautioned against the unquestioned use of theoretical frames as developed in relation to Western education systems to understanding educational issues in the developing world wherein he called for primary attention to what he termed the ecology of schooling. There is a marked tendency to ignore the fact that disparities in educational access are often consequences of the massively uneven diffusion of schooling (Foster 1977). The basic significance of this theme dawns upon us tragically today, when we see that whatever exists of the government school system is being diluted and dissipated. The situation demands politicosociological and politico-economic analytical frames that would give an Page 14 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India understanding of the processes involved in patterns of educational spread. Equally important is the fact that the link between non-provision and nonenrolment was not made a central research issue in SoEI. Primary attention on enrolments, dropouts, and stagnation camouflaged the trajectories of quantitative developments of provision and its structural links across the country. The problems stem from the failure to develop a theory of the relationship between education, state, and society—in particular, its stratification and ethnic structures. Though state schooling is a majer research topic, a theory of state and its links to the formation of educational systems is absent in educational analysis. Of immense significance here are political economy and political– sociological approaches that question the purpose and functioning of the state (p.120) (Althusser 1971; Carnoy 1982; and Dale 1989). They refuse to see the state as a neutral agent of delivery and attempt to engage with education’s role as an ideological apparatus of the state and the class interests it upholds. Feminist theories of the state emphasize it as categorically male and as a legitimizer of male dominance (MacKinnon 1989). State educational policy and the shaping of the Indian education system cannot be understood without critical analysis of the state. The Indian debate on the nature of the post-colonial state, its ideology, and its class, caste, and patriarchal character must be brought to bear upon education policy and action (Chatterjee 2004; Kaviraj 1997; and Mahanta 1994). Though an important beginning was in critically analysing state policy lapses in terms of political culture and belief systems (Weiner 1991), it has not been seriously followed up. Educational bureaucracy, and its caste–class and gender character, constitutes an important aspect of the state in education. All state actors—policymakers, bureaucrats, and teachers—must be viewed through this lens and not merely as occupational/professional categories. Thus, teachers cannot stand blamed, as they currently are, for the educational debacle without examining their implication in the educational bureaucratic process. The study of state processes would expose how the casteism and male bias of policies and actions define the structure of distribution of school provision, organization, and expansion. How are policies and processes of Dalit and girls’ education linked to perceptions and imaginations of caste-gendered divisions of labour? What is the politics of policymaking? Why does the state not (adequately) provide? Such questions have never been centrally asked and educational policy analysis remains one of the weakest and least developed research areas. On the contrary, a statist approach talks in terms of state apathy and neglect. Researchers operate from within the frameworks adopted by state educaters-bureaucrats and are concerned largely with policy implementation faliures rather than the development of crucial policy analysis as a legitimate field of inquiry. Few sociological counterparts have emerged to complement persuasive arguments made by economists regarding poor state investment, high costs, and Page 15 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India unaffordability of basic schooling. Ironically, the policy orientedness of the discipline of SoE has precluded critical sociological analysis of policy selection, decision making, actions, and outcomes. Research has generally fought shy of confronting the politicization of education, and (p.121) most steer clear of making politics central to their analysis. For example, Sharma and Ramachandran’s (2009) study comprehensively describes and acknowledges the significance of the ‘internal dynamic’ of patronage and politics in shaping the system, but the lack of a framework that accords these factors their theoretical place reduces their import. The general atheoreticism extends into research on distributional and relational aspects of educational inequality. There is a marked dissonance in SoEI with theoretical and historical analysis and perspectives available in the sociology of inequality, domination, and power. Studies of caste and class inequality in education have remained unaffected by the caste versus class debates in theories of Indian stratification. Its functionalist leanings did not lead SoEI to examine how education is linked to evolving caste–class configurations created by the impact of capitalist development on rural and urban production systems and processes of political democratization. Thus, work exploring unequal patterns of educational non-participation and under-participation suffered from a fundamental theoretical weakness in that it failed to systematically connect these patterns, both macro and micro, to changing structures of caste and class. While caste is thought to be taken care of by focusing on problems of the Dalits, class issues get addressed by studying the education of the poor. There is little understanding of where castes and their groups and subgroups are located along caste–class continuums and how caste and class positions and social and educational experiences intermesh. Furthermore, an emphasis on social categories fixed in time and space also precludes the searchlight being turned on the overall patterns of caste and class dominance and how this translates into the capacity of privileged groups to exert caste–class domination and hegemony in education. Why has the sociologist of education not been sufficiently troubled by class conflicts within education, and how attempts to conserve as well as gain advantage are linked to widening educational chasms between and within the elements of the class structure? What is the relationship between accumulation at the top and education poverty of those at the very bottom? SoEI also remained unaffected by developments in feminist theorizations of patriarchy and gender and of the linkages of patriarchy to other systems of stratification. They have not, as yet, been integrated into dominant malestream analyses of caste and class. Thus, the assessment of women’s caste–class position remains, as yet, an unaddressed issue in stratification theory and has seriously (p.122) affected the grasping of women’s caste–class position and social place. SoEI has also grappled inadequately with women’s educational position.

Page 16 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Caste, class, and gender are used merely as categories to establish differentials and not to raise questions about their changing forms and processes and how these impinge on educational attainments. The tendency to reduce relationships to categories results in static, decontexualized, and fragmented treatments which fail to capture a complex dynamic reality. The consequence of theoretical disengagement is that much analysis is characterized by disparateness and piecemeal incorporation of structural elements. Social access to and participation in schooling is linked to a range of ‘disadvantaging’ factors and ‘causal’ variables such as poverty, family socialization/disorganization, child labour, language deficit, and poor living conditions. This constituted the standard staple of early educational research. Loose constructions of socioeconomic status (its main referents being occupation, educational background, and income levels), or patronizing constructions of cultural deprivations and deficits, strip families off from caste–class locations and economic contexts while labelling them as culturally inferior. Poverty, though rightly given importance as an explanatory variable, is not recognized as a structural condition emanating out of class and caste relations of exploitation and oppression. In multidimensional analysis that rules the roost, it is also not given its proper analytical place. At many times, it is included as one among a bunch of cultural attributes and material deprivations. Similarly, much research that is focused exclusively on documenting the educational situation of subordinated groups is characterized by inadequate contextualization. While the studies provide sharp and much-needed pointers to their educational plight, very few studies locate the groups and subgroups within caste–class dynamics, and few take into account the intra-caste variations of gender and class. Moreover, research places them within a consensual integrative paradigm, which has not been seriously challenged. There is also little focus on dynamics of contestation and change in the wake of radical cultural politics from below. The absence of a historical perspective precludes the asking of central question that would illuminate the same: under what circumstances are caste groups able to organize and wage struggles for educational betterment and change? What are the processes and their outcomes (Velaskar 1998)? Changing educational fortunes as well as continued exclusions of subordinated groups need further investigation. (p.123) Research on gender inequality is not informed by feminist frameworks that emphasize women’s subordinate structural locations as well as the differentiations within them. Studies emphasize women’s familial roles and gender cultures as key deterrents to schooling. Other factors such as poverty, religion, and ethnicity are added to the gender analysis in a disparate way. In reality, women are embroiled in specific ways in emergent capitalist-gendered divisions of labour and trapped by caste–class locations with their specific gender ideologies. The non-feminist nature of most research on gender inequality fails to take account of the fact that all domains of life are unjustly Page 17 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India gendered. For example, exploitative sexualized labour regimes that lead to the educational exclusion of girls. Also, the constraining influences of sexual identities, sexual cultures, and sexual violence on girls’ schooling experiences are underestimated. Increasingly, the descriptive research that is available today has revealed a multifaceted and complex reality. However, the multidimensional approach that is adopted is unable to isolate the most significant barriers to education. A range of factors are identified and placed on the same plane. For instance, despite evidence of its unacceptably high incidence and intensity in society, as revealed by studies done by economists as well as the close association found between poverty, caste, gender, and education by sociological studies (Jha and Jhingran 2002; Kumar 2006; and Velaskar 1999), poverty stands undermined today as a critical explanatory factor in accounting for poor educational participation and attainment. There is a powerful counter view also, hugely supported by empirical research, that shows rising parental demand and parental discontent and argues that school-related variables are of greater importance than poverty in accounting for children’s poor participation and attainment. Rather schools, teachers, and ‘communities’ are primarily held responsible. In the absence of theoretical inquiry, critical factors may get dismissed. Hence, coherent theoretical frames grounded in local structures of power, material conditions, and gendered social relations need to be developed. Finally, to turn to a critique of research on schools, the basic problem is the absence of critical systemic exploration of the education system keeping in mind its position as a subsystem of society. School structure, organization, and processes are to be placed in wider political economy and stratified social structure based on wealth and social status. Education reflects these structures. Following the leads provided by Rudolph and Rudolph (1972), (p.124) we need to understand post-colonial histories and factors that differently shaped a number of regional systems. In general, the stratified, classed, and gendered nature of the Indian schooling system is almost taken as fait accompli by researchers. The stratification of knowledge that is inherent in stratified organization of education is also not made a central issue. Over a long period of time, the assessment of inequalities skirted important issues of differentiated participation in terms of the stratified educational structure. While the segregation of children across different types of schools and the operation of caste, class, and gender ideologies within the system are important matters in their own right, the failure to examine systemic transitions from colonial to postcolonial, and its various regional forms, is a major gap. Education system and its private and public subsystems need to be historicized and their power relations understood.

Page 18 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Today, the threatened disintegration of state schooling and rise of private schooling has brought to the fore research agendas which are, again, too narrowly converged around state declared goals. There is a rather misplaced emphasis on the ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ of types of schools in terms of equity and quality (Velaskar 2010). In debating private schooling on these grounds, we might be missing the trees for the woods. Privatization of the elementary sector has to be seen as an integral part of the new political economy of liberalization, and it has led to deregulation of an earlier regulated private sector. Neoliberally inclined researchers, pushing market reform in education, capitalize on the current dysfunctionality of government school system without bothering to analyse the causes for its decay. They cannot be countered on the terrain of quality which, in any case, is a nebulous construction, but on grounds of the implications of their reform model for attaining constitutional goals of equality and social justice. The issue of privatization has to be debated in the wider context of the historical presence of a hierarchical system of schooling which is central to the denial of equal opportunity and of the impact of neoliberal economy. The impact, by all accounts, is of a greater differentiation and polarization of society and education. From the point of view of the upward mobility-seeking poor and lower strata, private schools seem to be fulfilling, to an extent, their educational aspirations. However, what chances do they have in an environment in which middle-class kids are in aggressive competition with each other and family strategies employed to preserve their advantages are getting stronger by the day (Beteille 1991; and Nambissan, 2010)? The issues are complex and need a (p.125) theoretical–historical approach and an ideological commitment to equality and social justice in order to decipher their equalizing potential.

Conclusion: A New Agenda for Sociological Research on Educational Inequality The critical overview has sharply revealed the paucity of theoretical research and pointed out the limited understandings provided by SoEI as it stands today. Undoubtedly, the rich empirical accounts have provided important vignettes of educational reality and enhanced our knowledge of the problems and processes involved in delivering educational opportunity. It is clear that inequalities are rampant, and the careful capturing of context and subtle social and schooling processes leave us in no doubt of the social–structural impact on education. Simultaneously however, the partial, fragmented, and disparate nature of the accounts does not provide a coherent understanding of the directions in which we are moving and of complex conditions that explain situations of educational inequality and their contradictions. It is argued here that this is due to the absence of critical theoretical–historical work on education in sociology and in other social sciences. The issues also need to be confronted on ideological and moral grounds, and there is need to discard the politically conservative approach that frames most of the research.

Page 19 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India The rich body of existing work points to the immense scope for synthesis and theoretical reanalysis, a task that needs to be urgently taken up with a view to making better sense of the unfolding educational reality. However, the major gaps and problems as they emerged in the course of overview and critique may be recapitulated, in the light of which a research agenda may be suggested. In the main, sociologists have avoided asking the important questions regarding links between state, society, and educational change, and their egalitarian implications. The chapter has presented some preliminary ideas, attempted a theoretical clarification of the area, and raised issues for further research. Educational researchers, especially sociologists, need to tread away from the beaten path of viewing education in statist terms and not locating it within the legacy of critical thought. We need to redefine our theoretical preoccupations in the light of past and present political reality. While inequality in access has been studied in empiricist ways, the system itself was left under-critiqued for long. Drawing upon critical (p.126) perspectives, a structural analysis of expansion and organization of the education system must take precedence as an agenda of research. Patterns of expansion, organization, power relations, and control would provide the wider context in which we can inspect how opportunities are constructed for different sections of society and by whom. We need theoretical frameworks that will help examine school–society–state links to examine how education systems themselves are shaped by economic, political, and social forces, and what is its predominant social and political character. The task of exploring the political economy and sociology of iniquitous educational development remains. We need to examine contextual and structural variables associated with quantitative expansion. It is important to connect issues of expansion with problems of access. The issue of school expansion and distribution of educational opportunity have been looked at separately though they are deeply intertwined. This is a problem area even in the educationally advanced United States (Walters 2000). In India, the question is central but not asked: how does provision or types of provision affect participation? What meanings and consequences do existing participations have? On the whole, we have limited understanding of educational macrostructures, and a general absence of longitudinal studies has made it difficult to ascertain educational change and its equalizing and iniquitous effects with any degree of precision. We need such macro perspectives and analysis that would contextualize and frame insights from meso and micro level studies and weave complexities into educational analysis. Systemic studies would need to address how education is moulded at regional and local levels and is changing in response to politics, economy, and aspirations of different social classes and genders. In this context, state policy and the politics and politicization of state structures has remained a weak research area and has not been given the space and analytical centrality it deserves. State, economy, polity, and societal and

Page 20 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India cultural forces and interests are central to analysis of domination and inequality in Indian education and have deep connections to the distribution of opportunity. The present Indian social structure is characterized by new divisions and hierarchical relations of caste–class, ethnic groups, and gender which interact and cross-cut and are held together in complex ways. It is absurd to think that one can study and explain the ramifications of the problem of unequal participation without taking full cognizance of wider sociology of inequality even as we explore it ethnographically at classroom levels. (p.127) Current situations of educational opportunity and participation need to be understood in terms of frameworks that would establish the significant structural processes and identify their primary structural generators in the context of complexly changing forms of social stratification. In reality, several types of stratification coexist, interact, and produce contradictions. These changing realities can be revealed by intersectional analysis of educational participation and educational systems that do not see caste, class, and gender issues in essentialist, homogenized ways. Intersectional analysis that takes account of interacting power structures is germane to a deeper understanding of patterns, trends, and processes of educational expansion, participation, as well as systemic forms. Simultaneously however, it is important not to lose out on the significance of each form of social inequality. Economic conditions and ideological cultural processes, social relations, and social conflicts that emanate from the social structure directly impinge upon inclusions and exclusions and constitute the main forces that shape the educational drama. The development of conceptual frameworks that incorporate and link these intersectional forces to schooling and non-schooling processes of children, not as variables but as central categories and processes, is an important task. Obviously, there is need for radical shifts in perspectives and approach for pursuing the new research agendas of theoretical and historical research and policy analysis. There is a rich body of theories of reproduction, contradiction, change, and resistance. Critical, conflict, interpretive, and critical race and feminist (especially Marxist feminist, Dalit feminist, and Black feminist) theories that mark the contemporary theoretical field in Western SoE need to be critically explored for developing relevant, reflexive frameworks. Some of its conceptual categories may be imaginatively rethought, as also new conceptualizations may be developed that are grounded in our empirical, observational, theoretical, and subaltern understandings of our realities and concerns. Presently, research reflects a rather loosely eclectic and non-rigorous deployment of concepts. We need to develop middle-range theories based on volume of work done and taking into account local histories and structures. In short, the chapter has interrogated the contributions of SoEI in understanding educational inequality and argued that SoE and SoEI have not lived up to the promise of a critical ‘sociological imagination’. The chapter has attempted to Page 21 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India pinpoint the direction in which shifts are required and the main areas that should be broached to illuminate (p.128) current debates in education and explain persistent inequalities. Only the building of a critical and rigorous tradition of sociological enquiry and theorization would counter neoliberal and intellectually conservative onslaughts on knowledge generation which, apart from constructing an ideological defence of its educational agenda, deflect attention from increasing inequality in society and education. References Bibliography references: Acharya, P. 1985. ‘Education: Politics and Social Structure’, Economic and Political Weekly, 20(42): 1785–9. ———. 1996. ‘The Politics of Popular Education’, in T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.), Class Formation and Political Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 388–409. Aggarwal, Y. 2000. An Assessment of Trends in Access and Retention. New Delhi: NIEPA. Aggarwal, Y. and S. Sibou (eds). 1994. Educating Scheduled Castes: A Study of Inter District and Intra Caste Differentials. New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA). Ahmad, K. 1979. ‘Towards a Study of Education and Social Change’, Economic and Political Weekly, 14(4): 157–64. Aikara, J. 1994. Sociology of Education: Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology: Third Survey (Monograph 2). New Delhi: Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). Althusser, L. 1971. ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: “Notes towards an Investigation”’, in L. Althusser (ed.), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books, pp. 242–73. (p.130) Banerjee, R. 1997. ‘Why Don’t Children Complete Primary School? A Case Study of Low Income Neighbourhood in Delhi’, Economic and Political Weekly, 32(32): 2053–63. ———. 2000. ‘Poverty and Primary Schooling: Field Studies from Mumbai and Delhi’, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(10): 795–802. Basu, A. 1991. ‘Research in History of Education: A Trend Report’, in M.B. Buch (ed.), Fourth Survey of Research in Education (1983–1988), Vol. 1. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 87–115 Page 22 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Barrett, M. 1980. ‘The Educational System: Gender and Class’, in M. Barrett (ed.). Women’s Oppression Today—The Marxist Feminist Encounter, London: Verso, pp. 114–51. Beteille, A. 1991. ‘The Reproduction of Inequality: Occupation, Caste, Family’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 25(1): 3–28. Bhatty, K. 1998. ‘Educational Deprivation in India—A Survey of Field Investigations, Parts I and II’, Economic and Political Weekly, 22(27–28): 1731– 40 and 1858–69. Bidwell, C.E and N.E. Freidkin. 1988. ‘The Sociology of Education’, in N. Smelser (ed.), Handbook of Sociology, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 449–71. Britto, R. 1987. ‘Unequal Schools’, Unpublished thesis, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. Buch, M.B. (ed.). 1974. A Survey of Research in Education. Baroda: Centre for Advanced Studies in Education. ———. 1979. Second Survey of Research in Education (1972–78). Baroda: Society for Educational Research and Development. ———. 1986. Third Survey of Research in Education (1978–1983). New Delhi: NCERT. ———. 1991. Fourth Survey of Research in Education (1983–1988), Vol. 1. New Delhi: NCERT. Carnoy, M. 1982. ‘Education, Economy and the State’, in M. Apple (ed.), Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 79–128. Chanana, K. (ed.). 1988. Socialisation, Education and Women: Explorations in Gender Identity. Hyderabad: Orient Longman Ltd. ———. 1991. ‘Research in Sociology of Education: A Trend Report’, in M.B. Buch (ed.), Fourth Survey of Research in Education (1983–1988), Vol. 1. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 116–219 Chatterjee, P. (ed.). 2004. State and Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chitnis, S. (1974) ‘Sociology of Education: A Trend Report’, in Indian Council of Social Science Research, A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol. 2. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 166–232. (p.131) Chitnis, S. 1981. A Long Way to Go. Bombay: Allied Publishers. Page 23 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India ———. 1985. ‘Sociology of Education’, in J.V. Feraria (ed.), A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology (1969–1979). New Delhi: Satvahan, pp. 209–51. Collins, R. 1971. ‘Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification’, American Sociological Review’, 36(December): 1002–19. Dale, R. 1989. The State and Educational Policy. England: Open University Press. De, A., C. Noronha, and M. Samson. 2002. ‘Private Schools for Less Privileged: Some Insights from a Case Study’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(52): 5230– 6. De, A., M. Mazumdar, M. Samson, and C. Noronha. 2000. Private Schools in Basic Education. New Delhi: NIEPA. Desai, A.R. 1967. ‘Social Change and Education Policy’, in M.S. Gore, I.P. Desai, and S. Chitnis (eds), Papers in the Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 91–126. Desai, N. 1991. ‘Research in Women’s Education: A Trend Report’, in M.B. Buch (ed.), Fourth Survey of Research in Education (1983–1988), Vol. 2. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 1393–464. Dreze, J. and H. Gazdar. 1997. ‘UP: The Burden of Inertia’, in J. Dreze and A. Sen (eds), Indian Development Selected Regional Perspectives. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–138. Foster, P. 1977. ‘Education and Social Differentiation in Less-Developed Countries’, Comparative Education Review, Special Issue: The State of the Art, 21(2–3): 211–29. Giroux, H. 1983. ‘Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis’, Harvard Educational Review, 53(3): 257–93. Gore, M.S. 1982. Education and Modernisation in India. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. ———. 1994. Indian Education: Structure and Process. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Gore, M.S., I.P. Desai, and S. Chitnis (eds). 1967. Papers in the Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: NCERT. Gould, H. 1972. ‘Educational Structures and Political Processes in Faizabad District, Uttar Pradesh’, in S. Rudolph and L. Rudolph (eds), Education and

Page 24 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Politics in India: Studies in Organization, Society, and Policy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–120. Govinda, R. (ed.). 2002. India Education Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Haq, E. 1999. ‘Open Education and Closed Society: A Study of Social and Educational Inequalities in Contemporary India’, in K.L. Sharma (p.132) (ed.), Social Inequality in India: Profiles of Caste, Class & Social Mobility. New Delhi: Rawat, pp. 458–72. Jefferey, R., P. Jefferey, and C. Jeffrey. 2005. ‘Social Inequalities and the Privatisation of Secondary Schooling in North India’, in R. Chopra and P. Jeffrey (eds), Educational Regimes in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 41–61. Jha, J. and D. Jhingran. 2002. Elementary Education for the Poorest and Other Deprived Groups. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research. Joshi, P.C. 1986. ‘Reflections on Social Science Research in India’, in T.K. Oommen and P.N. Mukherji (eds), Indian Sociology. Reflections and Introspections. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 138–61 Kamat, A.R. 1985a. Education and Social Change in India. Bombay: Somaiya. Karabel, J. and A.H. Halsey. 1977. ‘Educational Research: A Review and on Interpretation’, in J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey (eds), Power and Ideology in Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–85. Kaul, R. 2001. ‘Accessing Primary Education: Going Beyond the Classroom’, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(2): 155–62. Kaviraj, S. 1997. ‘The Modern State in India’, in M. Doornbos and S. Kaviraj (eds), Dynamics of State Formation. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 225–50. Kelly, G. and G. Elliot (eds). 1982. Women’s Education in the Third World: Comparative Perspectives. New York: State University of New York. Khasnabis, R. and T. Chatterjee. 2007. ‘Enrolling and Retaining Slum Children in Formal Schools—A Field Survey in Eastern Slums of Kolkata’, Economic and Political Weekly, 42(22): 2091–8, 2 June. Kingdon, G.G. 1996. ‘Private Schooling in India: Size, Nature and Equity-Effects’, Economic and Political Weekly, 31(51): 3306–14. Krishnaji, N. 2001. ‘Poverty, Gender and Schooling: A Study of Two Districts in Andhra Pradesh’, in A. Vaidyanathan and P.R.G. Nair (eds), Elementary Education in Rural India: A Grassroots View. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 131–65.

Page 25 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Kumar, R. 2006. ‘Educational Deprivation of the Marginalised: A Village Study of the Mushar Community in Bihar’, in R. Kumar (ed.), The Crisis of Elementary Education in India. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 301–42. Leclercq, F. 2003. ‘Education Guarantee Scheme and Primary Schooling in Madhya Pradesh’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(19): 1855–69. Lieten, G.K. 2000. ‘Children, Work and Education in India’ (Parts I and II), Economic and Political Weekly, 35(24–5): 2037–43 and 2171–78. MacKinnon, C. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Madan, T.N. and B.G. Halbar. 1972. ‘Caste and Community in the Private and Public Education of Mysore State’, in S. Rudolph and L. Rudolph (p.133) (eds), Education and Politics in India: Studies in Organization, Society, and Policy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–47. McCarthy, C. 1997. ‘Liberal and Radical Perspectives on Racial Inequality in Schooling: Making the Case for Nonsynchrony’, Harvard Educational Review, 58(3): 265–79. Mahanta, A. 1994. ‘The Indian State and Patriarchy’, in T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.), State and Nation in the Context of Social Change, Vol. 1. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–131. Naik, J.P. 1997. The Education Commission and After. New Delhi: APH Publishing Company. Nambissan, G.B. 2010. ‘The Indian Middle Class and Educational Advantage: Family Strategies and Practices’, in M. Apple, S. Ball, and L.A. Gandin (eds), The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge, pp. 285–95. Nambissan, G.B. and M. Sedwal. 2002. ‘Education for All: The Situation of Dalit Children in India’, in R. Govinda (ed.), India Education Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 72–86. Narain, I. 1972. ‘Rural Local Politics and Primary School Management’, in S. Rudolph and L. Rudolph (eds), Education and Politics in India: Studies in Organization, Society, and Policy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 148– 64. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). 2000. Fifth Survey of Educational Research (1988–92), Vol. 2, New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training, pp. 814–47.

Page 26 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India ———. 2005. ‘Problems of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Children’. Position Paper of National Focus Group, National Curriculum Framework 2005. New Delhi: NCERT. Nayar, U. 2000. ‘Education of Girls and Women’, in National Council of Educational Research and Training, Fifth Survey of Educational Research (1988– 92), Vol. 2, New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 1692–736. Nieuwenhuys, O. 1999. Children’s Lifeworlds: Gender, Welfare and Labour in the Developing World. New Delhi: Social Science Press. Parry, J. 2005. ‘Changing Childhoods in Industrial Chattisgarh’, in R. Chopra and P. Jeffrey (eds), Educational Regimes in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 276–98. Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) Team. 1999. Public Report on Basic Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rao, M.S.A. 1967. ‘Education, Social Stratification and Mobility’, in M.S. Gore, I.P. Desai, and S. Chitnis (eds), Papers in the Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 127–46. Ramachandran, V. (ed.). 2004. Gender and Social Equity in Primary Education: Hierarchies of Access. New Delhi: Sage. (p.134) Rana, K. and S. Das. 2004. ‘Primary Education in Jharkhand’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(11): 1171–8. Rana, K., A. Rafique, and A. Sengupta. 2002. The Delivery of Primary Education: A Study in West Bengal, The Pratichi Education Report. New Delhi: TLM books in association with Pratichi (India). Rudolph, S. and L. Rudolph (eds). 1972. Education and Politics in India: Studies in Organization, Society, and Policy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sachidananda 1989. ‘Disparities in Elementary Education: A Case Study of Bihar’, in P.R. Panchmukhi (ed.), Studies in Educational Reform in India, Vol. II, Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House, pp. 207–60. ———. 1991. ‘Research in Education of the Disadvantaged: A Trend Report’, in M.B. Buch (ed.), Fourth Survey of Research in Education (1983–1988), Vol. 2. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 1414–64. Shah, B.V. and S.D. Joshi. 1979. ‘Sociology of Education: A Trend Report’, in M.B. Buch (ed.), Second Survey of Research in Education (1972–78). Baroda: Society for Educational Research and Development, pp. 69–135. Sharma, K.L. 1994. Social Stratification and Mobility. New Delhi: Rawat. Page 27 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India Sharma, R. 1997. ‘Dynamics of Learning the 3Rs’, Economic and Political Weekly, 32(17): 891–7, 26 April. Sharma, R. and V. Ramachandran (eds). 2009. The Elementary Education System in India: Exploring Institutional Structures, Processes and Dynamics. New Delhi: Routledge. Shukla, N. 2000. ‘Education of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Minorities’, in National Council of Educational Research and Training, Fifth Survey of Educational Research (1988–92), Vol. 2. New Delhi: NCERT, pp. 1620– 91. Singh, Y. 1974. ‘Sociology of Stratification’, in Indian Council of Social Science Research, A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol. 1. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 137–54. ———. 1977. Social Stratification and Change in India. New Delhi: Manohar. Smock, A.C. 1981. Women’s Education in Developing Countries. New York: Prager Publisher. Tharakan, M.P.K. 1984. ‘Socio-Economic Factors in Educational Development’ (Parts I and II), Economic and Political Weekly, 19(45–6): 1913–28 and 1959–67. Thirtha, N.V. and M. Mukhopadhyay. 1974. ‘Sociology of Education: A Trend Report’, In M.B. Buch (ed.), A Survey of Research in Education. Baroda: Centre for Advanced Studies in Education, pp. 83–134. Tooley, J. and P. Dixon. 2003. Private Schools for the Poor: A Case from India. Reading: CFBT. (p.135) Troyna, B. 1993. Racism and Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Vaidyanathan, A. and P.R.G Nair (eds). 2001. Elementary Education in Rural India: A Grassroots View. New Delhi: Sage. Velaskar, P. 1990. ‘Unequal Schooling as a Factor in the Reproduction of Social Inequality in India’, Sociological Bulletin, 39(1–2): 131–46. ———. 1998. ‘Ideology, Education and the Political Struggle for Liberation: Change and Challenge among the Dalits of Maharashtra’, in S. Shukla and R. Kaul (eds), Education, Development and Underdevelopment. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 210–40.

Page 28 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India ———. 1999. ‘Educational Disparities and Social Process: The Declining Structure of Opportunity for Downtrodden Communities in Contemporary India’, Unpublished manuscript. ———. 2005a. ‘Education, Caste, Gender: Dalit Girls’ Access to Schooling in Maharashtra’, Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 19(4): 459– 82. ———. 2005b. ‘Educational Stratification, Dominant Ideology and the Reproduction of Disadvantage in India’, in S.M. Dahiwale (ed.), Understanding Indian Society: The Non-Brahmanic Perspective. New Delhi: Rawat, pp. 196– 220. ———. 2010. ‘Quality and Inequality in Indian Education Some Critical Policy Concerns in Contemporary Education Dialogue’, 7 (1): 58–93. Waldrop, A. 2004. ‘The Meaning of the Old School-Tie: Private Schools, Admission Procedures and Class Segmentation in New Delhi’, in A. Vaugier– Chatterjee (ed.), Education and Democracy in India. New Delhi: Manohar, pp. 203–27. Walters, P.B. 2000. ‘The Limits of Growth: School Expansion and School Reform in Historical Perspective’, in M. Hallinan (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education. New York: Kluwer Press, pp. 241–61. Weiner, M. 1991. The Child and the State in India: Child Labor and Education Policy in a Comparative Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wolpe, A. 1978. ‘Education and the Sexual Division of Labour’, in A. Kuhn and A. Wolpe (eds), Feminism and Materialism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Notes:

(*) I thank Susheela Ashok for typing assistance and Late Mr V.N. Shenoy for bibliographic assistance in the preparation of this chapter. I also thank Ramila Bisht for editorial help. (1.) See Singh (1974, 1977) and Sharma (1994) for review of studies and discussion of changing forms of stratification in post-independence India. (2.) The following research reviews and chapters in research reviews sponsored and published by National Council of Educational Research and Training (henceforth NCERT) and Indian Council of Social Science Research (henceforth ICSSR ) have been consulted: 1. The NCERT surveys include: Buch, M.B. (ed.) (1974), see in particular chapter by Thirtha and Mukhopadhyay (1974); and Buch (ed.) (1979), see chapter by Shah and Joshi; and Buch (ed.) (1986), especially the chapter by Shah and Joshi; and Buch (ed.) (1991), see chapters by Chanana (1991) and Basu (1991); and Desai (1991) and Sachidananda (1991). Page 29 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India See also chapters by Nayar (2000), Sachidananda (1991); and Shukla (2000). In NCERT (2000) the ICSSR Surveys include: Chitnis (1974); Chitnis (1985); and Aikara (1994). The published research referred to is cited in the text and reference list. (3.) See, for example, Nagaraju (1998); and Tharakan (1984). Occasionally, studies have provided scattered corroboratory evidence. For example, studies presented in Vaidyanathan and Nair (2001) show school supply to be an important factor in access. A well-known fact substantiated again is that school distance reduces the probability of participation, especially for adolescent girls. School availability cannot be taken for granted. It is also a caste and gender issue (Velaskar 2005a). See also Govinda (2002). (4.) Rural Dalits live in spatially segregated clusters or separate habitations in multi-caste villages. In either case, the politics of provision and access makes school attendance difficult. Physical access does not mean social access in places where untouchability is still strongly practised (Nambissan and Sedwal 2002). (5.) Drawn from sources mentioned in the Note 2. (6.) The publication based on this research, entitled A Long Way to Go (Chitnis 1981), presents a cumulative picture, but individual state studies are also available. (7.) See studies in the psychology of education in NCERT sources mentioned in Note 2. See also Aggarwal (2000); and Sachidananda (1989). (8.) See Desai (1991); and Nayar (2000) for coverage of studies done from largely conventional, non-feminist perspectives. (9.) The studies include: Jha and Jhingran (2002); Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) Team (1999); Ramachandran (2004); and Vaidyanathan and Nair (2001). The PROBE report was based on extensive field investigations in four educationally backward states—Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—and one educationally advanced state, Himachal Pradesh. It attempted to size up achievements and unravelled several dimensions of malfunctioning of the government school system. Jha and Jhingran's (2002) study covered 1,077 families belonging to 37 villages spread over 11 districts and 15 urban slums in five cities. Vaidyanathan and Nair’s (2001) study covered eight states and 95 villages; the states include Andhra Pradesh, rural Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu. (10.) See Bhatty (1998); Kaul (2001); Krishnaji (2001); and Kumar (2006).

Page 30 of 31

 

Sociology of Educational Inequality in India (11.) A large number of recent studies focus attention on the functioning of government school system. Apart from studies cited in Note 10, others include: Banerjee (1997, 2000); Bhatty (1998); Leclercq (2003); Lieten (2000); Rana and Das (2004); and Rana et al. (2002). (12.) Several studies cited in Notes 10 and 11 allude to caste and gender discrimination encountered in school. Dalit children are observed to be treated as servants, assigned seats at the back of the classroom, and generally ignored.

Access brought to you by:

Page 31 of 31

 

Does Education Really Change Society?

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Does Education Really Change Society? Theoretical Reflections on a Case Study Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords Sociologists and anthropologists always have a sense of unease over what education is doing to society. Does education really make any difference? Or is it only reproducing inequality? And how can one know the answer? This chapter highlights some of the ways in which recent social theory can help us grapple with these questions. This chapter evaluates the notion that education leads to the reproduction of inequality in society, culture, and economy, and examines the roles played by structure and agency. It argues that a literal interpretation of the reproduction thesis is misleading, and suggests that a more nuanced understanding—with a more differentiated conceptual treatment—is needed. This author identifies the ways by which social theory can help illuminate the role of education in inequality, and discusses the views of Margaret Archer and Anthony Giddens who integrated systemic theorizing with the play of individual agency. In conclusion, the author suggests that we need a vision that encapsulates a wider view of the concrete roles, groups, and processes in society. Only then may one begin to address the question of whether education is making any difference at all. Keywords:   education and improvement, reproducing inequality, educational theory, structure and agency, education and social roles, sociology of education, Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens

Sociologists and anthropologists always have a sense of unease over what education is doing to society. Psychologists can have the satisfaction of seeing Page 1 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? individuals learn and grow. They can point with pride to different developmental stages and people moving up through them. But sociologists remain a disaffected lot. We find it more difficult to reconcile what we see before our eyes with the way we habitually imagine change. We welcome the learning which we see happening in school classrooms, but despair of it having any effect at all on the larger structures of inequality. There does seem to be an increase in the numbers of girl children going to school, but that seems very remote from the idea of overthrowing patriarchy. More of the poor seem to be turning up for at least a little while in the classroom, but newer bases of social exclusion also seem to be getting coined. Does education really make any difference? Or is it only reproducing inequality? And how can one know the answer? I seek to highlight here some of the ways in which recent social theory can help us to grapple with these questions. I shall refer especially to theorists like Anthony Giddens and Margaret Archer who have tended to integrate systemic theorizing with the play of individual agency. The usefulness or otherwise of their concepts and schemes would be examined by drawing illustrations from a field study. (p.137) It may help to make a methodological point before I go any further. Over the last several years, there has emerged a suspicion of meta-narratives in Indian academic circles. Some of its roots lie in the loss of faith in the Nehruvian model of development, with its mega projects, its state industries, and its licence raj. The general atmosphere of disenchantment was only strengthened by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those who are somewhat uneasily called the poststructuralists and post-modernists provided us a language for the questioning of hegemonic narratives. As Derrida (1981) pointed out, every specific meaning was being constituted not by the powerful hand of reality, but by the system of signs which that meaning was part of. Every attempt to find a real correlation for a sign could actually only be decentred into another sign and its system, and another, and another. The unending series of mirrors that ensued put paid to the hope of ever finding certainty in human knowledge. Our heightened awareness of culture, interests and power in the constitution of knowledge has significantly changed the way we think about social life. But it can also express itself in a reluctance to engage in systemic theorization. Our diffidence need not mean that we stop talking about structures altogether. That, regrettably, is a tendency which is visible in many recent Indian studies of educational processes. In them, it appears as if education is operating in a social, economic, and political vacuum. At most, a nebulous entity called ‘political will’ is blamed for not making its presence felt and hence leading to certain consequences in education and society.

Page 2 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? A sense of caution in examining systemic processes is indeed called for. However, the basic epistemological questions being raised were rather overstated in certain variants of post-modernism. Today, more and more people feel that we need not throw the baby out with the bath water. In spite of many and severe obstacles, we cannot escape an ontology which postulates constraining features in society, external to what is constructed within our consciousness. Poverty, for instance, has a structural dimension to it, and what it is in the system that leads to poverty must be identified. To abstain from systemic theorization only weakens our own ability to understand and challenge poverty. For a while it seemed as if the main aim of ethnographic writing was to uncover the hidden agendas of the ethnographers. Now, we need to go back to the question of what is the reality that we are trying to understand. (p.138) With Margaret Archer and Roy Bhaskar (Archer et al. 1998), one can posit a critical realism. One can work with the assumption of a reality which is at least partially knowable and which is not just the product of the socially conditioned imagination of the observer. The challenge is fundamentally one of constituting a subject who is capable of a broader and more general understanding. Since the subject is constituted by individual actions in interaction with a social context, the search for a deeper, truer understanding must include a student’s search for a freer, less obstructive social context. A viable social science, therefore, must be a critical social science. It must have an orientation not of justifying the status quo, but of taking it apart and exploring how we may move towards a better social structure. The decrying of all systemic theorization as the deterministic legacy of Parsons and Marx is perhaps an overreaction that has only weakened our critical potential. Sweeping generalizations continue to be made by theoretically unsophisticated, but resource-rich groups. Generalizations like ‘the universalization of primary schooling will create an orderly society’, or that ‘more engineering colleges are needed for economic development’, and so on. Having turned away from systemic theory, we find ourselves deficient both in the conceptual tools and the empirical studies that can pose alternate understandings of social reality. The critical approach to cultural discourses can help us to understand that neoliberalism underlies a certain portrayal of social reality, but what theoretical tools does one apply to try and understand what engineering colleges are actually doing to our society? In this chapter, I want to address a common generalization about education that it leads to the reproduction of inequality in society, culture, and economy. This is, indeed, a useful theoretical construct with which to challenge a naive educational determinism. However, I wish to argue that a literal interpretation of the reproduction thesis can be quite misleading. A more nuanced understanding is called for, with a more differentiated conceptual treatment.

Page 3 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? Education and Social Structure A discussion of reproduction and change must begin with the idea of social structure. It is only when we sketch out a particular configuration that it becomes possible to ask whether it has changed. A classic approach in the sociology of education(SoE) has been to ask how learning is connected (p.139) to social structure, in the structural functionalist sense of the term. In other words, to see it with reference to the acquisition of roles, to the relations between groups, and to the cultures of various groups. Parsons’ paper, ‘The School Class as a Social System’ (Parsons 1959), presents a conservative view of this, but is still worth reading for the clarity with which he spells out the basic things which education does to a society. In this paper, Parsons says that the elementary school has a social structure which is linked to the two basic functions it performs for society: those of socialization and role allocation. He discusses the structure of the school classroom, by which he means the structure of social roles to be found in it. Parsons then describes what he thinks is the kind of socialization taking place in the classroom and how it contributes to the allocation of roles in society. He declares achievement to be the central principle which organizes the American school and thence America’s social system. He does, in passing, acknowledge that family, gender, and parental wealth have some kind of an effect on the allocation of roles. But he never develops on the implications of those effects for the principle of achievement. Here, we can see the characteristic problem that one encounters again and again when dealing with Parsons: a superb mind, but a deeply conservative slant in the way he interprets American social life. In this case, Parsons was clearly mistaking the official ideology of the American school system to be the same as what was actually happening within it. While Parsons may be correct in pointing out that achievement was by far more important here than in, say, a feudal or a caste society, to gloss over all ascribed factors was to ignore the existence of structural inequality in America. Yet, if we look beyond that conservative aspect of Parsons (and also forgive him his tendency to slip into a functionalist teleology), we find much of value in him. He sets us well onto the path of grasping what education does in a society. The classic set of guidelines Parsons draws out for a sociological inquiry are: (a) start by asking what is the structure of a society—in the sense of its roles and its groups and their interrelationships and their norms; (b) ask how education operates to allocate roles in that society—what kind of selection is taking place, be it howsoever unfair or unjust; and (c) ask what kind of socialization takes place here and what its effect may be on the allocation of roles. We would be making a good start if we learnt to apply at least this part of Parsons’ sociology of education (SoE). And, like Parsons in some of his (p.140) better writings (Parsons 1966, 1977), we could insist that these processes need not always lead Page 4 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? to the integration of society and that we should be open-ended in our assessment of education. There is much more to this, of course, but Parsons exemplifies quite well the kind of framework which still continues to be of considerable importance in any sociological study of education. We can abstract structure into codes and principles, the way the French structuralist tradition had inclined. Or, say that structures are reified through power, as the post-structuralists did. Even so, the injunction to sketch out a structure and, within it, to examine processes of socialization and role allocation remains a very valuable one.

Between Transformation and Reproduction The early modern Indians reflecting on education were often quite sensitive to the question of change at a social structural level. They were aware of the selective processes which education initiates, especially to the impact of power structures on education. Gandhi’s views on colonial education, for instance, had a very sharp awareness of its structural power.1 His posing of a Nayi Talim was informed by a sense that it would expose young people to a radically different kind of socialization. It was expected to draw them into a life path and forms of work which were more conducive to freedom and self-reliance. Thus, eventually, a different kind of society altogether would be created. A society where villages, for instance, would no longer occupy the bottom-most rung of the social structure. Gandhi’s approach to education throws in sharp relief another dimension—and limitation—of the Parsonian perspective. The latter is primarily focused on social mobility, that is, on how people move up or down or laterally in the various positions that are given in a society. Gandhi’s interest, however, is of a much more radical orientation. He is not interested in how to get more and more people into positions of being lawyers and civil servants under the British. Gandhi is interested in transforming the social order itself. This interest in a larger, broader, and more fundamental transformation continues to inform the best of Indian sociology of education. However, when it comes to educational practice, the transformational, structural perspective slips into a secondary position. Krishna Kumar has discussed the resistance offered to Nayi Talim by classes whose positions (p.141) would have been threatened if such a re-ordering of society had taken place (Kumar 1996). In place of Nayi Talim emerges an almost naive set of practices which equates the spread of conventional schools with the acquisition of socially and economically valuable skills, and thereby social mobility. While lip service continues to be paid to the idea of education for social change, it is rarely translated into institutional realities. There is almost a loss of interest in wanting to rock the boat, so to speak.

Page 5 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? Most of what seem to me the important writings in Indian SoE in the 1980s and the 1990s are dedicated to questioning and qualifying the above conservatism. Velaskar (1990), for instance, reviewed the various studies that described and analysed inequality in Indian education. While she was willing to concede that some structural change did indeed take place here, her conclusions emphasized that at the end of it all, only a reproduction of inequality was occurring. Similarly, Kumar (1987) examines educational processes to make the cutting observation that what is taking place is primarily just a reproduction of elites. The notion of reproduction seems to emerge as a damnation of the claims that this kind of education is leading to any kind of constructive change. Marxist, feminist, subaltern, and other critical streams in the social sciences converge to challenge the feel-good picture of the growth of our schools leading automatically to greater justice and well-being. The central processes leading to reproduction are described as operating through restrictions on access to schooling and through selections occurring in the micro interactions of learning. The criteria and content of selection were dominated by certain cultures, leading to the perpetuation of inequality.

Reflecting on Reproduction: A Case Study Without giving in to the rosy image of education being equal to national growth, one must still note an important difficulty in the reproduction thesis. We do see all around us evidences of some kind of changes happening. For instance, in Velaskar’s (1998) sweeping historical narrative of Dalit educational efforts, at one point, she seems to feel a lot of difference has indeed been made. But her conclusion again is one of the reproduction of inequality. How exactly do these two apparently opposite processes connect with each other? How does one theoretically grasp this situation and tease out the processes involved and eventually build a clearer vision of what is happening here? (p.142) To discuss some ways of moving on from where we are at present, it may be helpful to work with a case study. In the years 1995–7, I had done fieldwork in a tehsil called Fatehabad in the western side of Haryana. I think that the study,2 even though more than a decade old, can be useful here because it tried to take a wide-angle view of the social context of education. In trying to understand reproduction of a society or the allocation of roles in it, what becomes essential is not to restrict one’s study to educational institutions alone. One needs to look at the larger structure of roles and groups and their relationships, and only then can one begin to grasp what exactly schooling is doing to those roles, or those groups, or to the cultures of those groups, and so on. This, however, is immediately obvious to be a very, very complex task—to develop a sort of a summarized vision of all that is happening in an entire society is a huge and perhaps unachievable goal.

Page 6 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? In my study, to begin to get a grasp of the links of education with larger structures, it seemed a better idea to narrow the study down to just a small set of activities with a restricted scope, and not get into trying to understand the dynamics of an entire society. At that time, I was involved with a group in Delhi3 that was interested in working with the rural poor and combining for them an education as well as a livelihood. In India, cattle rearing for milk production has been a route that suggests itself immediately as a means of increasing the income of the rural poor. At that time, an optional course in animal husbandry was being offered in Haryana’s high schools, so this suggested a good opportunity for making a comparative study. I started off, then, by looking at the learning of cattle rearing for milk production, both in the community and in the school, and their respective sociological consequences. So as to gain a more comprehensive picture, I made the tehsil of Fatehabad4—which comprised of 86 villages spread around the small town of Fatehabad—as the universe of my study. The research design was exploratory and quasi-participant fieldwork was combined with open-ended interviewing and opportunistic sampling. The learning and practice of cattle rearing was studied primarily in one village and in the town, and backed up by visits to eight other villages. At the time that I did my fieldwork, the tehsil of Fatehabad had been using green revolution technologies for over a generation and their impact on the local society had been considerable. The town of Fatehabad, in particular, had grown a lot, with most of its growth being in the tertiary sector. While it is quite plausible that relative inequality (p.143) grew, the much-feared pauperization was not visible. The overall economy had grown and the gross wealth of most people had also increased. When one examines sociologically the place of education in a society, such a rapid and substantial change in the social context may be a process of considerable significance. In Fatehabad, large numbers of people had been drawn into the town from the villages, and the amount of trade and services being offered from there had leapt upwards. The consequences of economic growth for the opportunities available to people and to the role structures had been extensive. If we focus on just one thread in the complex, multi-textured mosaic of Fatehabad—the thread that runs though in the form of cattle-rearing—then one finds that it, too, had seen serious change over the last couple of generations. Earlier, cattle were the main source of draught power, along with being the source of milk and ghee. A very visible change had been the drastic drop in the number of draught cattle, with only the females of various breeds still being sought after. The place of cattle in people’s lives had become now predominantly that of producers of milk, alone. Milk and its various products—ghee, sweetmeats, and so on—had since long been of central importance in the meanings related to consumption and the family. These were the symbols of well-being, of goodness, of health, of love, and Page 7 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? of caring. Milk products conveyed rich and special meanings in the material exchanges that took place between members of the family and kin. Adding ghee to the food of visiting members of affinal groups, for instance, was part of the basic etiquette. Not doing so would be to convey messages of inhospitality and to invite trouble. A consequence of the growth of wealth had been that the use of milk and its products had risen sharply. This had expanded both the symbolic exchanges and reciprocities that milk was part of, as well as the commercial economy that had grown up around it. In spite of its growth, cattle rearing remained primarily a rural activity. In the town, milk itself had several meanings, but milk production was overwhelmingly seen as a dirty, inferior work. It was restricted to certain communities with relatively low ranks in the local prestige system. In the villages, the rearing of cattle, of course, was hardly looked upon in the same way, with the majority of households having one to four animals. However, the villagers’ increasing engagement with the town and the market was also leading to a growing pressure of dealing with how townsfolk looked upon this aspect of rural life. (p. 144) The organization of cattle work was mostly along the lines of the family’s structure, with a near absence of dairies operating entirely on commercial grounds with the use of hired labour. Children began to learn to feed and care for cattle around the age of 6–7 years and by the age of about 15 years, they could take independent charge of an animal. The larger part of the local population was composed of Bagri speakers, who saw cattle rearing as primarily women’s work. The Punjabis were numerically less, though they had a disproportionate economic presence. Amongst the Punjabis as well, as amongst Bagri-speaking Bishnois, more men seemed to be directly involved in cattle rearing than women. The division of domestic labour had implications for the consequences of schooling, as we shall see later. In this fast-growing economy, an important set of roles that expanded here was of those related to the marketization of milk and its products. While the intangible domestic meanings of milk carried on and gained new nuances, this symbol of motherhood and care became increasingly intertwined with commercial exchange and with money. Similar patterns of the growth of commercial exchange and its meanings were also to be seen in the practices of rearing and caring for cattle. The cow used to be the pet of the house—children would play with it and give it loving names. Now, it was the buffalo, with its higher priced milk and greater yield, which was the animal of choice, and it was not as docile or domesticated as the cows it was replacing. Cattle were increasingly part of carefully calculated arrangements, responsive to the logic of supply and demand. The market, its logic and its agents, was gaining another means of direct entry into people’s homes.

Page 8 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? The learning of cattle rearing for those who combined it with domestic work, which was the overwhelming proportion, occurred through two kinds of agencies. The first was the primary socialization taking place within the family and the neighbourhood. The second was the daily interaction with milkmen or dudhiye, the intermediaries who bought the milk and delivered it to the final consumer in the town. The milkmen provided an important interface with the town and the market, teaching commercial skills, lending money, procuring cattle feed, and so on.

Schools and Cattle Rearing Schools, let us keep in mind, teach knowledges and practices whose significance (or lack of it) is defined by reference to the distribution of linked processes in the rest of society. The place of schools and what they (p.145) teach must be examined in the light of the cultural systems that they are a part of. With this must be combined their place in the selection and allocation of roles in their social structure. That holds true for Fatehabad and the learning of cattle rearing too, irrespective of whether it is in school or outside. The knowledges and practices relevant for us are linked to milk, its meanings and its exchanges, and to the cattle themselves. In particular, we are interested in how social structures of cattle rearing and milk production may or may not be changing and how that is connected with local schools. Schools in Fatehabad were seen primarily not as a virtue in themselves, but as a means of access to the world of the market and the state. When restricting ourselves to the domain of cattle rearing alone, we can see that the learning of meanings and the allocation of roles was patterned in important ways, here, too. A common observation was that in families that could afford it, boys were soon pulled out of domestic labour and pushed to focus on school learning. Those allocated the roles of cattle rearing were the girl children and the poorer sections, which were largely made up by the Dalits. Courses on agricultural knowledges had been taught in Haryana’s schools since British times. At the time this study was conducted, courses in animal husbandry were being taught in Classes 9 and 10 as an optional subject (rather inaccurately) called pashu vigyan or ‘animal science’. At first glance, this seemed remarkably well matched for the local economy and its opportunities. To understand what was actually happening here, however, let us first consider the distribution of schools and the access to them. There was a primary government school in every village, though these schools were usually not present in dhanis or smaller hamlets. Private schools, of course, were present everywhere, with a ratio of about three or four private primary schools to each government school. The middle school which prepared students for a board exam at the end of Class 8 was in about two-thirds of all the villages here, and high schools were in about one-third of the villages. I was told by school teachers that there was a dropout rate of about 50 per cent whenever the next class was not available in the same Page 9 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? village. What this meant was that girls and Dalits, who were usually the first to drop out even in primary school, were further filtered out when it came to a question of going to another village or to the town to study. The optional course on animal husbandry was taught in the high schools (Classes 9 and 10), at the end of which a board examination was (p.146) conducted. Given the large-scale dropping out from school that took place here, the students who made it up to these classes were those whose families had already committed to hopes of a certain life trajectory. Those who had dropped out sought to make their livelihood through the family’s land, or working as apprentices at garages in the town, or learnt household work at home, or worked as hired agricultural labour, etc. There were already several kinds of selections and role allocations occurring here. One observation was that the Dalits and girl children, whose economic predicament would have benefited the most from learning some improved veterinary practices, were those who were most unlikely to be able to study the course on animal husbandry. Those who stayed on in school for 9 or 10 years were looking for something else in life. Their families saw this as a possible pathway into the ways of power that were connected to the town and the market. It was possible that some of these boys would do well in studies and get a toehold into some kind of urban employment. Or, at least that they would become familiarized with the language and ways of babus and government officials and be better equipped to deal with that mysterious, esoteric being called the government application form. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, to observe that among most high school students, pashu vigyan was not a sought-after course. This turning away from veterinary and agricultural ways was connected with a basic cleft between two different clusters of roles, of their relative ranks in Fatehabad, and of the distribution of symbolic power in society. Cattle rearing was repeatedly described by townsfolk as a dirty and, significantly, a rural kind of work. The cultural milieu of the schools themselves was markedly urban in tone. The other optional courses offered included the genteel Sanskrit and fine arts and these were what most students chose. Choosing ‘animal science’ was a relapse into the world that school was being seen as a means of escaping. Even the teachers did not want to teach it and over the years, only two schools were left that were still offering it. These were large government schools in the town and a big village, respectively. The school textbooks (Rana 1993, 1994) were another site of tension between the two cultures. They were perceived by most of the textbooks’ readers as having been written by urban and university-based peoples. The textbooks had a different approach to cattle rearing from the meanings and practices that the students were brought up in. Most of the techniques taught were those closely associated with the knowledges of the agricultural (p.147) university, and a disparaging tone was adopted towards local practices. Besides, most of the text Page 10 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? was so dense and poorly written that students found it quite difficult to comprehend and internalize. Interestingly, this did little damage to their selfesteem. Almost all the students who chose this optional subject were from rural areas and they had long internalized a contempt of the expert from the agricultural university. While they were inclined to distance themselves from their rural roots, they were also quite touchy about being spoken down to. What was written in the textbook was broadly seen as ‘bookish’ knowledge, and declared to be of use only to mug up and reproduce in the exams. In their middle teens, they had seen and often even practised with their own hands the local techniques, which seemed to be working well enough. Matters were not helped if, as at one school, the teacher who taught ‘animal science’ was a timid town dweller. This teacher was at the bottom of the school’s pecking order, which was why he had been given this course that no one else wanted to teach. He told me sheepishly that all the kids knew much more than him and he would start off every academic year by saying, ‘Look, I know this book is of little use to you, but you have to memorize it for the exams’. Trying to understand how these school textbooks might have led to some change, I had sought out many grown-ups who had studied animal husbandry in their school days. I specifically asked them what they could recall of those books and what use they had made, if any, of the textbooks’ contents. A certain, though small, amount of learning did seem to have been retained over the years. The main answer was that the books had told them about the details of artificial insemination. This was a knowledge that guided important choices later as adults handling their own family’s cattle. It was indeed contributing to some small transformations of local practices of cattle rearing. However, the impact of schooling was not limited to veterinary knowledges alone. Schools were teaching these students some other important lessons too. One basic thing, which was common to almost all aspects of schooling, was the learning of a lack of faith in the norms of institutions. The school had little legitimacy in the eyes of most students and was perceived as just something which one had to somehow endure so as to get ahead in life. The institutional violence of the school was felt to be hollow and futile. Very few got jobs because of their school certificates. Young people drew the lesson that you had to innovate and (p.148) mix and match and try to figure out by yourself what worked best. And one had to learn to manipulate a mindless, brutal system. The cynicism and opportunism which these students learnt was to be an important factor in how they approached the rest of their lives, where they had to interact more and more with the world that schools were associated with, that is, the town and the market. That was another thing which schools taught—the power of these loci. It was a lesson that was reaffirmed again and again. And they were

Page 11 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? never allowed to forget that their rural origins stamped them as inferior and crude beings. When students from rural backgrounds finally gave up trying to find middleclass work in the towns and went back to their farms, the way they looked upon their ancestral work could be seen to have undergone a subtle but significant change. Their approach to farming and to cattle rearing was qualitatively different from their fathers’, but not exactly in the way that the textbooks had intended. The schooled villagers formed a distinct status group, eager to distance oneself from the rest of the village, open to any quick opportunity to rise, and a little scornful of conventional norms and values. Given the above thumb-nail sketch of the learning of cattle rearing in Fatehabad, let us turn again to the question of what was happening here: was anything changing at all? Or was there taking place simply a reproduction of culture and the economy? While many themes and patterns were being reinforced and reproduced, it scems only an incomplete picture is being provided by the notion of ‘reproduction of inequality’. Many deep trends were changing, too. But how does one conceptualize the larger picture?

Structure and Agency One important way of theoretically examining this has been offered in recent years by the writings that have emerged around the problem of structure and agency. Some of the ideas and perspectives developed in them may give us a better grip on the question of the reproduction of inequality. The themes of structure and agency counterpose two diametrically opposite ways of looking at society as well as two distinct sites of social inquiry. The theme of agency has been examined closely in the work of symbolic interactionists and phenomenological sociologists, who drew forth the fluidity of all social interaction. They pointed out (p.149) that meanings held by actors were being continually negotiated and all relationships were being constructed and reconstructed in everyday life. Many of the empirical studies that came to highlight what was called ‘resistance’ in education were imbued with such theoretical and methodological orientations. These studies emphasized human agency and all its possibilities. In sharp contrast to them were studies which talked of ‘structures’, initially in the sense of the structural functionalists and later, more often in the sense of the French structuralists, with their inclination towards the longue duree. Structures had a profound inertia and seemed to be so deeply embedded as to be virtually unshakeable. Individual actions did not make much of a difference and usually fed back into the reproduction of a structure. Late industrial capitalism was seen as reproducing itself through a variety of processes, prominent among which was the educational system. Now, which of these two conflicting visions of human affairs was the reality?

Page 12 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? Anthony Giddens has been one of the major theorists who sought to resolve this cleft and integrate the two themes of structure and agency. What came to be known as structuration theory rested on the notions of structure, system, and the duality of structure. Giddens used system to refer to social relations between constituent groups, somewhat as the structural functionalists did, and kept the notion of structure as equivalent to the deep, underlying codes that Basil Bernstein and some structuralists seemed to have been talking about. Giddens differed from the French structuralists in his open-ended approach to structure. He saw structures as dynamically constituted principles, rules, and relationships. They were continually being constructed, reproduced, and disintegrated. For Giddens, the notion of agency included the many microactions that went into building the larger patterns of life. Every action reinforced certain structures and challenged others. Societies were reflexive at all levels of their processes. Hence, he argued, it was much more useful to talk of the notion of structuration rather than merely structures (Giddens 1984). Archer (1996), another British sociologist, adds an important set of ideas to such an understanding. Drawing from David Lockwood’s classic essay on social integration and system integration (Lockwood 1964), she points to the importance of analytical dualism. In the reflexive model of society developed by Giddens, the processes through which reflexivity operates are still not very clear. Archer supports Lockwood’s analytical (p.150) and conceptual separation of what real people and real groups do from the systemic features of their interactions. This enables her to now talk in terms of a culture’s dynamics without slipping into the dichotomies of reproduction or resistance. She sees actions as leading to the possible, but not necessary, elaboration of morphologies of society. If morphologies do indeed change, then there may also result a change in the systemic context of action, in turn leading to different possibilities of action emerging. Thus, there may be either a morphostasis or a morphogenesis emerging through individual actions. Eventually, there may be a stasis of a society and its culture or there may be an elaboration of forms.

Reproduction and Change in Fatehabad The discussed perspectives on structure, agency, and reflexivity suggest ways of going beyond reproduction in looking at what education may be doing to a society.5 When we look at Fatehabad through these conceptual lenses, we can now see a much richer pattern than that depicted through the bald notion of a reproduction of inequality. Within the family and in the schools having pashu vigyan, a series of learnings were taking place, some of which reinforced traditional practices and knowledges and some of which led away from them. Of the departing trajectories, many led into what, while being careful about not stereotyping cultures, can still be called a rival culture, with a distinct set of norms, roles, and structures. This had the bureaucratized state and commercial, commoditified Page 13 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? exchange at its core. But many learnings in the school seemed to lead nowhere in particular, with little legitimacy or opportunity for their application. The socialization and allocation of roles that took place was contributing to atrophy and morphostasis along with morphogenesis. A new structural player, a new status group, was being preferentially produced, whose coming into existence changed the configuration of society. The new status group being generated here was that of the schooled villager, who was already changing the dynamics of the village. It was quite possible that this new status group would eventually alter the basic rules of the game. Education here was leading into several kinds of dissonances too, within the older social structure. The socialization taking place did seem to be having an effect of making people unsuited to their traditional roles in the family and the village. It encouraged norms which made them misfits in the (p.151) old ways. It gave them skills and orientations (for example, opportunism and disdain for traditional authority) that were conducive to making the shift to urban and commercialized locales. There appeared here at least two different types of lives and roles: those oriented towards non-commercial exchanges (with a greater concentration in the village); and those oriented towards commercial exchanges (both in the village and in the town, though with a greater concentration in the latter). School education, in Fatehabad, had a tendency to move people from one towards the second. One may contrast the two kinds of social centres through of the kind of distributions of milk and its product, and the meanings of them; that is, between generalized reciprocity on the one hand, and commercial exchange (or the market) on the other. It should be noted that schools could have led to many other kinds of things happening here, too. The local sets of concepts could have been enriched (some, only a few, new ideas do emerge here), new skills could have been taught (which are virtually not), etc. However, the major thing which did emerge was only through the indirect effect of the school; call it the hidden curriculum if you like. And this was the learning of the basic process of commercialization. Such an open-ended perspective of structure and action cannot be reduced to the generalization of ‘reproduction of inequality’. It is possible that once a complete transition has been made, as in the mature industrial societies, it may qualify to be called so. It is possible that such societies may have stabilized and have no major challenges to their power structure and no longer show new outgrowths. But if all that was taking place was reproduction, then the end of history has also arrived. Luckily, there still appear to be other processes at work. In conclusion, the discussion above suggests that we need a vision that encapsulates a wider view of the concrete roles, groups, and processes in society. Only then may one begin to address the question of whether education is Page 14 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? making any difference at all. It is through a real and grounded examination of what education is doing there can one work out the true effect of it in society. And the starting questions to ask remain what Parsons had spelt out: what are the socializations and allocations of roles? Only, let us not assume from the beginning that a certain kind of structure of roles or groups is present and continues to prevail. In one sense, this is indeed a questioning of a certain metanarrative. But it is not a dissolution into post-modern uncertainty and a questioning of all possible meta-narratives. It is a posing of multiple large-scale processes (p.152) and a call for the examination of their presence and of their implications and of the emancipatory possibilities that they may create. This opening up of an ability to understand multiple processes is an important qualification of the critique of dominant cultures and social formations which is embedded in the work of the reproduction theorists, while at the same time, applying that critique into our Indian situations. Pierre Bourdieu, for instance, was writing in a society where a certain kind of industrial capitalism had taken up a hegemonic position. The oppositions to be seen there were not as diverse as the ones we must contend with. Ours is a markedly different context, where feudal remnants and different models of industrialization still jostle for space and primacy. It is this plurality of systems that constructs the space for hope and which needs to be understood so as to be able to assess present interventions and to design more suitable ones. References Bibliography references: Archer, M.S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M.S., R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, and A. Norrie (eds). 1998. Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (p.153) Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Oxford: Polity. Derrida, J. 1981. ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’, in Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 278–94. Gandhi, M.K. 1991[1945]. Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Trust. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Page 15 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? Kumar, K. 1987. ‘Reproduction or Change: Education and Elites in India’, in R. Ghosh and M. Zachariah (eds), Education and the Process of Change. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 27–41. ———. 1996. ‘Agricultural Modernisation and Education: Contours of a Point of Departure’, Economic and Political Weekly, 31(35/37): 2367–73. Lockwood, D. 1964. ‘Social Integration and System Integration’, in G.K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds), Explorations in Social Change. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 244–57. Parsons, T. 1959. ‘The School Class as a Social System: Some of its Functions in American Society’, Harvard Educational Review, 29(4): 297–318. ———. 1966. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ———. 1977. The Evolution of Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rana, Z.S. 1993. Pashu Vigyan – I. Bhiwani: Haryana School Education Board. ———. 1994. Pashu Vigyan – II. Bhiwani: Haryana School Education Board. Velaskar, P. 1990. ‘Unequal Schooling as a Factor in the Reproduction of Inequality in India’, Sociological Bulletin, 39(1–2): 131–45. ———. 1998. ‘Ideology, Education and the Political Struggle for Liberation: Change and Challenge among the Dalits of Maharashtra’, in S.C. Shukla and R. Kaul (eds), Education, Development and Underdevelopment. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 210–40. (p.154) Notes:

(*) I am indebted to Kalyani Dike Madan, who made this chapter possible. (1.) Consider, for instance, these words of his: ‘But experience has shown that the lure of the current education, though it is false and unnatural, is too much for the youth of the country. College education provides a career. It is a passport for entry to the charmed circle’ (Gandhi 1991: 25). (2.) I had submitted it as my PhD dissertation. I am grateful to Avijit Pathak, whose support and stimulation was responsible for shaping it. The gaps and errors remained primarily because of my own intransigence. (3.) Dinesh Abrol and Upendra Trivedi of the All India People’s Science Network taught me a great deal about the rural economy and the way networks operate in it.

Page 16 of 17

 

Does Education Really Change Society? (4.) Fatehabad was at that time a part of Hissar district, famous all over the country for the quality of its milch cattle. Within Hissar, Fatehabad was said to have the most progressive and innovative use of agricultural technology. (5.) So would Pierre Bourdieu’s writings on habitus and reflexivity (Bourdieu 1990, 1998), if his work on education had not been directed primarily at a rebuttal of the liberal view that conventional education could lead to greater equality. But that is beyond the scope of this chapter.

Access brought to you by:

Page 17 of 17

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation Voices and Encounters in an Indian School Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0008

Abstract and Keywords This chapter investigates the connections between gender, childhood, and work, using ethnographic data from a primary school (with students from nearby slums) in the city of Baroda in Gujarat, India. It examines the influence of the subjective social experiences of students and teachers in the development of official knowledge about work roles, citizenship, and the nation state. The author presents an analysis of classroom interactions which revealed an overwhelmingly stereotyped response of the children (and teachers) who believe that a strong nation is one in which women and men consensually perform their ‘natural’ productive roles in the economy, and who strengthen their capabilities through hard work. Implicit to this understanding was a certain hierarchization of work, based on gender, class, and caste; as well as emphasis on success in education as a precursor to achieving success in the ‘right’ occupations. The author points out that care should be taken that class lessons/interactions should not delimit (by class and caste hierarchies and gender stereotypes) the range of occupations available to learners. To deny the emancipatory promise of education to poor children in a stratified society is to also deny the possibility of individual children possessing agency to struggle against social barriers to ‘achieve success’ through education. Keywords:   gender roles, work and gender, work stereotypes, delimiting options, childhood and work, primary school learning, education and emancipation, Baroda, work and citizenship, classroom interactions

Page 1 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation It is widely acknowledged that schooling plays a critical role in shaping childhood identity. The school is the first formal social institution children encounter and constitutes the most important site of socialization into the norms, values, and ideologies of the modern nation state. Textbooks, embodying what some scholars have referred to as ‘official knowledge’, constitute the principal vehicle for the transmission of these ideologies, reflecting the ‘distribution of power and the principles of social control’ in society (Bernstein 1977: 85). Textbook knowledge both frames as well as normativizes the relationship of children’s education to the ideals of national development. This is achieved most explicitly through the selection of content in textbooks, but also through representation in terms of style, genre, and form. Social experiences and subjectivities that students and teachers bring to the classroom mediate pedagogic processes involved in transacting ‘official’ knowledge about citizenship and the nation state. This chapter attempts to explore these processes through three modes: analysis of a lesson from a language textbook; classroom discussion around this lesson; and interviews with children. It draws on data from ethnographic fieldwork in a municipal primary school in the industrial city of Baroda (Vadodara) in Gujarat.1 The lesson discussed here, titled ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ (Who will become what?), from a Class 4 Hindi language textbook, addresses a range of occupations available to children when (p.158) they enter the world of adulthood. The chapter attempts to show the complex ways in which gender, class, caste, and nation interweave in dominant constructions of what constitutes ‘work’, and help us to understand the significance of these constructions to the life worlds of children—in this particular case, urban working-class children. Intersecting debates on the construction of childhood and sociological debates on gender and schooling inform this chapter and the following sections discuss these in brief.

Childhoods and Education A dominant strand in discourses of childhood, work, and education is constituted by the debates on child labour and child rights. Child labour is viewed as a fundamental deterrent to enrolling and keeping children from low-income families in school, particularly in developing countries. While a thorough review of the literature is beyond the scope of this chapter, an important point of debate lies in the definitions themselves. Scholars of childhood have pointed to the need to distinguish between the categories of ‘work’ and ‘labour’ while discussing and engaging with the lives of children from poor and economically marginalized communities (Raman 2000). The category of ‘work’ has an organic relationship with children’s socialization, and even when directly ‘productive’ (such as fetching water and fuel or cattle grazing), it is not tied to monetary compensation. ‘Labour’, on the other hand, is related to wage earning and generally, although not always, associated with processes of modern industrial production. The work/labour distinction begs greater clarity not only for sharpening the debate on children’s rights, particularly in the context of Page 2 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation employment in hazardous industries and under exploitative conditions, but also for adequately addressing the needs and rights of poor parents struggling under conditions of poverty to meet the needs of family survival (Raman 2000). This distinction has historically been mired in controversy within colonial and postcolonial discourses of modernity, where children of the poor are positioned as subjects of national and global reform agendas (Balagopalan 2002; and Bissell 2003). The seminal work of Ariès (1962) showed how the modern Western conception of childhood as a distinct and separate stage of life emerged over the early period of industrialization in Europe, as children were removed from the real world of work, sexuality, and politics, and (p.159) submitted to adult supervision and stewardship in structures of family oriented around the child and his education in the broader sense. The institutionalization of education was a critical moment in the recognition of childhood as a distinct stage in the human life cycle (Ariès 1962: 412). As the time spent by children in educational institutions increased dramatically over the twentieth century, education itself emerged as a marker for the transition to adulthood (Postman 1982). It is this notion of childhood and the educated child, with its roots in the specific historical contexts of Western capitalism, that is offered as a model for the rest of the world (Raman 2000: 4056). A universal category of childhood as a stage of innocence and frailty linked to the moral–ethical imperative of provision of responsible adult tutelage and supervision has come to establish itself as a hegemonic norm. In fundamental opposition to the notion of the labouring child, this category has come to demarcate the modern from the underdeveloped, especially in debates on child labour and child rights (Nieuwenhuys 1996; and Raman 2000). Yet, these apparent ruptures are, in reality, far more complex. In her study of former garment workers in Bangladesh, Bissell (2003) shows that in terms of children’s own experiences, childhood is a many-layered construction. The contexts of these children’s lives were defined by global discourses that seek to ‘restore’ childhoods to working children in the Third World by imposing trade sanctions on countries that export goods produced by children; in this case, by the United States (US) on Bangladesh via the Harkins Bill (Bissell 2003: 55). By classifying themselves as ‘big’, ‘small’, ‘in the middle’, children’s narratives not only spoke of their life experiences of poverty, deprivation, and the necessity of earning a livelihood for household survival, but also reflected their notions of self-worth, achievement, and relative autonomy within the family and household (Bissell 2003: 59–64). The idea of work, in particular work related to traditional artisanal and other productive domains of the village economy, was central to the philosophy and pedagogy of Gandhi's Nai Talim programme. Based on a critique of colonial education, Nai Talim attempted to disrupt the mental–manual binary that operates as a fundamental principle of ‘modern’ education. Here, as Talib (2003: 158) notes, ‘work, as labour, is understood as a creative principle of life’. The Page 3 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation system that was put into place in several regions of the country from the 1930s was phased out under pressures exerted by larger compulsions of modernization in the post-independence (p.160) era, giving way to the consolidation of a discourse of modern schooling in the nation state with a particular image of the child learner at its core (Kumar 1998). This schoolchild is one who is free, unburdened, in need of supervisory protection and care, and most importantly, capable of giving focused—and singular—attention to learning. This ideal child learner typically emerges as middle class, urban, and male (National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] 2006a: 21). The lived realities of all ‘other’ categories of children in Indian society, marked by distinct identities of class, caste, gender, ethnicity, religion, and region, are far removed from this ideal. The normativizing of a notion of childhood in discourses of education in post-colonial India involves the denial of such children’s experiences and their absence from knowledge presented to learners (NCERT 2006b: 13; and Vasanta 2004). The ideological content of schooling in India, its ‘official knowledge’, and the larger frameworks that guide its governance and routine functioning impact social interactions in schools and act to embed these normative ideals in everyday school life. Ethnographic studies in the Indian context (Kumar 1989; Scrase 1993; and Talib 2003) illustrate how, for children outside the pale of these ideals—poor disenfranchised adivasi, peasant, and working-class children —textbook knowledge and its transaction in classrooms can serve to create a sense of lack, of backwardness, and inevitable social and educational failure. The structural violence that marks them as unworthy subjects of development is mirrored in schools through the symbolic violence exercised by the curriculum as a mechanism of social control, by which their knowledge and ways of being are deemed illegitimate to the larger nation-building project of formal education. Such children are placed outside the bounds of educability and internalize this value of ‘beyond being educated’ as an immutable aspect of their identity. As a child from a community of quarry workers in Talib’s study poignantly put it, ‘my head does not carry a brain, it is actually filled with bhoosa (hay)’ (Talib 2003: 148).

Representations and Identities Research in the sociology of education (SoE) has attempted to uncover ideologies and processes of education that reproduce social inequalities through the distribution of status and privilege in society. Much of this work draws on an understanding of the linkages between education and (p.161) social stratification within capitalist societies—the interrelationships between education on the one hand, and occupation, income, and status on the other. A framework that explores the ‘black box’ of schooling to examine educational processes underlying these linkages would necessarily have to account for the structural and situational contexts within which the legitimacy that education as a state apparatus seeks to claim for itself is constructed, in however Page 4 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation contradictory a fashion, as well as account for possibilities of resistance and social change (Apple and Weis 1983). Willis’ (1977) book, Learning to Labour, showed how young working-class boys, by contesting dominant middle-class ideologies of education through an oppositional school culture embodying White aggressive masculinity, create the conditions of their own future class position as workers. Willis’ work represents a decisive shift in analysing social reproduction of class inequality, through close examination of schools as sites of cultural production involving political and cultural struggle. Feminist scholarship points to the ways in which educational ideals and their representations in school curriculum and practices are mediated by gender in all societies. In the Indian context, feminist sociologists have shown how patriarchal controls arising from structures of caste, class, and religion have historically structured and reinforced gender asymmetries and hierarchies and acted to reproduce educational inequalities of access, provision, and attainment of girls, particularly those belonging to marginalized groups (Chanana 1990, 2003; and Velaskar 1990). Feminist sociologists of education have drawn attention to the gendered nature of educational discourses, both at the level of theory as well as practice. Feminist scholars (Deem 1980; Weiler 1988; and Wolpe 1978) have shown how understanding of the sexual division of labour in society has eluded even the more critical traditions within the sociology of education from which much of their work is derived. Research on school curricula has been particularly significant in showing how hegemonic ideas about gender roles are fundamental to what children learn in school about the social world and their place within it. The image of the world presented to learners through the school curriculum is a ‘naturalized’ world of male dominance quite removed from children’s social experiences (Bhog 2002). The sheer pervasiveness and stability of such naturalized forms appears in no uncertain terms to reflect the commitment of the state to maintaining the sexual division of labour in society (Macdonald 1980). (p.162) While insights from feminist studies of education help us in understanding how gender ideologies are maintained and reproduced within school knowledge and institutional contexts, we need to situate them within an understanding of how they relate to education as a nation-building project. How does gender as a category intersect with other identities like caste, class, religion, and region in textbooks, to promote and legitimize a particular conception of the nation? How do notions of gender mediate constructions of the nation in textbooks? The modern Indian nation state, represented to learners as a mythified entity, has been seen, for example, to be informed by upper-caste/class concerns and ideologies (Advani 1996; and Bhog et al. 2010). Even within the Indian state of West Bengal, ruled for decades by a political party aligned to the Left, we see how textbooks promote and legitimate middle-class interests (Scrase 1993). As Scrase points out, this is done ‘overtly, through bias, stereotype and distortion of Page 5 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation “subaltern” culture, and covertly through omission of and silence about subaltern culture’ (Scrase 1993: 144). Intersections of gender with class, caste, ethnicity, and other markers of identity underpin the fairly broad continuities in representations of the nation and national identity in textbooks across social and historical specificities within the Indian context (Bhog et al. 2010).2 Scholars have pointed to the necessity for micro-level research in Indian schools to further our conceptual and theoretical understanding of gender and school education within the socio-cultural contexts of Indian education (Nambissan 2004). Such research would have to look at constructions that lie in areas of overlap between normative discourses of socially appropriate gender behaviour, the patterning of such behaviours through social practices in schools, and crucially, the normative discourses surrounding formal education—what values are attached to ‘being educated’ in the nation state—all of which are related to structures and ideologies of gender, class, caste, ethnicity, and religion.

Contexts of Learners and Learning The children in the study reported here were enrolled in Class 4 in a government school—let us call it Shala No. 3.3 Shala No. 3 is one of the several (at the time of the study, around 100) municipal schools located in the industrial city of Baroda (Vadodara), in the state of Gujarat. With Hindi as its medium of instruction, the school caters to children from (p.163) migrant families from the Hindi-speaking states and regions of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab. Most children were first or second-generation school-goers, belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Backward Class (OBC) communities. There were some Sikh and Nepali children in the school, and also a few belonging to middle-caste trading communities. As a category, although by no means socially, economically, or culturally homogenous, they could broadly be classified as children of the urban poor. All the children came from slum settlements located within a radius of around 2 km from the school. The school itself is located in an area with an ethos alien to the children’s experiences, in an upper middle-class residential locality. Opposite the school is a Catholic mission hospital and the building itself is flanked by an elite convent school for girls. The population of the urban poor is typically drawn from rural migrants, either landless or with small landholdings, who move to cities in search of livelihood and better prospects. Migration to cities draws them into a monetized economy and affords relative stability of income, albeit through low-wage, semi-skilled, and unskilled employment, largely in the informal or unorganized sector. There is often a continuation of caste and community-based occupations within this sector, achieved through social networks based in the city. Fathers of the children in this particular school were employed in certain caste-based occupations such as carpentry, tile polishing, vegetable vending, and gardening. Their mothers were engaged in unpaid family work, self-employed as petty Page 6 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation vendors, or managing small family-run shops. Some were engaged in homebased piece-rate work. Those employed outside the home worked as domestic workers or were casual labourers. Women’s income was critical to family survival in most families. Field surveys in the slum settlements from where the children came reveal very low educational levels of adults, most of them illiterate or, at most, having completed the first few years of primary school, with women’s educational levels generally lower than those of men. Whereas in the case of men some forms of skill enhancement and training was available, women had no access to such opportunities (Shah 1999: 99). To varying degrees, chronic indebtedness stalks these families, with debts largely owing to subsistence-related expenditure and expenses on medicines, household repairs, and family rituals like death and marriage (Shah 1999: 98). Culturally, migrant communities in urban India have certain characteristics that are important to consider while attempting to (p.164) understand the lives of these children. Shah (1999) has shown that in many of these slums, families are not recent migrants to the city, and most claim to have moved here permanently. Although they may own some land in their native villages, very few receive substantial income from these landholdings. Economic linkages with the place of origin are thus not very strong, but close cultural connections are maintained through visits during festivals or social events like marriage or death of near kin. Linkages are also maintained through living in neighbourhoods organized around caste, community, and region of origin. For the children, migration to the city, whatever its other important effects, did not lead to a rupture of the social order of caste and community.

Education and Identity: Lessons from a Literacy Campaign At the time of the study, a significant event occurred that acted to bring discourses of education and the nation directly into the classroom. A threemonth literacy campaign was under way in the district as part of the national literacy campaigns being conducted across the country at that time (mid-1990s). Shala No. 3 was drawn into the campaign as municipal school teachers were drafted as ‘volunteers’ (through an order from the school board) to teach adults in the slums of the city. Several activities were undertaken in the municipal schools as part of this campaign. Banners, posters, and slogans on literacy and the bane of illiteracy were prominently displayed within the school and in the classrooms. There was much excitement around finding good slogans to announce in the daily morning assembly. Preparations for a grand ‘literacy rally’ in the city for which Shala No. 3 was to showcase a tableau and dance–drama took over the normal functioning of the school, already reduced to half the regular hours by the same school board order. The materials on display—some provided by the National Literacy Mission, some adapted by the school board, and others prepared by teachers—emphasized literacy as the means to inexorable progress of the nation, and represented Page 7 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation illiteracy as an impairment, a blot, symbolizing a dishonouring and betrayal of the ideal of the nation. In a complete inversion of the Freirean approach to literacy, which would argue that unjust social conditions are the cause of illiteracy and literacy therefore should enable liberation from oppression, the poor and exploited (p.165) communities designated illiterate in these materials had only themselves to blame for their oppression (Dighe 1995; Kumar 1989; and Saxena 2007). Not only were they backward themselves, they also carried the burden of the nation’s backwardness. These notions of literacy, and more usually illiteracy as its neatly defined binary opposite, were continuously invoked in classroom discussions. The symbolic violence of these discursive encounters, through which children learned that they were not worthy of inclusion in the dominant norms of power, was evident in my interactions with them. For the children in the school, many of whose parents, especially mothers, constituted the ‘target group’ of the campaign, the ambience that enveloped the school at this time was a daily reminder of their own inferior status and shame as failures to the grand nation-building project. Within this context, the term angoota chaap came into the everyday language of school interactions as a convenient and ready term of denigration, a signifier of the self-inflicted intractability of their poverty. In conversations with children, I would often hear reference to their mothers as angoota chaap. One boy told me that his mother, a widow, struggling to bring up her two children, could never get a job because ‘who will give an angoota chaap work?’ The literacy campaign thus brought larger debates on education, social hierarchy, and employment directly into the classroom and into the lives of children.

Learning Work, Learning Gender Ethnographic interviews with the children revealed the significant position of ‘work’ in the structuring—and gendering—of their lives. The fact that these children were in what has been classified as ‘late childhood’ meant that they were already being groomed for adult roles within cultural boundaries defined by caste and community (Saraswathi and Dutta 1988). Both girls and boys contributed to household maintenance and income through paid work in occupations like vending and home-based work. Several helped out their fathers in petty trades for a minimal daily percentage of earnings. All children helped out with domestic work in the home. The children saw their work as critical to the survival of the family and household. Work within the home was strictly gender differentiated and evaluated differently both by the children and their parents (Manjrekar 1999). Separate spheres (p.166) of work defined physically and culturally distinct ‘spaces of being’ for girls and boys. These distinctions were played out in the school: girls were assigned tasks which cast them as being dependable and pliable to teachers’ authority, while boys were given those tasks which demanded strength and the self-confidence to deal with tasks beyond the boundaries of the school building (Bhattacharjee 1999).

Page 8 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation Resonating with dominant forms of gender asymmetry, dualisms ascribed to gender were a consistent feature of children’s experiences of work. Distinctions between the ‘private’ and ‘public’, differential value attached to paid as against unpaid work and manual and non-manual tasks, appeared to be constitutive of children’s notions of work. Most children had little difficulty explaining what their fathers’ work involved; however, they found my question, ‘what work does your mother do?’, difficult and almost meaningless, and I often detected both confusion and derision in their responses. Answers like ‘nothing’, ‘nothing, she only cooks and cleans’, and ‘she just sits’ (baithi rahti hai) were common. Their answers might partly have been shaped by their perception of my own position as an educated woman, clearly associated with the public domain of work. Work in the home was not considered ‘work’—in contrast to the work their fathers, teachers, or myself, were engaged in. With appropriate prompts, all children were able to specify in detail what their mother’s housework comprised. Unpaid work in the home did not classify as work at all—it was not seen as ‘productive’ in economic terms. Work in their view was equivalent to naukri or job, paid employment outside the home. This is borne out by the responses of those children whose mothers worked as domestic workers: they unhesitatingly responded, ‘she goes to banglas’ (bungalows/houses). The burden of housework did not, however, escape girls’ notions of fairness. Girls told me how their brothers did not help out with housework: My brothers don’t do any housework if we sisters are around. If we aren’t then they have to… My brothers don’t do any housework. Mummy says boys shouldn’t do girls’ work. I sometimes get angry and tell her to tell them. She says no. My elder sister does the housework. If he [Vasu, her brother, in the same class] does, Mummy says boys don’t do, girls should do, because she says this, he doesn’t do…if I tell him, Mummy hits me… My brothers do [sweeping, cleaning] but less than me and my sister…if I was a boy I wouldn’t have to do… (p.167)

‘Apprenticeship’ into gendered domains of work was also seen in the case of the boys. Most of them were expected to run outside chores for their parents, or contribute to the family income through assisting their fathers, or doing piecerate, seasonal work. Boys whose fathers were vegetable vendors went to the evening sabzi mandi to sell small items on their fathers’ or their own hand carts (laaris). There were boys who did ironing and laundry work in the afternoons after going back home and went for deliveries in the evening.

Page 9 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation For boys, the category of work was distinguished by differences of class and community. Deepu, whose father was a vegetable vendor, was one of the few in the class who came from a relatively higher-caste background (Agrawal). Considered by the teacher to be one of the ‘good’ boys in the class, he had a positive self-image of himself as a student. He told me that unlike the others, he did not work with his father in the evenings because his mother said it did not become their jat to do so. Boys who had fathers who were drivers, almost all from Sikh families, went to motor garages after school and learned automobile repairing through unpaid apprenticeship; being relatively better off, they were not expected to work for money. As one of them told me: ‘Many boys in our class work in the evenings…I don’t, my father says learn [auto mechanic skills] now, later when you become big, I’ll start taking you with me’. A Chamar boy who had failed for three successive years, and was constantly labelled worthless by the teacher, told me: ‘The teacher tells us that we shouldn’t do work, that we should study… My father said he’ll find some work for me soon, because we are poor. [Don’t you go to the banglas with mummy?] Yes, no…I used to go when I was small, now she doesn’t take me…’. While physical horizons were larger for boys, girls’ mobility was restricted to immediate neighbourhoods and cultural prescriptions were more strictly enforced. ‘My brother goes to see pictures on the dish [cable TV] in my aunt’s house. [You don’t go?] Papa doesn’t let me go. He said do the housework, what will you do seeing pictures, see only bhagwan [god/religious] pictures.’ For girls, the logic of these harsh controls was accommodated within an understanding of the bounded visions of education within their lives, in which functional literacy and numeracy were deemed adequate outcomes of schooling. Their school experiences do not provide possibilities of a counter-narrative to these visions. As Karlekar puts it, girls are ‘expected to study and even perform well; however, they are not to be excessively competitive or demand freedom of thought and (p.168) expression that is essential for the development of personhood and not merely womanhood along prescribed lines’ (Karlekar 1989: 16). [You like school?] Yes, my mummy says study till 5th, that’s all. My cousin sister tells my mummy to make me study till 7th…She says you learn to write letters, that’s all. [And then?] My mummy will get me married. [Did she tell you?] No. I know. When girls learn to write letters, they get married. [Why, when they learn to write letters…?] When we are sad then we can…then my brother will come and take me (home)…[How do you know all this?] It all happened to my mother. She couldn’t write letters to my grandmother and so she was more sad.

Page 10 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation After 4th, what will I do? Nothing. I’ll go to the village. [What will you do in the village?] Nothing…I’ve been here since 1st, after 4th, I’ll leave. Papa will take me out. [What do you want to be?] Nothing. In our place girls aren’t allowed to be anything. They get married and do farming. My papa said. [You don’t want to be anything?] No. My marriage is after Diwali, we’ll get married together, my sister and I. [What do your future husbands do?] Farming…and carpentry. In our desh we don’t get to know the boys, our fathers do everything. We don’t get to know. For boys, expectations from schooling were higher. Tuition pe jaana (going to tuition classes), more common among the boys, came to signify a higher social status, not only because it implied the capacity of a family to do without the economic contribution of a son but also connoted the personal motivation and capacity to do good padhai. Although a few girls also attended tuition classes, pressures on them to perform well in school did not appear to be as severe as that on the boys, all of whom told me that their fathers and other adult males in the family beat them severely for not studying. Many boys told me how their fathers were right in doing so, since only education could provide means to a life more ‘successful’ than their own: ‘Papa says study more than me, be better than me…Papa scolds for studies. He says don’t be like me, study and get a good naukri (job)…’. The boys were conscious of the contribution of schooling to social status, the index of which was the prospect of getting a ‘good naukri’. In Sarangapani’s (2003: 67) study, the boys conjure a hierarchy of contents and outcomes corresponding to the number of years of schooling, in which each successive stage involves deepening of cultural and intellectual capital. Honing these attributes would enable the boy to become a bada admi (the big/important man), having the appropriate comportment for the right type of naukri. The boys viewed schooling as marking the ‘basic divide between the traditional and modern worlds (through (p.169) which) one can escape the stigma of being an illiterate’ (Sarangapani 2003: 66). Real and imagined outcomes of education are also reflected in this conversation between three boys, Vasu, Pawan, and Raju: Vasu: I’m going to study till 14th Class…

Pawan: I’m going to study even more than that.

Raju: There’s nothing after 14th class.

Vasu: After college, we can get a good naukri immediately, start a shop… Page 11 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation Raju: My father has gone to college…

Vasu: Who? Yours? Hah!

Pawan: Mine has studied up to 10th. [To Vasu] Yours?

Vasu: 7th…at 18 he got married and then…

Pawan: And your mother?

Vasu: 2nd. [Pawan and Raju exchange glances.]

Raju: Mine is till 10th.

Pawan: Mine is till 8.

Vasu (visibly annoyed): But she can teach us all nicely! Her mother was an angoota chhaap…

Raju later told me: My Papa hits for studies, he says if you don’t, you won’t be able to work, no-one will give you an ‘acchi naukri’ (good job). My mummy says [if you don’t study] no-one will say you’ve studied. [You like school?] Yes…I’ll become big, have a job; if I don’t like school how will I study? I’ll become big and just loaf around then. Vasu, on the other hand, was clear that economic conditions would not permit him to study. He described to me in some detail the hard labour involved in vegetable vending that gave his father severe calluses on the hands, which would sometimes have to be surgically removed. He said it would be difficult for him to escape meeting the same fate: Papa tells my sister, study till 7th, learn to sign letters. Even me, Papa says study only till 8th. He says anyway you won’t get a good job…afterwards you can run the laari the whole day. I don’t know if Papa will let me study. I want to study and get a good naukri. I don’t want to break my hands running a laari. [And your sister?] My parents are worried about desh ki karza (debts in the village). Mummy says finish 7th, learn hisaab, letters,

Page 12 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation and get married…I will probably study only till 10th…Callused hands are my destiny…

‘Kaun Kya Banega’: Labouring for the Nation The official curriculum repeatedly stressed that work should be aimed towards selfless service, such as working for the community and the nation. Working for economic gain is not acceptable to normative (p.170) discourse within the formal education setting, premised as it is on the notion of an ideal childhood that, by definition, cannot be associated with economic value. As discussed earlier, the normative schoolchild is not expected to be an economic agent; child labour is treated, within the discourse on development in textbooks, as a social ‘ill’ or ‘evil’. Post-colonial discourse on education in India hinges on a certain pedagogic ‘modernism’ that forecloses discussions of labour on the part of children. Yet work, and also labour for a wage, was a fundamental part of the lives of the children of Shala No. 3. The contradiction between the official and the hidden meanings of ‘work’ in the school context were brought alive in a lesson from the Hindi language text, ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ (Who will become what?) (Gujarat State Textbook Bureau 1988). ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ is a story set in a classroom, where the male teacher (guruji) narrates the lives of mahapurushon or great men of the country: scientists, scholars, and leaders. The guruji asks the children what they will be when they grow up. Table 7.1 illustrates the structure of the lesson: the guruji asks each individual child what he/she wants to be; they state an occupation and how it will help the nation, and the guruji ends on an encouraging note before moving on to the next child. Table 7.1: ‘Kaun Kya Banega’: Structure and Content Name of the Desired child/gender occupation

Rationale

Guruji’s remarks

Mohan; boy

Free medical treatment to poor villagers.

Your thoughts are lofty. You will definitely help the

Doctor

nation. Salim; boy

Engineer

Father says the country needs factories; I’ll make/ design new machines. Production will go up, the country will prosper.

Good! You will be a clever engineer. You should pay attention to your studies.

Page 13 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation

Name of the Desired child/gender occupation

Rationale

Guruji’s remarks

Saraswati; girl

Teacher

Teach illiterate people.

The country needs men and women teachers. By teaching illiterate people, you can make them into good citizens.

Pratap; boy

Soldier

Will defeat aggressors.

You will be a patriot anda brave soldier.

Anand; boy

A ‘good’ farmer

Study in agricultural Our country needs college. Use new educated farmers. technologies to increase yields, so that our villages are self-sufficient.

Chandu; boy Leader

Serve people

You will definitely be a leader and help to get rid of the evils of our society.

Source: Author. (p.171)

The lesson ends with the guruji’s closing remarks: ‘Those who do kadi mehnat (hard work) achieve success. If you do mehnat, you will also be successful.’ With children playing out adult roles lending a sense of fantasy and masquerade, so markedly different from other language lessons dominated by the adult didactic voice, this lesson generated a great deal of excitement among the children. ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ had acquired a status of its own in the school. Senior students and teachers had told the children how much they would enjoy this lesson, and there was an air of animated anticipation when it was transacted in the classroom. The lesson generated a great deal of participation as the teacher called on every child to state what she/he wanted to be when they grew up. ‘Kaun Kya Banega’, despite all appearances, was far removed from a model child-friendly text. The six ‘children’ in the lesson speak in the unmistakably adult voice of the modernizing nation state, with its belief in education as an instrument to remedy all national ‘ills’—illiteracy, disease, food insecurity, vulnerable national borders, and the need for a scientific approach to national development. Chandu’s hesitation in stating what he wants to be (he asks himself: ‘will I be able to speak my mind?’) reflects the ambiguous and Page 14 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation somewhat derisive middle-class stance towards the neta (political leader). However, redeemed by his nationalist spirit—‘I want to serve the nation and people with tan, man, dhan’ (literally body, mind, and wealth, but connoting ‘in every possible way’)—he invites the teacher’s praise. The children in the lesson are adult citizen–patriots in the making, for whom schooling is linked to their agency in nation building. The (p.172) illustrations accompanying the text portray all characters as distinctly belonging to the urban middle class. It is significant that the farmer is the only character who is not visually depicted as a child masquerading as an adult. Farming is seen as existing outside the aspirations of the educated, part of the ‘old’ world, as an occupation related in some way to school failure (Sarangapani 2003). In the lesson, Anand, who wants to be a farmer, says he will go to agricultural college and thereby gain modern credentials to become an educated farmer. Representing an educated child as a future farmer is beyond the social imaginary constructed by the text. That the lesson falls back on the more familiar iconography of the farmer with two bullocks reflects this entrenched ideology. Above all, ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ is about the nation as an ‘imagined community’ (Anderson 1983). As Saigol says: ‘One of the foremost needs of a modern nation-state is a citizenry that is obedient, docile, and law-abiding as well as infused with the nationalist spirit. A good citizen is regarded as one who not only obeys the law and performs “national duties”, but is also a hardworking and industrious person able to increase “national production”’ (Saigol 2000: 133). ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ constructs the persona of this ideal citizen. All occupations in the lesson are cast as essential to the maintenance and progress of the modern nation state and its civic and moral order. Its inclusion as a text in the curriculum is part of the larger educational ideal of presenting a narrative and logic of the modern nation state that upholds equality of opportunity and equality of access to cultural and economic resources. This mythified image of the nation becomes credible, legitimate, and importantly, desirable. Modern education, and the gaining of credentials through kadi mehnat, provides the answer to the concerns and anxieties of the nation. The greatness of the modern nation is represented by the hard work, sacrifice, and nobility of the mahapurushon, the great male leaders. The mahapurush, a powerful trope of masculinist nationalism, is often found in textbooks. As Bhog (2002) has shown in her study of school language texts, great men of achievement do not display the slightest vestige of human frailty. They are represented as being ‘born great, or achieving greatness early in childhood, going through life with “grand moments of revelation, of courage, strength, determination and struggle”’ (Bhog 2002: 1641). The ideal of the mahapurush is associated with the value of hard work and effort—‘kadi mehnat’—which brings about national progress and pride. The interlocutor is the guruji, a figure of male Page 15 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation (p.173) authority, who provides each child the authoritative stamp of approval and the rationale for the occupations chosen in relation to the moral and economic progress of the nation. Reading ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ through the lens of gender shows how it mediates the nation through naturalized exclusions. Social relationships that underpin the sexual division of labour in the nation are clearly demarcated by gender. Boys are shown as aspiring to leadership and productive roles and gaining the approval of the teacher for this. The lone girl, Saraswati, is clearly marked out as being a moral agent in the nation’s progress, as responsible for influencing ‘good citizenship’. This reflects, to borrow a phrase from Mayer (2000), the ‘gender irony’ of formal education in the modern nation. While access to the public space of employment and civic participation is a promise held out by schooling, this space is neither undifferentiated nor unrelated to distinctions of gender, class, caste, ethnicity, and religion. The irony is accentuated in ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ by showing a valued and ennobled space for women but one that is limited by its own discourse. Within the structure of the lesson, Saraswati cannot normatively aspire to be any of the other national ‘workers’ in the lesson. She is represented in the lesson as demure and humble, hesitantly responding to the teacher’s questions in ‘a soft voice’. She cannot be a leader, because she is not capable of the leader’s ‘tan–man–dhan seva’ to the country’s progress. She is not part of the industrializing process, can also not follow her father as an engineer; neither can she go to the village and open a clinic to serve the poor. The masculine heroism and bravery of the soldier also eludes her. She could have been an agricultural labourer, but could not have been shown participating in modernized farming technologies, and in any case, an iconography would have to be invented to represent her! Women as subsidiary characters in the visuals, as head loaders on Salim’s construction site, or carrying water and fodder on Anand’s farm, are clearly marked as the non-schooled ‘other’. As a schooled subject, Saraswati is modern, yet modest. The guruji’s remarks indicate that it is not through imparting knowledge, which is what as a teacher Saraswati should be doing, but through socialization into values that she would contribute to the nation’s progress. In other words, it is in the moral reproduction of the national community that women find their national role. Success, for the girl, would entail working hard at creating citizens through inculcation of national values and norms— (p.174) the natural and national merge in the case of women’s contribution to nation building. This is the limited public space she is permitted, which is an extension of her private, nurturing role within the household and family, dependent on an ardent sense of duty and altruism (Saigol 2003; and Yuval–Davis 1997).

Structuring Discourse: Classroom Discussions of ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ One girl to another (pointing to the visuals) ‘See, that’s you (the teacher), that’s your brother (engineer), that’s your father (farmer).’

Page 16 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ is a text that offers rich possibilities to read against the grain, to question and critically engage at various levels with issues of education and society. However, the pivot around which the lesson is constructed, the idea of kadi mehnat, dissipates such possibilities. Kadi mehnat connotes not only hard work but also the individual's single-minded, disciplined, attentive labour towards a goal—in this case, the goal of ambition, achieving social and economic recognition, and success through education. ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ valorizes, indeed fetishises, kadi mehnat as a prescription for success. The ideology of kadi mehnat locates the problem of educational backwardness in the laggardness of the individual, and offers a remedy for efficiency and productivity rooted in the possibility of individual change towards the greater national good. In doing so, it reinstates meritocracy at the heart of the education–employment relationship as a cultural value related not to birth but deed. Given its didactic significance, kadi mehnat, not surprisingly, emerged as the fulcrum around which discussions of kaun kya banega took place. Interestingly, the teacher faced the boys in the class as she read out and explained the lesson. She later told me she was unaware of this, but that it was ‘natural’ since the characters in the lesson were almost all boys and the lesson was an important one for them. Teacher: See, Salim wants to be an engineer. Have to know Mathematics, English and Science well to become engineers…all teachers want their students to do well. Look at Pratap. He’s not a coward, he wants to be a soldier…Those who are lazy, they only dream. What do we need to achieve [what we want]? A girl: Kadi mehnat. Teacher [continues]: If you don’t work hard in the exams how will you pass? Teachers want their students to be good at studies. [She narrates the case of one (p.175) of her former students who works in a bank.]…OK, now I’ll ask you one by one what you want to be. Should we start with the girls, or the boys? Girls? OK? Say whatever you want, don’t be scared. Nurse, even engineer. Old views are gone. Nowadays girls can also work. They bring their fathers, later husbands, money… The dramaturgical mode of the lesson structured its transaction in the classroom, with the teacher, a la guruji, calling on each child to state what s/he wants to be. Apart from four girls who said ‘doctor’, and three who said ‘police’, all girls said they wanted to be teachers or nurses. The boys likewise declared their ambitions: doctor, engineer, police. The teacher’s categorization and differentiation of responses were based on her own estimation of the child’s abilities, and her personal views on the subject. She intervened at what she considered critical moments in the discussion. For example, when Ashok, considered to be one of the ‘good’ students in the class, said he wanted to be a Page 17 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation policeman, she corrected him and said, ‘no, you should become a police afsar’. When another boy said he wanted to become a ‘sarkari afsar’ (government officer), she responded: ‘Why? Aaram hai, na, isliye?’ (Because it is so comfortable?). Yet another boy said ‘carpenter’, at which she turned to me and remarked, somewhat disparagingly, ‘That’s his home culture’. All the children were expected to provide rationales (the guruji’s comments) for their choice of future career: this appeared to be one way for them to learn the lesson. Consequently, the right answer was sought at all times. A student’s faltering with recall (for example, the teacher cures the sick in villages) resulted in moments of mirth in the class. Some of the boys the teacher had condemned to fail since the beginning of the year said that they wanted to be a ‘doctor’ or ‘engineer’. The teacher’s long commentary after hearing the children summed up the social possibilities she envisaged for them. It is cited here in full because of its subtexts of social class and gender and how these construct the schooled subject: OK. Now pay attention here…Everyone has said what they want to be…But we have to work hard, decide with our minds that we want to work [hard]. See Jagdeep, Aman, Mohammed, they say they want to be doctors…but for doing that they’ll have to work hard. I’m not saying they can’t be. Anyone in the world can…but see, these boys don’t work…Aman, he’s always absent but…says he wants to be a doctor. With zeroes in the 4th can you be a doctor? Whatever you want to be you have to start from now. If you want to be a soldier, build up strength, learn to face troubles…you shouldn’t cry for small things… (p.176) [Faces girls] If you say you want to be a teacher, you have to learn properly, learn to speak in public…You have to have general knowledge, be modest, compassionate…if you want to teach illiterate people [as in the text] start teaching your illiterate mother at home…those who want to be nurses start looking after ill people at home, press feet, give water… [Faces boys] For doctor, you have to start now, getting good marks, writing well, fast, in good handwriting…don’t throw your books into the corner when you get home…There’s a proverb that when a mother looks at her son, she knows what he’ll be when he grows up… One of the girls told me after the lesson was taught in the class: Actually I wanted to be a doctor, but when madam asked I said chalo, teacher. It came out, so I said I want to teach illiterates. I actually want to be a tick-tock wallah [she types on an imaginary keyboard]. Papa says he will put me in classes. Mummy says you can learn to stitch, we’ll put you in sewing classes.

Page 18 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation Harsharan, at eight and half years the youngest in the class, had written in her short biographical note: ‘I want to grow up and be like my mummy’. During the class, she said she wanted to be a ‘sister’ (nurse). Her narrative dramatically reveals, on the one hand, the ritualistic nature of curriculum transaction and on the other, the power of normative discourses of gender, work, and education in the context of the family: [Hadn’t you told me you wanted to be like mummy?] (Smiles) Yes. [Then why did you say you want to be a sister?] I don’t know if I’ll be able to be like mummy. [Is it difficult?] It’s easy, but mummy says tu kucch bun le (you become something). [What does it mean, to be like mummy?] To do housework…Nothing else. If she was a doctor, I would have said doctor… If she has to become one now…she will tell me, should I go back to school, or what?! Analysis of classroom interactions around this lesson revealed the overwhelmingly stereotyped responses of the children, which appeared to be patterned on the ‘logic’ of the lesson, a ritual performance empty of real engagement. What was this logic? Simply put, it revolved around the imagination of the strong nation as built by those who laboured for its progress, where women and men consensually performed their natural productive roles in the economy, strengthening their capabilities through hard work. Implicit to this understanding is a certain hierarchization of work, based on gender, class, and caste; as well as emphasis on success in education as a precursor to achieving success in the ‘right’ occupations. This was dramatically brought out in the narrative of one boy, who told me that he would be forced to be a farmer, since he had not learned to read and write—an admission of his identity as an angoota chaap. (p.177) *** The ideal child of the ideal nation is discursively produced in ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ and its transaction in the classroom through narratives of valour, self-sacrifice, discipline, dedication, and hard work. Gender pervades the discourse of the ideal nation, with women represented as key agents in its moral reproduction. Observations and ethnographic interviews of the children revealed that the participation of children in the discussions around ‘Kaun Kya Banega’ was informed by their social experiences and the possibilities the lesson offered for re-imagining their adult futures. That schooling has an organic relationship with imagined prospects for employment is embedded in the consciousness of students, particularly male students. Boys expect that formal education will gain them sufficient cultural capital to seek some degree of upward mobility through employment. However, despite the claim that merit as an ideology is directed towards rewarding individual acts, we know that for poor and marginalized communities, this does little to alter patterns of social power that disadvantage Page 19 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation them socially and economically (Bourdieu 1984). For girls, moreover, there are different expectations from schooling: basic literacy and numeracy skills, a limited degree of self-confidence sufficient to manage the household and rear children after marriage—that ultimate destiny and place in life that remains unquestioned—and is often reinforced in schools (Bhattacharjee 1999; and Kanhere 1989). In both cases, the ideology of kadi mehnat emerges as insufficient to address larger power structures of class, caste, and gender. The distinction between the categories of ‘work’ and ‘labour’ is blurred when they act as multiple signifiers in a lesson like ‘Kaun Kya Banega’. To deny the possibility of individual children possessing agency to struggle against social barriers to ‘achieve success’ through education, or access the range of occupations presented in ‘Kaun Kya Banega’—limited and defined as they are by class and caste hierarchies, gender stereotypes, and differential valuations—or to maintain that teachers are cynical in their statements about ‘hard work to achieve success’ would be to deny the emancipatory promise of education, especially for the poor in a stratified society. The questions that arise from the processes outlined here have more to do with the particular teleologies associated with the positioning of children as future productive agents in the imagined nation through the official curriculum and the (p.178) recontextualization of these teleologies within particular situated context of curriculum transaction where class, caste, and gender hierarchies are visible and established. The structural contexts of children’s lives in which these hierarchies and inequalities operate are those from which they draw meaning to make sense of what they learn in classrooms about themselves, the social world, and the nation. References Bibliography references: Advani, S. 1996. ‘Educating the National Imagination’, Economic and Political Weekly, 31(31): 2077–82. Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Rise and Spread of Nationalisms. London: Verso. Apple, M. and L. Weis. 1983. Ideology and Practice in Schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ariès, P. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. New York: Vintage Books. Balagopalan, S. 2002. ‘Constructing Indigenous Childhoods: Colonialism, Vocational Education and the Working Child’, Childhood, 9(1): 19–34.

Page 20 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation (p.179) Bernstein, B. 1977. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 3: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission, 2nd edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bhattacharjee, N. 1999. ‘Through the Looking-glass: Gender Socialisation in a Primary School’, in T.S. Saraswathi (ed.), Culture, Socialization and Human Development: Theory, Research and Applications in India. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 336–55. Bhog, D. 2002. ‘Gender and Curriculum’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(17): 1638–42. Bhog, D., D. Mullick, P. Bharadwaj, and J, Sharma. 2010. Textbook Regimes: A Feminist Critique of Nation and Identity, An Overall Analysis. New Delhi: Nirantar. Bissell, S. 2003. ‘The Social Construction of Childhood: A Perspective from Bangladesh’, in N. Kabeer, G.B. Nambissan, and R. Subrahmanian (eds), Child Labour and the Right to Education in South Asia: Needs Versus Rights? New Delhi: Sage, pp. 47–72. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Chanana, K. 1990. ‘Structures and Ideologies: Socialization and Education of the Girl Child in South Asia’, The Indian Journal of Social Science, 3(1): 53–71. ———. 2003. ‘Female Sexuality and Education of Hindu Girls in India’, in S. Rege (ed.), Sociology of Gender: The Challenge of Feminist Sociological Knowledge. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 287–317. Deem, R. 1980. Schooling for Women’s Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dighe, A. 1995. ‘Deconstructing Literacy Primers’, Economic and Political Weekly, 30(26): 1559–61. Gujarat State Textbook Bureau. 1988. Hindi (Higher level), Class 4. Gandhinagar: GSTB. Kanhere, U. 1989. ‘Differential Socialisation of Boys and Girls: A Study of Lower, Socio-economic Households among Gujarati Caste/Communities in Ahmedabad’, in M. Krishnaraj and K. Chanana (eds), Gender and the Household Domain: Social and Cultural Dimensions. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 31–54. Karlekar, M. 1989. The Slow Transition from Womanhood to Personhood: Can Education Help? New Delhi: Centre for Women’s Development Studies. Kumar, K. 1989. The Social Character of Learning. New Delhi: Sage. Page 21 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation ———. 1998. ‘Agricultural Modernisation and Education: Contours of a Point of Departure’, in S. Shukla and R. Kaul (eds), Education, Development and Underdevelopment. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 79–98. (p.180) Macdonald, M. 1980. ‘Schooling and the Reproduction of Class and Gender Relations’, in L. Barton, R. Meighan, and S. Walker (eds), Schooling, Ideology and the Curriculum. Lewes: The Falmer Press, pp. 29–49. Manjrekar, N. 1999. ‘Learning Gender in the Primary School: A Study of Curriculum’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, India. Mayer, T. 2000. Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation. London: Routledge. Nambissan, G. 2004. ‘Integrating Gender Concerns’, Seminar, 536(April): 40–45. National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). 2006a. National Curriculum Framework: Position Paper on Work and Education. New Delhi: NCERT. ———. 2006b. National Curriculum Framework: Position Paper on Gender Issues in Education. New Delhi: NCERT. Nieuwenhuys, O. 1996. ‘The Paradox of Child Labor and Anthropology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 25: 237–51. Postman, N. 1982. The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Delacourt Press. Raman, V. 2000. ‘Politics of Childhood: Perspectives from the South’, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(46): 4055–64. Saigol, R. 2000. Symbolic Violence: Curriculum, Pedagogy and Society. Lahore: Society for the Advancement of Education. Sarangapani, P. 2003. Constructing School Knowledge: An Ethnography of Learning in an Indian Village. New Delhi: Sage. Saraswathi, T.S. and R. Dutta. 1988. Invisible Boundaries: Grooming for Adult Roles. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre. Scrase, T.J. 1993. Image, Ideology and Inequality: Cultural Domination, Hegemony and Schooling in India. New Delhi: Sage. Shah, T. 1999. ‘Economic Status of Women in Urban Informal Sector: A Study of Baroda City’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, India.

Page 22 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation Saxena, S. 2007. ‘Education of the Masses in India: A Critical Enquiry’, in K. Kumar, J. Oesterheld, and S. Amin (eds), Education and Social Change in South Asia. New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 408–40. Talib, M. 2003. ‘Modes of Learning–Labour Relations: Educational Strategies and Child Labour’, in N. Kabeer, G.B. Nambissan, and R. Subrahmanian (eds), Child Labour and the Right to Education in South Asia: Needs Versus Rights? New Delhi: Sage, pp. 143–63. Vasanta, D. 2004. ‘Childhood, Work and Schooling: Some Reflections’, Contemporary Education Dialogue, 2(1): 5–29. (p.181) Velaskar, P. 1990. ‘Unequal Schooling as a Factor in the Reproduction of Social Inequality in India’, Sociological Bulletin, 39(1–2): 131–45. Weiler, K. 1988. ‘Feminist Analyses of Gender and Schooling’, in K. Weiler (ed.), Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. New York: Bergin Garvey, pp. 27–56. Willis, P. 1977. Learning to Labour. Aldershot: Gower. Wolpe, A. 1978. ‘Education and the Sexual Division of Labour’, in A. Kuhn and A.M. Wolpe (eds), Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 290–328. Yuval–Davis, N. 1997. Gender and Nation. London: Sage. Notes:

(1.) Versions of this chapter were presented at the II International Conference on Ethnography and Education, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 5–8 September 2007, and the VIII International Conference on Asian Youth and Childhoods 2007, Lucknow, India, 22–4 November 2007. I would like to acknowledge the critical comments received on these presentations. (2.) In 2005, Nirantar, a Delhi-based women’s organization engaged in research and advocacy on gender and education, coordinated a five-state study to examine constructions of gender and nationalist identity in language and social science textbooks used in schools. The states selected for the study were Delhi, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. See the various volumes and overview report in Bhog et al. (2010). (3.) The narratives of the children are taken from my doctoral study (Manjrekar 1999), which explored the hidden curriculum of gender in this municipal school. Fieldwork for the study was carried out in 1994–5 in two sections of Class 4, with around 112 children. The data reported here are from one of these sections.

Page 23 of 24

 

Gender, Childhood, and Work in the Nation

Access brought to you by:

Page 24 of 24

 

Caste and Social Discrimination

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Caste and Social Discrimination Nature, Forms, and Consequences in Education Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0009

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the nature, forms, and consequences of caste and social discrimination in education in India. After discussing the theoretical background of discrimination in general, the author goes on to analyse discrimination in the Indian context, and how this impinges on education. This chapter describes the different forms of caste discrimination which include caste-intensified discrimination, caste-specific discrimination, caste-imposed discrimination, and self-imposed caste discrimination. It goes on to discuss discrimination in education and academic discourse in general. In Indian society—based on a rigid social structure—education has been viewed both as means of development and the source of perpetuating inequality. After describing various forms of social discrimination, the author points out that the mentality of the ‘victimizers’ also needs probing. How far has Indian education contributed to the modern values of justice, equality, and secularism, through the democratic pattern of governance vis-à-vis caste system needs to be conceptually and theoretically understood and analysed. The author concludes by pointing out that analysis about caste as the base of social discrimination, and its impact on education, is missing from the discourse of social sciences, including SoE. This needs to be remedied. Keywords:   caste discrimination, social discrimination, discrimination in education, Indian academic discourse, mentality of victimizers, Indian education and modern values, sociology of education, caste and education

Page 1 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination In the modern era of the twenty-first century, knowledge and skills play a crucial role, and are majorly drawn from formal education which is considered to be an important means for development, both social and economic. However, as we know, education from the beginning of modern society has been unevenly accessible due to its structure, policy, and objective, especially in the developing countries, and also due to its direct link to socio-economic conditions of a given society. In Indian society—being a developing one and based on a rigid social structure—education has been viewed both as means of development and the source of perpetuating inequality. The formal modern education emerged in the Western society and hence, its structure and objectives have been mostly unsuitable for the Indian society which is diverse, complex, and traditional in nature. Based on observations and experiences over the last six decades of independence, it is observed that the access to and performance in education is precluded by not only the social conditions but also by the nature of education and social situations existing in the educational institutions. As a result, most of the deprived sections of Indian society remained deprived educationally. Social discrimination is one such prominent factor in the educational discourse in Indian society. Social discrimination, its forms, and impact are similar in all societies, although the basis for discrimination may differ from society to society, which includes race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. In the Indian context, it is supposed to be caste with its rigid hierarchy, purity–pollution notions, and religious sanction that is the basis for (p.183) discrimination. Therefore, it is worth knowing the link between caste, education, and discrimination in the context of globalization with its secular and inclusive values. How and why the caste leads to social discrimination in general, and in the educational process of majority of the weaker sections like the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) in particular, and what impact it leaves is the major focus of this chapter. The scope of this chapter is restricted to the SCs (also known as Dalits) due to many limitations; although it is equally relevant to study the phenomenon in the case of other communities like the STs and OBCs. With this background, it will be relevant to understand the issue of social discrimination in education within the theoretical frame of social discrimination.

Theoretical Background The issue of social discrimination concerns all, especially when the principles of human dignity, social respect, social justice, and human rights have become the guiding force in today’s world. Social discrimination is a universal fact. However, in the modern societies, it has attracted the attention of academicians, policymakers, and planners in the context of global values of social justice and human dignity. The current societal phase of globalization demands mutual and inclusive approach to development and equity in the presence of unequal and unjust social and economic opportunities. In an attempt to understand the problem of social discrimination, scholars have adopted different approaches Page 2 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination within different disciplines. However, in the light of limited empirical evidence, the issue has been addressed more in the Western context and that too more with economic and psychological approaches within a considerably weak theoretical framework. Sociological approach to understand the nature, forms, and impact of social discrimination carries serious handicap due to its complexity and multidimensional nature. There is no uniform definition, nor does social discrimination have clear conceptual clarity. The United Nations Organization (UNO) defines it as follows: ‘Discrimination as an action that treats people unfairly because of their membership in a particular social group. Discriminatory behaviors take many forms but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection’ (UN Cyber School Bus). (p.184) The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences defines discrimination, ‘as being more than simply distinguishing between social groups; it involves the inappropriate treatment of individuals due solely to their membership. Accordingly, discrimination has a pejorative meaning’ (Michis 2002: 395). Sociologists understand it not as isolated individual act but as a complex system of social relations that produces intergroup inequalities in social outcome (Borgatta and Montgomery 2000). Further, Arnold and Foster (1964) refer to it as neither inequality alone, nor prejudice and intent to discriminate alone; it exists only when ‘both’ these elements are present. The typology of social discrimination (Blank et al. 2004) propounds four types of discrimination and various mechanisms that may lead to discrimination. The first three types involve behaviour of individuals and organizations: intentional, subtle, and statistical profiling. The fourth type involves discriminatory practices embedded in an organizational culture. Statistical profiling of discrimination involves perceived group characteristics assumed to apply to an individual. Allport (1954) describes consequences or impact of social discrimination: verbal antagonism, avoidance, segregation, physical attack, and extermination. Segregation occurs when people actively exclude members of a disadvantaged racial group (caste group in Indian context) from allocation of resources and from access to institutions. The most common examples include denial of equal education, housing, employment, and health care on the basis of race. Thus, the issue of race-based social discrimination in the Western theoretical frame is to be understood in the Indian context of caste-based discrimination in absence of strong theoretical frame. Further, applying these theoretical assumptions of the discrimination based on caste in educational situation proves to be an additional shortcoming in the discourse of discrimination. Arnold and Foster (1964) have analysed the association of social status with educational imparities reflecting two partially independent sets of factors that have differing weight in various places. First, the overall economic level of a country and its occupational structure is reflected in the basic educational structure and in the general level of educational opportunity. Second, many other associated features of the status structure also play a part; for example, extent of the franchise and degree of Page 3 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination accommodation among ethnic and religious groups, with the associated attitudes and values. Thus, one can draw (p.185) parallels between social discrimination in the Western context, which is based on racial discrimination, and the Indian situation, which is based on the caste structure.

Social Discrimination in Indian Context The discipline of sociology of education (SoE) in India is relatively recent and is growing fast with the expansion in its scope. It took formal shape in the 1960s, and sociologists in India have addressed the issues of social background of students and its implications on educational access, performance, and support mechanisms. In particular, issues relating to the marginalized communities like the SCs and the STs, however, have been addressed by the scholars more with the evaluative approach. Such studies are few and broadly cover the areas of affirmative action policy (popularly known as reservation policy), various schemes and programmes of welfare, and overall academic performance at school-level education. These studies lack in-depth understanding and analysis of social discrimination and its impact. The basic issues of caste, casteism, and untouchability, and their impact on educational and social achievements, have remained thoroughly and systematically unexplored despite the fact that these issues are the strong traditional barriers in education and have discriminatory solid characteristics. The caste system in India has direct links with social and economic uneven divisions. The processes of globalization and open market economy have paved the way for many new approaches to study issues like human rights, social justice, and human dignity that are linked to social discrimination; especially after the United Nations (UN) World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination in 2001. During this past decade, a few studies have addressed the issue of social discrimination by analysing caste-based discrimination, which is now both a global concern and phenomenon, and imposes enormous obstacles to the full attainment of civil, political, economic, cultural, and educational rights (Narula 2004). Thorat’s (2009) extensive study on the current nature of discrimination gives the real picture of the problem. He argues that social discriminations like non-access to tea shops, denial of water facilities, denial of barber and washerman’s services, ban on marriage procession on roads, denial of wage payments, and preventing the Dalits (p.186) from selling in the local markets are strong indicators of discrimination and deprivation. The labour market is also blotted with such practices. In this context, various government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) give a rich account of the prevailing situation in the country pertaining to discriminatory practices in public life of these communities despite provision of formal protection (see Tables A8.1 and A8.2 in Appendix 1).

Page 4 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination Caste Discrimination in Education Although SC communities and their development has been the main focus in policy and planning, especially in the education sector, their overall participation in education has lagged behind significantly in comparison with their non-SC counterparts (Thorat 2009). At the time of independence, it was expected that modern education, together with special provisions and democratic practices, will bring both quantitative and qualitative changes in the traditional modes of practices. Studies during the last six decades of independence reveal that the changes are minimal and that these problems of discrimination and deprivation continue to exist in different and newer forms (studies like Jayaram 1987; Jha and Jhingram 2002; Public Report on Basic Education [PROBE] Team 1999; Thorat 2004, 2007, 2009; and Wankhede 2003). A recent empirical study by Nambissan (2010) on Rajasthan SCs revealed that the caste-based discrimination continues to exist in the schools and it leads to denial of full access to cultural and symbolic resources and social relations, including dignity and social respect. The tasks considered to be menial and polluting are assigned by teachers to the Dalit students. What emerges from the study are diverse spheres of school life where social relations and pedagogic processes fail to ensure full participation of Dalit children and they are, in fact, subject to discriminatory and unequal treatment in relation to their peers (Nambissan 2010: 282). While referring to access to schooling for girls in Maharashtra, Velaskar (2005: 479) revealed that the influence of caste has certainly not disappeared—it persists in the educational exclusion of several Dalit castes and caste discrimination. Wankhede (2001), in his study on educational inequalities among the SCs of Maharashtra, found out that the practice of untouchability, discrimination in schools, and (p.187) inequality of opportunity are some of the major factors responsible for such a situation. As mentioned earlier, these studies lack direct and independent focus on caste discrimination; nor do they have an in-depth analysis of the issue. While understanding the problem, one realizes that caste-based discrimination is prevalent and intense, with manifest forms more at the higher education levels like technical/professional education than in general education. For example, Thorat Committee (2007) identified the caste-based discrimination of the SC students pursuing medical education at the undergraduate and post-graduation levels at the premier institution of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) located in the capital of India. The Committee found: Over a period of time around 29 SC–ST students have moved from their allotted rooms to be closer to other SC–ST students. The one month of ragging to which the authorities turned a blind eye is sheer hell for these students since they are publicly subjected to caste based questions, taunts and jeering. Many of the students said they moved their rooms because it would be locked from outside repeatedly while they were in, vulgar abuse would be scrawled on the doors and it would be made clear that this would Page 5 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination stop only if they moved to floors where the other SC–ST students stayed. They also faced social isolation, refusal to share books and notes and objections to sharing seats in class. (Thorat Committee 2007: 2032) In the same way, Rao (2002) cites an example of caste-based discrimination at a central university in South India. In sum, it is necessary to identify and understand the issue of caste-based discrimination through fully focused, in-depth, independent studies, at both school and higher levels of education on how the rural/urban, poor background with stigmatized/polluting caste status lead to discrimination in the process of educational achievements. It is also important to study the impacts of these on mental health and academic performance of the SCs. This caste-based discrimination can be attributed to rural, poor, and low-caste background that does not meet the so-called standards of the urban middle-class and upper castes, who generally dominate the educational situation at all the levels. This kind of situation leads to the behaviour of upper castes against the lower castes in order to maintain the status in their favour (Wankhede 2003). Hence, under these circumstances, it is necessary to discuss the forms of discrimination in the light of existing modern values and legal provisions to prevent discrimination.

Forms of Discrimination (p.188) Injustice and inequality in India exist in the worse form by way of social hierarchy (caste as an institution) that is directly linked to social exclusion and discrimination. An analysis of intersecting ways in which institutions and practices built upon caste system helps us to understand how norms and beliefs about social inferiority (and consequent economic and political inferiority of certain castes) are reproduced,, and also explains how social and economic privileges are distributed, who gains and who is excluded, is also important (Wankhede 2003: 63). These excluded communities do suffer from various forms of discrimination that result in different socio-psychological problems and sufferings at material and non-material levels. It is hence relevant to see these forms of discrimination that take place according to time, place, and situation, and are determined by the immediate objective. The Indian social structure is more prone to discrimination by upper castes towards the lower castes in society in general, and in education in particular. But at the same time, due to various social and legal provisions to prevent discrimination, it takes place in different or indirect forms. 1. Caste-intensified discrimination: In this context, it will be worth analysing the phenomenon of discrimination within the frame of caste as a system that empowers one section and makes powerless the other section of the Indian society. For example, by virtue of birth in upper caste, an individual enjoys higher social status, more economic power, and carries inherently the cultural capital, and uses all this against the Page 6 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination individuals born in lower caste (particularly SCs); and the individual may show power and authority, superiority, and dominance to exploit. Hence, in the educational situation, the students, teachers, and staff get socially and psychologically divided, and the lower-caste individuals suffer from discrimination that may lead to poor academic performance. 2. Caste-specific discrimination: Caste-specific discrimination refers to the specific form of discrimination based on cultural norms, beliefs, practices, and customs deriving its legitimacy from principles of caste and religion. Thus, graded inequality embedded in the caste dictates that certain occupations like performing ‘pooja’, teaching–learning, and agriculture are pure and superior, and upper castes only have the ‘rightful’ right to perform these, while occupations like scavenging, sweeping, shoemaking, and haircutting are considered impure and (p. 189) polluting and are performed by the lower castes and Dalits. Further, this understanding of purity and pollution also throws up the practice of untouchability, physical/social distance/segregation, and language demeaning to intrinsic human values. All these issues are interlinked and impact each other to the extent that even the modern and secular education system is impacted negatively. It is a fact that education, at all the levels, is dominated by upper-caste teachers, students, and staff, including management, and hence they carry and practise these notions in the process of teaching–learning wherein the lower-caste students and teachers are discriminated both in subtle and open forms (see Thorat and Newman 2007; Velaskar and Wankhede 1996; and Wankhede 1999). 3. Caste-imposed discrimination: Caste-imposed discrimination refers to the fact that caste inequality has been socially constructed through ageold norms, customs, and practices to protect social and political interests. This has given more power to some social groups. These groups try to dictate and are successful, to an extent, in imposing their own worldview, that is, their own norms, beliefs, and cultural practices, on other depressed social groups. This can be endorsed even in the educational curricula across the country. This leaves little chance for multicultural community to coexist peacefully and democratically. 4. Self-imposed caste discrimination: This category refers to the fact that caste inequality, practice of untouchability, etc., may have been socially constructed, but the members of the lower castes (the SCs in particular) have internalized it and consider this position divinely given in the human order. This makes them willingly submit to the dictates of the upper caste. The combinations of forms of discrimination help to socially construct and get accepted a particular nature of formal and informal social, political, and economic practice in institutions, whereby certain social groups are favoured Page 7 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination over others. This results in the dominance of some social groups over others; and these social groups command and control public goods, get into hierarchies of power and decision making, and consequently, this results in low social status and less access to related tangible (educational qualification, white-collar jobs, productive resources, etc.) and intangible (pride in one’s own cultural practices and customs, etc.) assets for depressed social groups. Thus, we have identified and discussed the broad forms of discrimination both in (p.190) society in general and in education in particular. Let us now discuss the social discrimination in academic discourse where teacher and taught and the administrative staff perform crucial roles and generally belong to the upper castes.

Discrimination in Academic Discourse It is highly relevant to know and discuss the discrimination in academic activities that takes place at all the levels of education while talking of social discrimination in education. During the period after independence, various measures were adopted by the government at central and state levels as a commitment to the constitutional provisions to encourage and facilitate education of the marginalized communities. These measures are broadly of two types: material and non-material. Material measures include scholarships, hostels, books, etc.; and non-material include the reservation of seats, special coaching, etc. The quota of seats in admissions is fixed as per the population proportion, for example, SCs, 15 per cent; STs, 7.5 per cent; OBCs, 27 per cent; and persons with disabilities (PWDs), 3 per cent. As a result of these incentives, a considerable number of these communities could get into education, although we find regional, gender, and caste differences within each category and a high rate of dropout. According to Selected Educational Statistics (MHRD Govt of India, 2005–6), in all 11 per cent of the SCs reach the level of higher education compared to their population proportion which is 15 per cent and only 2 per cent complete it.. Although difficult to see, observe, and record, discrimination is experienced and felt by victims, and can be carried out easily for one who discriminates. Prominent and possible situations for such discrimination are caste records, internal examinations, experiments, viva voce, classrooms and hostels, etc., wherein it is difficult to prove or record such discrimination.

The Cases of Social Discrimination As a supporting evidence of social discrimination based on caste, and thereon reservation policy in academics/education system at different levels, I have given three such cases (see Appendix 2). The first case gives the brief narration of discrimination based on caste in a rural set-up, wherein physical, social, and academic deprivation is clearly seen. The (p.191) extreme impact of this incident is dropping out of school. The second case is drawn from the experiences of a senior academician located in the metropolitan city of Mumbai, Maharashtra, wherein general awareness and social activism is considered to be higher than other states. The incident is related to caste-based bias and Page 8 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination prejudice which are expressed publicly, resulting in the humiliation and, finally, the helplessness of the victims. The girl seeking admission belongs to secondgeneration learners and is convent educated and therefore, relatively less exposed to caste-related issues. This is why, perhaps, the incident generated more intense and shocking reactions as the victims are helpless despite legal provisions. The third case is of a unique nature that demands special attention wherein the discrimination is experienced after achieving highest level of educational mobility and excellence in the field with a wide international recognition. In sum, these cases could be tip of the iceberg, and need to be probed thoroughly in the words and experience of the victims themselves. Most of the SCs are first-generation learners and find it difficult to cope with rising educational standards and the negative educational climate. They are also challenged by their parents’ lack of experience with formal education because of their own limited educational levels. In addition, most of them are forced to work or do hard labour to earn for themselves as well as for their families. At the same time, positive discrimination (reservation policy) plays a negative role too, although it does facilitate educational and social mobility. However, as the base of this reservation policy is ‘caste’, it has generated controversies, conflict, and violence during the last few decades in the society in general, and in education in particular, accusing it of lowering academic standards and benefiting the undeserving ones. This is true in both micro and macro situations in the education system. In other words, the positive discrimination policy itself has led to negative discrimination. This area itself could be an independent issue for further probe.

Consequences of Social Discrimination That the Indian education system has a long way to go to achieve caste, class, and regional parity is evident from the discussion. The issue of caste discrimination has not been central to mainstream social science research in India (Thorat and Newman 2007). Hence, we have limited (p.192) insight about the forms and nature of caste discrimination associated with education. However, based on the limited number of studies (referred earlier) that identified the nature and forms of caste discrimination and its consequences, one can infer that the consequences of caste discrimination in education are multiple; at social and psychological levels, it may manifest in different forms such as deprivation, identity crisis, exclusion, isolation, low self-confidence, dropout, failure, poor performance and depression, humiliation, and mental block. As it is necessary to study the coping mechanisms adopted by the victims, at the same time, it is also pertinent to probe into the issue of those who discriminate.

Page 9 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination Social Discrimination and the Victimizers

While addressing the crucial issue of social discrimination in education system, so far, the perspective of the victims only has been considered for analysis (though in a limited manners); that gives a one-sided picture. However, it is highly relevant to analyse the views of those who victimize others on the basis of caste, that is, why, how, and under what circumstances they do it? What is the background of such persons? What is the exact role of education in minimizing discrimination? All such questions need a thorough empirical probe. *** The issue of social discrimination continues to be relevant for sociologists; and more so in the Indian context of caste system that has direct bearings on other systems, including ‘education’. Caste system and modern education prove to be contradictory in terms of their structure, functions, and objectives. How far education has contributed to the modern values of justice, equality, and secularism, through democratic pattern of governance vis-à-vis caste system, is a question that needs to be conceptually and theoretically understood and analysed. In particular, caste, as the base of social discrimination, and its impact on education is by and large missing from the discourse of social sciences, including SoE, with few exceptions. Review of literature in the Indian context suggests that social science approach, in general, is restricted mainly to economics and psychology that give limited view of the issue. In absence of a theoretical frame, we tried to define social discrimination relying on (p.193) the UN and encyclopaedia definitions that do not necessarily cover the issue of caste discrimination. Indian society strongly represents its complex, diverse, and hierarchical character through the caste system that divides and excludes individuals and groups based on birth, occupations, and income, besides ritual status. Social exclusion—in its more specific manifestation as discrimination—refers to the process through which groups are wholly or partially restricted from full participation in the economic and educational institutions that define social membership. Further, exclusion revolves around institutions that discriminate, isolate, shame, and deprive subordinate groups on the basis of identities like caste, religion, and gender (Thorat and Newman 2007: 4122). At the same time, due to the modernization process and the constitutional provisions, the marginalized/excluded communities like the SCs, STs, and OBCs (in recent time) have been able to access education, although in very limited ways. And even if they are able to access, their performance and sustenance and utility of education are adversely affected due to poor–rural background with socio-cultural handicaps acquired due to the caste(s) they belong to and is used against them to discriminate by teachers, fellow students, and administrative staff belonging to upper castes that generally form majority in all the Page 10 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination educational institutions. Although their education is supported by various material and non-material incentives, prominently the reservation policy, these have proven to be poorly implemented and the legislation has proven to be contentious. The social discrimination based on caste takes place in two broad ways—open and subtle in general public life, and also in the educational discourse—that leads to several social and psychological problems and, in turn, affects academic performance adversely. The caste-based discrimination generally rotates around caste-intensified, caste-specific, caste-imposed, and self-imposed discrimination. At the same time, it is highly pertinent to probe into the social background and methods adopted by the victimizers/discriminators. In the fast-changing society today, with its global and technological character, the principles of equality, justice, and human rights play a crucial role for any nation, and education proves to be one of the basic determinants, especially for India, to implement these principles. The case studies clearly support the views expressed as evidences of caste discrimination. Table A8.1 Discriminatory Treatment in Public Services Forms/Sites of Untouchability Practice

Percentage of No. of Villages Villages Where Form Where Form is is Practised Practised

Total Surveyed Villages

Denied barbers’ services

46.6

229

491

Denied washermen’s services

45.8

194

424

Separate seating in restaurants/hotels

32.7

144

441

Separate utensils in restaurants/hotels

32.3

145

449

Denied carpenters’

25.7

117

455

Tailor will not take measurements

20.8

96

462

Potter will not sell pots

20.5

75

365

Untouchability during transactions in shops

18.5

87

470

services

Page 11 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination

Forms/Sites of Untouchability Practice

Percentage of No. of Villages Villages Where Form Where Form is is Practised Practised

Total Surveyed Villages

No seating/last entry 12.8 in public transport

57

444

Discriminatory treatment in private clinics

24

276

8.7

Source: ActonAid 2004, cited in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights 2006. Notes: (a) Forms/sites arranged in decreasing order of incidence; pooled data from 11 states. (b) Villages where status of practice is ambiguous are excluded. Total surveyed villages exclude villages where relevant institution/site is absent.

Table A8.2 Denial of Access to Basic Public Service Forms/Sites of Untouchability Practice

Percentage of Villages Where Form is Practised

No. of Villages Where Form is Practised

Total SurveyedVillages

Denied access to water facilities

48.5

255

527

No entry into village shops

35.8

186

519

No access to restaurants/hotels

25.6

92

359

No entry into private health centre/clinic

21.3

74

348

No access/entry to public transport

9.2

41

447

No entry/seating in cinema halls

3.2

6

187

Source: ActonAid 2004, cited in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights 2006. Notes: (a) Forms/sites arranged in decreasing order of incidence; pooled data from 11 states).

Page 12 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination (b) Villages where status of practice is ambiguous are excluded. Total surveyed villages exclude villages where relevant institution/site is absent. Case Studies Case Study 1

My village has no school. It was two miles away in another village. We, scheduled castes were not allowed to sit inside the classroom. Moreover, facilities like drinking water, study room consulting teachers were not for us. I discontinued after four years because it was far away and it had no proper atmosphere. Our financial condition was not very bad but I discontinued it mainly because of utter discrimination in the school. Then after a gap of 5–6 years, I rejoined. During this time period, my father died and we lost the source of livelihood. I started doing all kinds of odd jobs to help the family and myself. Moreover, I did social work, tried to teach cleanliness to my people, tell them to give up unclean occupations, study and take up education etc. The result was that the SC people refused to do traditional occupations. The high caste people got annoyed and threatened to kill me. I ran away to Delhi. I worked there as a peon for 14 years and did diploma in record keeping. Now I work as record keeper in the Government Department (Wankhede 2002: 134). Case Study 2

My daughter scored 80.5 per cent marks in the Xth Board Exam in 2002. She is brilliant and very sharp. Aspires to become a medical doctor; so tries to get admission to a good college for Science (Biology) stream. It is very difficult to get admission in good colleges for all including the reserved quota candidates. Minority colleges are excluded from adopting the reservation policy, so admission becomes more difficult for the reserved category students. The students are admitted on the basis of merit and the difference between open and reserved quota (p.196) candidates’ percentage of marks is very little—between 5–7 per cent. My daughter does not get admission in any college of her choice. The next good college is located in Chembur wherein the Hindutva ideology is dominant and anti-Dalit, anti-reservation lobby is strong and active. However, the management is forced to implement the reservation quota as per government directives. There are two sub-streams within science at XIth and XIIth standards, i.e. vocational and biology. According to the college management, it is unbelievable that the government has reserved 50 percent of the seats for SCs and STs. So the college management tried first to put all the SC–ST students in the vocational stream irrespective of their merit and their choice. Accordingly, my daughter was forcefully told to choose the vocational stream and was denied the biology stream although she was eligible for it and seats were available. Both the parents and the girl tried to request, persuade and convince the persons incharge of admissions to admit her to the stream of her choice. The persons inPage 13 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination charge were senior teachers of the college sitting on the benches in a hall dealing with the procedures. There was a long queue of students accompanied by parents. When our turn came, these fellows bluntly refused to listen to us and started openly and loudly passing sarcastic comments against reservation and its beneficiaries. They accused the reserved category persons of availing everything free with no efforts and thus getting ‘pampered’! This was done repeatedly for two days. Both my wife and I were shocked and felt humiliated beyond tolerance but could say nothing, as the child’s admission was more important. The girl started crying. We all were found to be helpless. Then some known contract person intervened and finally the girl was admitted into science (biology). After a few days, we came to know that it was necessary for the college to admit some students in the vocational stream for getting the grant from the government. So the college was trying to admit all SC–ST students in that stream as the general students do not show any interest in this stream (Wankhede 2002: 43–5). Case Study 3

The following is an experience of an eminent and internationally reputed scientist, a Scheduled Caste, in the field of construction engineering. Dr. Mahesh (name changed) served as a scientist in construction engineering in USA, Israel and Malaysia with standing invitations to (p.197) work in many other countries. After serving abroad for several years, Dr. Mahesh considered returning to India to serve the country. He delivered several talks at IITs that were appreciated greatly and finally, he was formally invited by IIT Chennai to join. A post was specially created for him by the ministry. He put in the application where in there was column on caste which he filled in by mentioning his caste. Nobody knew his caste till then. He kept waiting for the appointment letter for 6 months. Finally, he met the IIT director and then the ministry official; neither gave him a satisfactory answer. Dr. Mahesh ultimately realized that his caste was causing this delay and avoidance. He felt humiliated and highly demoralized and leaving matters half-way, went back. He is now doing his best there with no regrets (Wankhede 200: 52) Note: These cases are drawn from daily dairy maintained by the author and from the data collected for research purpose. References Bibliography references: Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arnold, C. and P.J. Foster. 1964. ‘Discrimination and Inequality in Education’, Sociology of Education, 58(1): 1–18.

Page 14 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination Blank, R.M., M. Dabady and C.F. Citro (eds). 2004. Measuring Racial Discrimination: Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington DC: The National Academics Press. Borgatta E.F., and R.J.V. Montgomery. 2000. Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol.1. New York: MacMillian. Jayaram, N. 1987. Higher Education and Satus Retention: Students in Metropolis, Delhi: Mittal Publication. Jha, J. and D. Jhingram. 2002. Elementary Education of the Poorest and Other Deprived Groups: The Real Challenges of Universalization. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research. Nambissan, G. 2010. ‘Exclusion and Discrimination in Schools: Experiences of Dalit Children’, in S. Thorat and K.S. Newman (eds), Blocked by Caste: Economic Discrimination in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–87. Narula, S. 2004. ‘Caste Discrimination’, in S. Thorat and Umakant (eds), Caste, Race and Discrimination: Discourse in International Context. New Delhi: Rawat, pp. 283–91. National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. 2006. Report on Dismantling Caste Based Discrimination. New Delhi: National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. (p.198) Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE) Team. 1999. Public Report on Basic Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rao, S.S. 2002. ‘Dalits in Education and Workforce’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(29): 2998–3000. Thorat Committee. 2007. ‘Caste Discrimination in AIIMS’, Economic and Political Weekly, 42(22): 20–32. Thorat, S. 2004. ‘On Reservation Policy for Private Sector’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(25): 2560–63. ———. 2006. ‘Paying the Social Debt’, Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (24) June: 2432–35. ———. 2009. Dalits in India: Search for Common Destiny. New Delhi: Sage. Thorat, S. and K.S. Newman. 2007. ‘Caste and Economic Discrimination: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies’, Economic and Political Weekly, 42(41): 4121–24. UN Cyber School Bus. ‘Understanding Discrimination’. Available at http:// cyberschoolbus.un.org/discrim/id_8_ud_race.asp (accessed 30 July 2010).

Page 15 of 16

 

Caste and Social Discrimination Velaskar, P. 2005. ‘Education, Caste, Gender: Dalit Girls’ Access to Schooling in Maharashtra’, Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 19(4): 459– 82. Velaskar, P. and G.G. Wankhede. 1996. ‘From Old Stigma to New…Exploring the Changing Identity of Urban Educated Dalits’, Indian Journal of Social Work, 57(1): 115–34. Wankhede, G.G. 1999. Social Mobility and Scheduled Castes. Jaipur: Rawat. ———. 2001. ‘Educational Inequalities among Scheduled Castes in Maharashtra’, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(18): 1553–58. ———. 2002. ‘Dalits in India: A Critique of the Issues and Challanges’, Think India, 5(4): 399–418. ———. 2003. In the Handbook of Sensitizing Teachers and Teacher Educators: Discrimination Based on Sex, Caste, Religion and Disability. New Delhi: NCTE.

Access brought to you by:

Page 16 of 16

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life Labelling of Stigmatized Groups in an IIT Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0010

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines how institutions becomes sites for structural discrimination and labelling by describing the reasons for the failure of students from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in one Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) during 2005–2006. The causes of academic failure were put down to their lack of social ‘adjustment,’ and did not include the deep roots of the process that characterizes a student from a socially stigmatized group as ‘not capable of success’ and as ‘destined to fail’. Using Erving Goffman’s theoretical ideas on ‘stigma’, the author analyses interviews undertaken with students from stigmatized groups and explains how stigma-based structural categorizations and labelling emerge, play out, and affect a student's academic achievement as well as social adjustment. The author also explains how institutions practise unwritten rules that distinctly identify individuals and groups who are labelled as disadvantaged by their structural location and status. Eventually, the cornerstone of the whole educational and social system encloses the underprivileged classes in the roles which society has already given them, which is only a result of their inferior social status. The author concludes by pointing out that policies and practices that identify, recognize, and label students within academic (pedagogical) and non-academic (non-pedagogical) contexts of the institution are detrimental to the success of SC/ST students.

Page 1 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life Keywords:   institutionalized exclusion, Indian Institute of Technology, structural categorizations, caste labelling, tribe labelling, student labelling, stigma, social adjustment, academic failure, student selfexclusion, stigmatized students

Though there have been studies of academic failure of students from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for over four decades, none of them have used a particular theoretical frame or approach to explain such failure. The studies have, in general, captured the existence of structural differentiation by examining representation and composition of SC and ST students in higher education. At best, they outlined causes and consequences of academic failure and what they saw as lack of social ‘adjustment’ of these students within the institutions. One serious omission in such research has been how a student experiences academic failure as well as social ‘adjustments’ and how institution becomes a site for structural discrimination and labelling. The studies have not included, within their coverage, the deep roots of the process that characterizes a student from a socially stigmatized group as ‘not capable of success’ and as ‘destined to fail’. Using the much-celebrated interactionist sociologist Erving Goffman’s perspective, the chapter documents that the reason for academic ‘success’ or ‘failure’ and ‘social adjustment’ or ‘maladjustment’ of students from Dalit1 and tribal groups in higher education is strongly dependent on their very location within the social structure which identifies them as stigmatized and assigns them various labels. It is important to point out that not only are certain castes stigmatized, the tribes are also stigmatized. While the castes are stigmatized in terms of their ritual purity and impurity, the tribes are stigmatized in terms (p.200) of their differential access to what is called ‘civilization’, and isolation from what is defined as ‘mainstream’. Often, words such as ‘uncivilized’, ‘rustic’, ‘forest’, and ‘hill’ are used to refer to them. In simple terms, stigma is nothing but some ‘undesired differentness’ (Goffman 1963: 5) that characterizes an individual as stigmatized. According to Goffman, it was the Greeks who originated the term ‘stigma’ to refer to ‘bodily signs designed to expose something unusual and bad about the moral status of the signifier’ (Goffman 1963: 1). Elaborating this, he observes that ‘The signs were cut or burnt into the body and advertised that the bearer was a slave, a criminal, or a traitor—a blemished person, ritually polluted, to be avoided, especially in public places’ (Goffman 1963: 1). In other words, the term stigma is used to refer to ‘an attribute that is deeply discrediting’ (Goffman 1963: 3) Goffman mentions three grossly different types of stigma: First there are abominations of the body—the various physical deformities. Next there are blemishes of individual character perceived as weak will, domineering or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, and dishonesty, those being inferred from a known record of, for example, mental disorder, imprisonment, addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, unemployment, suicidal attempts, and radical political behavior. Finally Page 2 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life there are tribal stigma of race, nation, religion, these being stigma that can be transmitted through lineages and equally contaminate all members of a family. (Goffman 1963: 4) The last of the categories in the classification, namely, race, religion, and nation, fits into the current framework of relating stigma attached to Dalits and tribes in that such stigma is due not to their individual characteristics, but to their group characteristics. The chapter uses this perspective of Goffman to examine and interpret the experiences of students from SC or Dalit and ST groups in their everyday institutional life. It argues that the stigmatized identity typifies students of these groups and labels them in terms of their inferior social status, which then justifies stereotypes such as ‘not capable’, ‘not meritorious’, and ‘bound to fail’ in higher education system. As Goffman (1963) suggests, society establishes these means of categorizing persons, and the social settings establish the categories of persons likely to be encountered in those settings. Against this background, the chapter aims to describe the processes of labelling of stigmatized groups within the institutional spaces—pedagogic and nonpedagogic. It discusses what happens when a student enters the higher education institution after passing through a (p.201) rigorous selection process through Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and how, as a result of labelling, he/ she gets stereotyped and encounters discrimination. The notions of academic success or failure play out more visibly in the institutions that are designated as ‘centres of excellence’, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs)2, than in any other general higher education institution. These institutions are by statute designated as institutions of ‘national importance’, defined mainly in terms of their being islands of so-called ‘excellence’; however, by the very same statute, they are also mandated to be equal. The chapter focuses on one of the six IITs3 that were in operation as in 2005– 06.4 It relies on the material collected through intensive fieldwork conducted in that institution in different phases during 2005–06 and covered mainly the students. Interviews were conducted with 24 students from the stigmatized groups, namely, SCs and STs, though only a few cases are discussed here to suit the focus and objectives of the chapter. Since stigma and discrimination are fundamentally experiential, evidence produced here covers only students from the stigmatized (SC/ST) groups who have had to experience stigma in their everyday life. The underlying assumption is that it is the group that is subjected to stigma, labelling, and discrimination which must describe and present their lived subjective experiences rather than perspectives and perceptions that may come from groups that are not stigmatized or not subjected to discrimination historically and socially. As Goffman remarks, ‘in the sociological study of stigmatized persons, one is usually concerned with the kind of corporate life, if any, that is sustained by those of a particular category’ (Goffman 1963: 22). It is important to avoid any dilution of the subjective interpretation of experiences of Page 3 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life stigma by including the very same groups which, in fact, ‘stigmatize’ or ‘who have the power to stigmatize’ others.

Understanding Everyday Life Experiences and Discrimination: How Goffman’s Sociology can Help Us? The notion of stigma and its effects on various aspects of social life of an individual are well documented in sociology and social psychology. It is a powerful concept that has far-reaching implications for understanding the contemporary discourses on the processes of exclusion and discrimination. The contemporary perspectives on stigma (p.202) draw largely on the classic work of Goffman (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. Goffman’s writings such as Embarrassment and Social Organisation (1956), Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), ‘The Neglected Situation’ (1964), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour (1967), and Replies and Responses (1976) are equally crucial to understand contexts and conditions of discrimination and exclusion within the educational contexts. Goffman’s interpretation of stigma needs to be applied to the Indian context with caution as stigma in the Indian society is basically rooted in caste-based, group-oriented processes. Notwithstanding this limitation, his analysis gives us a theoretical framework that can help us to understand effects of stigma in a caste society as well. As Goffman (1963) argues, individual stigma emanates from the social organization of everyday life. Stigma as an attribute extensively discredits an individual, reducing him or her from a whole and usual person to a tainted one. According to Goffman (1963), it is the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance that leads him to experience a discrepancy between the imagined and actual identity, which may impact the presentation of his own self in the society. ‘…a discrepancy may exist between an individual’s virtual and actual identity. This discrepancy, when known about or apparent, spoils his social identity; it has the effect of cutting him off from society and from himself so that he stands a discredited person facing an unaccepting world’ (Goffman 1963: 19). Goffman provides useful hints of how the perceptions of discrimination emerge in the stigmatized individuals. He goes to the extent of noting that ‘by definition, a person with stigma is not quite human’ (Goffman 1963: 5). On this assumption, he argues, ‘we exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if not unthinkingly, reduce his (a stigmatized person) life chances’ (emphasis added) (Goffman 1963: 5). Further, ‘We use specific stigma terms such as cripple, bastard, moron, in our daily discourse as a source of metaphor and imagery, typically without giving thought to the original meaning’ (Goffman 1963: 5). We also ‘tend to impute a wide range of imperfections on the basis of original one, and at the same time to impute some desirable but undesired attributes, often of a super-natural cast, such as “sixth sense” or “understanding”’ (Goffman 1963: 4). On the other hand, what the stigmatized Page 4 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life individual believes is also described by Goffman very aptly, ‘The stigmatized individual tends to hold the same beliefs about identity that we do, this is a pivotal fact. His deepest feelings about what he is may be his sense (p.203) of being a “normal person” a human being like anyone else, a person, therefore, who deserves a fair chance and a fair break’ (Goffman 1963: 7). The central feature of the stigmatized individual’s situation in life can now be stated. It is a question of what is often, if vaguely, called ‘acceptance’. Goffman elaborates that ‘those who have dealings with the stigmatized individual fail to accord him the respect and regard’ (Goffman 1963: 8–9). The stigmatized individual ‘echoes this denial by ending that some of his own attributes warrant it’ (Goffman 1963: 8–9). Goffman explains what happens when the stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals confront each other in an interaction situation. He argues that: ‘When normals and stigmatized do in fact enter one another’s immediate presence, especially when they attempt to sustain a joint conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of sociology, for in many cases, these moments will be the ones when the causes and effects must be directly confronted by both sides’ (Goffman 1963: 13). Goffman himself confronts the question: how does the stigmatized individual respond to this situation? He suggests that such notions of stigma distract an individual’s life and, importantly, his beliefs about himself. He begins to exclude himself. One of the consequences of this social situation, as Goffman mentions, is ‘cowering’ (or, in other words, the individual shrinks, or trembles, or shies away), which the stigmatized individual undertakes in response to the discriminating mixed social situation: ‘Given what the stigmatized individual may well face upon entering a mixed social situation, he may anticipatorily respond by defensive cowering’ (Goffman 1963: 17). Goffman also suggests that in everyday social situations with an individual known or perceived to have a stigma, we are likely to employ categorizations that do not fit, and we and he are likely to experience uneasiness. Since the stigmatized person is likely to be more often faced with these situations than who Goffman calls as ‘normals’, he is likely to become more adept in managing them and, as a result, interaction uneasiness, cowering, self-exclusion become imminent. Goffman (1963) observes that, in the interaction uneasiness, ‘selfconsciousness’ or ‘other consciousness’ occurs between the normals and stigmatized. This leads to a process of what is generally referred to as selfexclusion which is often cited by many researches on stigmatized (SC/ST) students in higher education as one of the possible reasons for their academic failure and lack of social (p.204) adjustment. In a way, if one scrutinizes closely, the process of self-exclusion is in itself an outcome of the exclusionary

Page 5 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life social situation and the very structure of everyday social life which a stigmatized individual encounters. As is well known, the SCs are labelled as such because of the stigma of being ‘impure’, ‘outcaste’, ‘untouchable’, etc. They suffered historically in the Hindu caste structure, which excluded them from interacting equally with members of other so-called ‘upper castes’ or the castes that were placed higher in the hierarchical order. They were made to live a life of subjugation, segregation, and social embarrassment in everyday encounters of life in the society. The stigma, of being ‘untouchable’ in the case of SCs or of being ‘those who live in forests’, or ‘uncivilized’, in the case of STs, has also kept them away from accessing schools and traditions of learning in the modern Indian society. Some of these handicaps are seen manifesting in the proportion of SC and ST students represented in the higher educational institutions. Studies by Chalam (1990); Chanana (1993); Chitnis (1972); Ramaswamy (1985); Rao (2002); Wankhede (2006); Xaxa (2002), etc., have amply suggested that there exists a structure of denial of access for SCs and STs in higher education. Velaskar and Wankhede (1996) have also shown that the old forms of stigma have mutated into new forms of stigma which operate and condition the experiences of SC and ST students. Though there are a large number of studies on IITs, such as Bibha Rani (1977, 1980); Indiresan and Nigam (1993); King (1970); Kirpal (1976); Kirpal and Gupta (1999); Kirpal et al. (1984); Prakash (1995); Rajagopalan and Singh (1968); and Sharma and Ram (1974), their focus was mainly on understanding the factors that impact on the academic underachievement of SC and ST students in the institutes. The studies and writings on IITs have attributed various reasons to the alienation of students from labelled groups, such as financial reasons and the ability of students to cope with the institute's high academic standards (Indiresan and Nigam 1993); non-cognitive factors of personality disposition (Bibha Rani 1977, 1980); linguistic handicap, cultural shock, and inferiority complex (Kirpal 1976); lack of proper pre-school and preparatory training, and resentment at the hands of non-SC/ST students (Kirpal et al. 1984); the incidence of psychological symptoms (Prakash 1995); and feeling of inferiority, helplessness, and a distinct feeling of lacking upper-class urban culture (Kirpal and Gupta 1999). What these studies have not probed, however, is how the feelings of alienation, helplessness, inferiority, and discrimination are induced (p.205) in the minds of these students. What are the contexts that produce conditions for discrimination and exclusion within the institutions? It is this issue that the chapter aims to discuss. The chapter examines how labelling of students from stigmatized individuals and groups, which begins in the reception class, remains with them for the rest of four years of their everyday corporate life in the institution and how it conditions their social and academic adjustment within the institutional spaces.

Page 6 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life Routes of Access to IIT: Seeds of ‘Differentness’ The JEE is the primary channel of admission to undergraduate programmes in these institutes. The demand for admission in these institutes makes JEE rigorous and prestigious.5 Some would argue that the JEE has world-class standards and it is one of the most difficult examinations at the post-secondary level and that it is thought of as a test most suited to the best minds and brains in the country. However, some others would argue that JEE is no more than a test of average understanding of the fundamentals and ability to manage time in problem solving. In this case, it implies that exposure to coaching and preparation before taking the examination would be sufficient to crack it. Thus, it is commonly held that without the preparatory coaching, it is difficult to enter the IITs. The coaching includes: coaching by tutorial establishments;6 by a tutor for individual subjects, namely, mathematics, physics, and chemistry; distance education7 by coaching institutions for short term and long term; and personal contact classes.8 A large majority of the students going to places like these come from well-to-do, upper middle-class, and highly educated home backgrounds. On other hand, most of the SC and ST students come from small towns or rural areas, lower middle occupational and educational home backgrounds. By implication, it means that the IITs restrict advantages to the middle and elite social classes and upper and intermediary castes, leaving out the lower socioeconomic classes and castes. So far as admission of SC/ST students is concerned, there are two entry routes. First is through the JEE and the other through the preparatory course (PC), selection to which is also based on the performance in JEE. One of long-standing practices of JEE is the preparation of separate all-India merit lists for the general, SCs, and STs, using separate cut-off marks. It is said that this is done for administrative reasons to ensure that adequate number of students from the underprivileged sections get admission into (p.206) IIT. The cut off for the SCs and STs is fixed over the years—about two-thirds of the marks obtained by the last candidate in general category is adjudged as the cut-off value for SC/ST candidates to get selected into the IIT system. Some (Indiresan and Nigam 1993) would argue that such a large divergence in the entry performance has brought into the IIT system a significant number of academically deficient students who have considerable difficulty in coping with the system in spite of remedial measures. This perception refuses to take cognizance of the fact that the performance of SC/ST and general category students in the school leaving examination is not so wide as compared to that in the JEE. Second route for entry into IIT for an SC/ST student is through PC9 for academically weak students who do not make it to the selection even with the reduced cut-off level. In spite of all these efforts, the number of SC/ST candidates who qualify for admission either to the regular programmes or to the PC falls far short of the number of seats available under the reserved category (Rao 2002). Over the years, the number of SC/ST students entering the IIT Page 7 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life system through PC has been considerable. In the ST category, one finds that the number of students entering through PC is more than those entering through JEE; and in the SC category also, the number (192 students) is quite significant (IIT Madras 2005). In a way, IIT system seems to mandate the entry of a majority of students from SC/ST categories through year-long PC and not through the open JEE wherein a student need not wait for a year to get into IIT system. The rationale behind the PC is that it equips the SC/ST student to cope with the academic rigour and pressure in an IIT. The PC students are not the regular students of the IIT, but are kept in the IITs for nine months, offered all the facilities of lodge and boarding, and taught by the same teachers who will teach them later when they enter the BTech programme. The standard of the course10 is usually of the 10 + 2 standard. For students who opt for this course, it is the brand of IIT that matters, even if it means a loss of one year. Though one gets a seat in some other engineering college, he/she may forego that and join the PC. One of the students who has undergone the course observes: I could not clear JEE in my first attempt. At that time, I was disgusted and disappointed. I was weighing my options as to what to do. I thought I will go to REC or BITS, Pilani or just B.Sc. Around that time, I got a letter from the IIT that I have been selected for Preparatory Course. I was in two minds—whether to go for PC or for the B.Tech in BITS Pilani or REC. But, finally, I decided, (p.207) IIT is IIT. If I perform in PC, my career will be made. So I opted for PC. Yeah, it’s painful to repeat another year of 10+2. Once a student enters the PC, he/she may change his/her opinion. The very fact that a student has to repeat the entire course of 10+2 makes the course boring. On top of it, they have to hear some embarrassing comments from their teachers. They have to hear such comments from the teachers as ‘your basics are poor’, ‘you don’t know even this’, ‘you can’t cope’, and ‘It’s tough for you’, which demoralizes them. Students narrate their PC experience as something ‘horrible’ and one of the students who attended the PC asked: ‘Why should IITs have the preparatory course, no other engineering college or course has this kind of a programme. Even an excellent medical college like AIIMS doesn’t have such a programme. Then why should IITs have it when they don’t have such Course that identifies us distinctly based on our caste?’ The experience of a teacher also corroborates these views. According to her, I taught the Preparatory Course students and I attended the meetings of the faculty with the students. In all these meetings, my colleagues would say that…‘You are from weaker sections and your level of understanding is very low and you must work hard’. I find this attitude leading to problems of psychological adjustments and pressures. Some students may feel bad that their social background is referred. They are already undergoing some Page 8 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life psychological pressure because their peers are already in B.Tech. They are taught by the same teachers, yet they can’t call themselves as students of IITs. They are put to several pressure tactics. At least they should be given some psychological push rather than putting them down. Definitely, in IIT, gender and caste are important concerns. What is important to note is that in spite of the PC, students seem to ‘fail’ to cope with the academic pressure. This calls for understanding of what happens within the institution which may have an impact on how they cope and adjust to the corporate, institutional life.

Origins of Discrimination and Exclusion within the Institution Howsoever vehemently one might argue against, citing the reasons of administrative convenience, the story of discrimination in an IIT begins at the time of application to the JEE. It starts with the colour coding of the application form for JEE. The SC and ST students mentioned that they have had to fill in a coloured application form and the general category (p.208) students fill an application in another colour, generally white.11 In 2000, it was said to be pink for the SC/ST candidates and plain white for the general category candidates.12 It is not surprising as this is reported to have been a procedure practised in other elite institutions such as IIMs.13 It is not understood as to why there is colour coding when a simple column asking for the caste/tribe category is sufficient to segregate the results. What is important to note here is that the identity of the freshmen and women SC/ST students begins to evolve in the institutions and takes a distinct nomenclature and stereotype once these students enter IIT. If a student is conscious of the differences in the colours of the applications, he/she will begin to wonder as to why all this, and construct the first signs of discrimination even before entering the institution.14 Many a times, students appearing in the examination may not be conscious of this distinction, but looking back, they do wonder why different colours were necessary. They then begin to wonder, genuinely, the objectivity of the evaluation of the colourcoded answer scripts as it was claimed that even the answer sheets are colour coded. It is a widely accepted fact that those who evaluate answer scripts may have their own preconceived notions of the stigmatized caste/tribe groups and the colour coding therefore acts counter to the spirit of affirmative action. In the minds of the evaluators, as Goffman (1963: 3) suggests, the stigmatized student ‘is reduced to a discounted one’. In this context, the very practice loses its objectivity and hence, it amounts to deliberate structural discrimination.

The Reception Class: Acquiring Labels—The ‘PC’ and the ‘CATA’ Student Goffman (1959: 1) argues in the opening line of his book, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, ‘When an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to acquire information about him or to bring into play information about him already possessed’. For Goffman (1963), society establishes means of knowing and categorizing persons. In his own words, Page 9 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life ‘social settings establish the categories of persons likely to be encountered’ (Goffman 1963: 12). He elaborates that when a stranger comes into our presence, the first appearances are likely to enable us to anticipate his category and attributes, and his social identity, which in turn may enable the process of labelling and stigmatization based on such identity. The encounters with the SC and ST members often lead to such categorizations or labelling based on notions of stigma that have (p.209) been passed on historically from generation to generation. In the caste-based societies, categorization based on caste identity is the primary form of such categorizations and the effects of stigma starts operating ever since. The first or reception class offers this situation for ‘knowing’ the other, that is, his/her caste, class, region, or religion. The mutual introductions of students and teachers in the reception class reveal these identities, and students and teachers come to know of each other, particularly those of the labelled category, more prominently. If a student enters IIT via PC, the student is already known to the teachers as well as the students that he/she is from the SC and ST category, as the PC is meant for only these groups and surely not for the non-labelled categories. Thus, the first marker of student’s stigma gets revealed through the PC tag, and the student acquires, for the rest of his institutional life, the label of ‘PC student’, which denotes his formal label of SC/ST. If a student enters directly through JEE, without having to attend PC, the labelling has a different nomenclature. The SC/ST student is now referred to as the ‘CATA student’. It is interesting to know how it happens. The first thing an IIT student is asked upon joining, by the peers or even the teachers in the reception class introductions, is his/her rank in JEE along with the name, place of origin, etc. The rank in the JEE clearly reveals the category of the student. Precisely because the ranks in JEE are not unified into one common list, but three different merit lists: the General/Open, the SC, and the ST categories. The students will therefore have to reveal their rank in their respective category of the merit list. Sometimes, the reserved category students are asked directly whether they belong to the reservation quota. The subsequent interaction depends upon the label/tag they acquire. A student’s region, religion, or language is not as important as his/her caste/ tribe. It is found that the labels of ‘PC student’ or ‘CATA student’ are the reference terms for anyone in the institute, right from the director to the deans to the heads of department (HoDs) to the faculty, or to even the non-teaching staff, besides the fellow students. The moment the reference to these nomenclatures arises, the talk will be in intonation, or gestural, as if the talk of these students itself is banned or prohibited. These acts or events, as Goffman (1967) observes, ‘carry ceremonial messages’: ‘….as and when an individual

Page 10 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life makes a statement of praise or depreciation regarding self or other, and does so in a particular language and intonation; gestural’ (Goffman 1967: 55). (p.210) The tag of the PC/CATA student is so intertwined with the process of identity formation that it does not leave a student till he/she leaves the IIT. Perhaps it may even continue after one leaves the campus. The tag of ‘PC/CATA student’ is also closely linked with the tag of the ‘slow pace’ students,15 demonstrating that they are academically weak or non-performing students. Thus, labelling based on stigma is used to describe their academic profiling, which impinges on every aspect of their encounters in the pedagogic contexts—classroom as wells as laboratory settings.

Discrimination and Exclusion in Pedagogic Settings The first semester is always high pressure situation for IIT students. They have to do several courses in a very short duration of time. As a result, the first casualty of this condensed semester are the students from disadvantaged groups. They have to cope with the burden of several courses in short duration of time. What makes students from weaker sections even more vulnerable is the attitude of some of the teachers, which make them feel inferior and hence discriminated. As one student states, ‘the teachers and the fellow classmates know our caste/tribe background in the first class itself’. The categorizations of PC/CATA student begin to operate within the everyday pedagogical contexts then on. The manner in which discrimination takes place is best explained in terms of the personal experiences of a Dalit student regarding his first class in the institute: It was our Physics class and we were meeting the teacher for the first time. After the lecture, the teacher called for clarification of doubts, if any, and I asked a question. Then the teacher instead of answering it straight, he asked me another question in return, ‘You don’t know even this? Are you a PC student?’ I felt humiliated and insulted. Imagine that was my first class and what kind of image would I have before my fellow classmates. That time onwards, I started hating his class and even physics. Now I don’t want to be an engineer. I will go into some other programme. Soon after the reception class, peer groups begin to emerge. To a question as to who do they group themselves with, an overwhelming majority responded that they team generally with the same regional, linguistic, religious, and caste backgrounds. For a student who is labelled, there are different manifestations of discrimination as a result of such peer grouping. It clearly keeps them outside the interaction zones of the so-called advantaged—academically and socially. This would obviously lead them to group themselves. A few exceptions to this grouping are (p.211) observed. For instance, a Dalit student will have to be extremely good in some extra-curricular or curricular activity, then the rules of interaction are eased and mixing up is possible. If a Dalit (labelled) student is Page 11 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life not good at any of the curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular activities, then he/she is not welcome to the groups of non-labelled students. They are not invited to be members of the team work, laboratory/workshop sets/groups, and even the informal study groups in the classroom and in the hostels. The consequence of such interaction is the total silence inculcated by these groups on the campus in their everyday social and academic life. Jai Kumar (name changed), a third year student from ST says, ‘When a teacher takes a class, the reserved (labelled) caste students keep quiet. Only forward (non-labelled) caste students ask questions. So the teachers have the impression that the reserved caste students are not good in studies’ (emphasis added). The experiences of a girl Vijee (name changed) from ST background sums up the nature of discrimination that takes place in IIT in terms of her stigmatized identity of a tribe and the extent to which she got demotivated, and ultimately failed, in her efforts to clear her course work. Her case came to light as she represented it to the National SC/ST Commission and later, of course, the issue was politicized by the local political parties in Chennai. What is worth noting through this example is the manner in which a student who has done exceptionally well in her 10+2 exam and the state-level engineering entrance exam collapses academically in the institute and struggles to recover from the deliberate discrimination in the pedagogical contexts from the teachers and the peers in the institute. Vijee was an ST student who secured 94 per cent in school leaving (intermediate/+2) examination and had scored cent per cent marks in her physics paper in the first year of the two-year intermediate level. She was offered a seat in Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences (BITS), Pilani, but refused the seat to take up PC in IIT in 1999. She received Pratibha (Excellence) Award from the Government of Andhra Pradesh for being the state first-rank holder in the ST category. She represented the state of Andhra Pradesh at various Mathematics Olympiads as well. Her tryst with the structural exclusion began by the end of her PC. She received a letter at the end of the PC informing her that she had not cleared the physics test in which she stood state-first with cent per cent marks. So, she did not qualify for the BTech programme. Some family friends advised her to take her case to the National Commission for SC/ (p.212) ST for justice. The Director SC/ST Commission asked the Director of IIT for either re-evaluation of her papers or to conduct a re-examination for her. After repeated requests from the Commission, she was allowed to write an exam and was given admission to the MTech dual degree course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with a specialization in communications.

Page 12 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life She was admitted finally into IIT after 20 days of the start of the academic session in the first semester. The first quiz started 10 days after her joining. She couldn’t do well in that quiz as she had hardly attended classes, and she says that she tried to improve her performance, but failed to do so. At the end of the first semester, she received a ‘struck-off’ notice saying that she had earned only seven credits as against 10 credits. But since it was her first struck-off notice, the institute would give her a chance and she would have to earn 28 credits by the end of the second semester. She narrates her experiences of discrimination by teachers as following: There was a professor for Physics I in the first semester, who was really strict especially to me because of my past issue of failing in the physics course during my preparatory course. Even if I attended a class, if I am late by 2 seconds, he would never give me attendance. And I will not be allowed to sit in the examination if my attendance is low as a result. One day the Professor called me and told me that I have a heavy shortage of attendance and that I will not be allowed to write the end-semester examination. At first, I thought it was due to my late joining that I did not have attendence that is stipulated to write the examination. But, later, I came to know that it was due to the fact that the professor never gave me attendance! After complaining to the Head of the Department (HoD), I was allowed to sit in the examination. My result in the course was said to be ‘E’ grade in that particular course. But it was not declared because of the holidays and in the meantime, the HoD was posted as the Director of an IIT. When the grades were finally declared, I got ‘W’ Grade (i.e. 0 credits) in my Physics I course, even after clearing the course. Of course, this was not the first time when the W Grade was revoked. There have been cases, I am told that the W grade was revoked after some three years of awarding the Grade as in the case of Mr. Kumar, who passed out in 2002. Vijee’s tale of horror continues, There was another teacher, who used to start the class by telling us a few rules and the first rule is ‘never apply for a make up exam even if you break your right hand, come to the exam and write with your left hand or don’t come for writing the exam because even if you write the make up exam, the highest mark I will award is 1 mark’…I do have a unique experience with this professor as well. When the examination started first, the professor asked me to get the Identity Card. (p.213) I had the Library Identity Card and showed it to him. But, he made me sit in the exam hall for a half an hour without letting me write the examination. But, when I started crying, he asked me to go and get a letter from the Academic Section that I belong to the IIT, Madras. I ran to the administrative Building to get a letter from the Dean. Luckily, I got a letter from the Assistant Registrar and ran back to the exam hall. When I reached the hall, Page 13 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life the professor tells me that for every five minutes I spent outside the exam hall during the exam, he is going to deduct 5 marks from the total marks. Finally, after an hour of the start of the exam, the professor let me take the exam and he did not give me extra time. Even after all this physical and mental torture, I tried to recover and started to write the exam. The professor had already claimed that the Paper was set very very tough. As I expected, I got a ‘U’ Grade when I deserved much more.16 Interestingly, not only were the science and engineering teachers vindictive towards Vijee, even the humanities teachers were found to be casteist and had strong anti-Dalit and tribe perceptions. She notes that she received a hostile response from a teacher of English, who was from an upper caste. According to Vijee, the teacher had inserted her caste name as part of her name, which is easy to identify. She describes the experience with her: The teacher claimed that I attended just five classes out of 25 of hers, which is not true. Every time I meet her, she would start talking about my PC issue and would say that she would pity all those who have died trying for IIT and that I have to be grateful that I was given a chance to study in this Institute, which she feels that I should not have been given in the first place and that I am not worthy of it. Vijee’s case, therefore, shows us the multiple contexts and experiences of discrimination and operation of stigma in everyday interactions in academic contexts. A teacher,17 who is one of the three Dalit faculty members out of a total of nearly 400-odd faculty members in the IIT, substantiates the evidence of Vijee. ‘There is discrimination in the Institute…So long as a person’s caste/tribe is not known, there is no discrimination. Once it is known, the discrimination begins.’18 The Dalit teacher recounts as to how discrimination takes place in the institute: ‘Discrimination takes place in the Institute in many ways. It happens in the way courses are allocated to the faculty members. It reflects in the way students are allocated to each teacher. It certainly matters in the career advancement. And it also decides the kind of responsibilities to the teacher from SC/ST groups’. The teacher also spoke about how his colleagues speak to him regarding the SC/ST students. According to him, (p.214) I have seen my colleagues saying that engineering is not their (SC/ST students) cup of tea. I am told by my Brahmin colleagues that SC/ ST students should not get into the IITs at all. Sometimes students come to me with their problems as I am the Liaison Officer for SC/STs. They for sure say that teachers do keep in mind their caste background when they interact. They say, teachers show it up with comments like—‘It’s not for

Page 14 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life you’. ‘You can’t solve this problem’, ‘You can’t understand this concept’, ‘It’s beyond your understanding’. (Emphasis added) According to another student, Hari Deepak, the general perception among the teachers is that only SC/ST students do badly in studies, which according to him is not correct. Based on this perception, Hari Deepak observes that teachers and students from non-SC/ST category make teams for laboratory/workshop assignments. He explains further that the teachers select students for project supervision based on the category they belong to. According to him, teachers believe that the upper-caste students are good and are academically ‘manageable’. He shows how it happens: During the project work, a student is assigned a faculty supervisor. In this the teachers consider the caste background of students when they accept some and reject others. The best teachers take students who they consider as the best, say above 8 CGPA, in the class. The next best teachers take the ones who are mediocre or average. In the end the ones who are left out with the below average teachers or new teachers are those from SC/ST. That means the SC/ST students are made to work with the teachers who are not so good or the new recruits. Not only the teachers, but the students also make their pairings/teams based on who they think are good performers, and most of them inevitably are from the non-labelled categories. Hari Deepak notes, ‘Best performers go with the best ones. The weak students are left with the weak ones. In my case, none of my batchmates were ready to take me. They are all “psueds” and they think that we are “country” guys and that we are not capable of doing well academically.’ The institute has a unique lingo which is characteristic of its everyday conversations. It, once again, resembles the stigma-based caste/tribe labelling. In this case, the researcher was told that ‘pseuds’ are those who think themselves as brilliant, anglicized, sophisticated, and Western in their etiquette and mannerisms. According to Hari Deepak, ‘they think they are superior to all others. They pretend that they are the best and we are the worst. They feel they are sophisticated and we are slow in our interaction.’ There are instances of practices of discrimination and prejudices against stigmatized students by non-teaching support staff. An SC (p.215) student in the fourth year of BTech Mechanical Engineering, Vivek Behera (name changed), son of an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer in the Government of India, recounts his experience with one such workshop demonstrator in the Department of Mechanical Engineering: We have a workshop demonstrator who may be around 50–55 years of age who used to keep uttering all bad things about the SC students. He keeps creating nuisance every now and then. He would not allow us inside the Page 15 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life workshop even if we are late by five minutes. He keeps shouting at us. We feel disgusted with such behavior. The label of being from ‘stigmatized’ group continues to haunt a student in almost all the settings of academic interaction by members of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as the peers. With peers, the labelling is much more clearly visible in the non-pedagogic settings of hostel and other areas of institutional life.

Non-pedagogic Contexts One of the practices that IIT follows at the time of the PC is to segregate PC students en bloc from the rest of the students in terms of allotment of hostels during their nine month stay on the campus. All the students of the PC are put up in one hostel and in one wing usually. They are made to live in a distinct group and are separated from the other BTech students living in the same hostel or in other hostels. In the IIT that was studied, they were kept in one hostel each year. For instance, in 2001, all the PC students were kept in one hostel (say, Narmada) and, in 2004, they were all put up in another (say, Alakananda Hostel). This gives rise to a sense of togetherness among the PC students as well as a feeling of inferiority. It, in fact, makes them second-rate citizens in the IIT, a feeling that the students get used to in the rest of their social and academic life in an IIT. A student who has attended the course notes: We would greatly benefit from our interaction with students in the B.Tech Course. But, because of the way they place us in the hostels, we hardly have any interaction with the B.Tech students. If we are made to interact from among ourselves, how are we going to take benefit out of our stay in IIT? It also gives us a feeling of inferiority. The IIT, in this case, clearly practices what it preaches, that the PC is ‘officially outside the IIT system’. In practice, thus, IIT practises a policy of difference between the PC and the BTech students in their social life (p.216) by clearly not mixing them up together. The PC, in this sense, loses its significance as an exposure to the conditions and contexts of IIT for the students who are designated as ‘less meritorious’ than those who are selected even by a difference of a fraction of a mark in the JEE. The journey of SC/ST students attending the PC begins with such feelings of segregation, loss of self-esteem, loss of confidence, and a sense of inferiority, which gets reinforced and strengthened even after one makes it to the BTech programme. The bonding of students from the same category in the PC also leads them to team up with each other when they enter the BTech course. They group themselves with other PC students even after they make it to the BTech course for obvious reasons. According to an ST student, Biswas, who attended

Page 16 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life PC, ‘it is easy to get going with the previous room partners rather than with the new ones’. The references to caste are manifested much clearly, and often, in the conversations among students in informal settings such as shopping complexes, mess halls, canteens, playgrounds, common rooms of the hostel, and bus stops in the campus. In these conversations, students find out which category a student belongs to and who does what. In this case, two non-meat eating students, probably belonging to Brahmin caste, try to find out the caste background of a student and show some indifference towards that student’s personal activity, namely, meat eating: Student 1: You know, Vijay (name changed) says he is a vegetarian.

Student 2: He says. But, I heard he gets a big tiffin.

Student 1: Is it, what might have been there in it?

Student 2: What else, his neighbors in the hostel say, he gets non-vegetarian everyday from some uncle of his in the town.

Student 1: Who sends?

Student 2: Don’t know. It’s all a secret. Why should one hide it?

Student 1: He might be from the CATA. They can’t live without meat, you know.

The conversation continues and the time was 10.30 pm. What this conversation clearly brings out is the deep-rooted division in terms of peer group formation among the students on the basis of their distinct caste identity. At times, the interactions lead to some situations of embarrassment, and even anger, among the SC/ST students. Hari Deepak, an SC student in the fourth year of BTech observes: In the mess hall, in the shopping areas, in the play ground, at the table tennis board, in the hostel common rooms, there are references to our caste background. (p.217) In my case, I was indirectly referred to in some conversation by some of my batch mates in the hostel mess. I gave

Page 17 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life them back. I got furious and angry. I felt they are making fun out of me because of my caste. I am embarrassed. According to Goffman (1956), embarrassment is mainly due to the way the group is socially organized in an interaction situation. In this case, the IIT’s social organization seems to lead to such instances of embarrassment and discomfort. There are other ways in which the PC/CATA labels are invoked and a sense of superiority is exhibited against the stigmatized students by those who are nonlabelled and who assume power and dominance to pass such comments, which demotivate students from stigmatized backgrounds. It further makes them feel that they are targeted due to their caste/tribe. A student may begin to form a feeling of disgust as well as anger, along with a sense of dejection and isolation. The sharing of the room between a labelled student and a non-labelled student, in fact, becomes practically impossible in these conditions of structural discrimination and therefore, the labelled and non-labelled students ask for students from their own background as room-mates for this simple reason. One of the students from SC recounts what happened when he first joined the hostel room with a non-labelled room-mate: We were three in our room in the hostel in the first semester of B.Tech. Both the other guys are from the general category and they knew my rank in the JEE and their behaviour changed quite a lot after that. One fellow used to show off that he was better than me and even others, the other fellow would talk only when he has some work. The ‘show off’ would talk about himself too much. He used to say that he has got seats in the medical colleges and other top engineering colleges as well. He used to tell me that his sister is in USA and my family is like this or that. The other fellow would say that he belongs to the same caste as so and so movie actor and their family is like this and that. Though both my parents are Doctors, I never told them about myself and my family. Then I didn’t understand why these guys talk like this and deliberately some way or the other reveal their caste. The student had to hear all this not because he looked like a rustic; in fact, his English was flawless and his dress and mannerisms did not give any impression that he belonged to any lower, lower middle, or rural agricultural social class, or even what one may typecast a person as a ‘Dalit’. He had all the characteristics of the cultural capital that may distinctly place him as a member of the middle class, such as mannerisms, linguistic repository, economic well-being, and healthy physical make-up, if one (p.218) may specify these as markers of the middle class. Rather, the student had to hear all this because of—what he himself believes to be—his caste background that was revealed through his rank in the IIT JEE SC merit list. At times, the students begin to feel suffocated and feel anger and hatred against the perpetrators of such humiliation which Page 18 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life exacerbates the gap between the labelled and non-labelled students in the everyday institutional interactions in an IIT. Examine this opinion of the student: …Once, the fellow who shows off started saying if a person gets into Medical college with negative marks, what will he do after becoming a Doctor. I got irritated with this comment. I feel this was a deliberate attempt to humiliate me. I shot back and this had a lot of effect on my studies in the first semester. It was difficult to deal with these kinds of utterances by your room mates. I hate that fellow even today. The situation of a Dalit student in these everyday situations is something similar to what Goffman (1963) describes in the case of a 43 year-old unemployed: How hard and humiliating it is to bear the name of an unemployed man. When I go out, I cast down my eyes because I feel myself wholly inferior. When I go along the street, it seems to me that I can’t be compared with an average citizen that everybody is pointing at me with his finger. I instinctively avoid meeting any-one. Former acquaintances and friends of better times are no longer so cordial. They greet me indifferently when we meet…their eyes seem to say, ‘you are not worth it, you don’t work’. (Goffman 1963: 28) *** The objective of this chapter is to show processes of social exclusion operate within everyday contexts of higher education institutions. What it did was to discuss, with the help of in-depth interviewing of a small group of students from stigmatized communities, how stigma-based structural categorizations and labelling emerge, play out, and affect a student’s academic achievement as well as social adjustment. Through Goffman’s perspective, the chapter argued that it is simply not sufficient to attribute academic failure, social mal-adjuistment, selfexclusion of SC and ST students to them being unable to cope up with the academic pressure, financial constraints, personality dispositions, inferiority complex, etc., which in turn are a product of systematic structural discrimination that takes place within institutions. It is important to understand inetraction contextas, situations, and rituals that lead them to feel infeor, helpless, (p.219) segregated, self-excluded, and humiliated. It is through such processes of stigmatization and labelling that notions of merit and structural dominance are reproduced by those who have been historically endowed. As neo-Marxist, radical sociologists of education such as Bourdieu would argue, the practices discussed in the chapter are indicative of a socially legitimate means of exclusion of castes/tribes which are designated as inferior and lower in the social hierarchy. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) rightly argue that the educational system serves merely to reproduce the distribution of cultural capital. Those who can receive what the educational institution has to give are Page 19 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life those who already are endowed with the requisite cultural capital. Bourdieu’s position that by giving individuals educational aspirations strictly tailored to their position in the social hierarchy, and by operating a selection procedure which, although apparently formally equitable, endorses real inequalities, educational institutions help both to perpetuate and legitimize inequalities. Moreover, Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) suggest that the cornerstone of the whole educational and social system is to help to enclose the underprivileged classes in the roles which society has given them, which is only a result of their inferior social status. It is this which explains why students from stigmatized groups fail in the so-called institutions of higher learning. It explains how institutions practise unwritten rules that distinctly identify individuals and groups who are labelled as disadvantaged by their structural location and status. It is, therefore, argued that it is simply not enough to say that Dalits fail because they are Dalits, no matter what their social class is and how prepared they were before entering the so-called excellent institutions. The chapter suggests that the policies and practices that identify, recognize, and label students within academic (pedagogical) and non-academic (non-pedagogical) contexts of the institution are detrimental to academic success and social adjustment of SC/ST students. The institution must evolve an environment that can offer egalitarian lived experiences for all students, especially the ones who are stigmatized. References Bibliography references: (p.222) Bibha Rani. 1977. ‘Socio-Psychological Problems of Scheduled Tribe Students in Higher Technical Education: A Study of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Students in Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi’, Unpublished MPhil dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. ———. 1980. ‘Self-Concept and Other Non-Cognitive Factors Affecting the Academic: The Academic Achievement of the Scheduled Caste Students in Institutions of Higher Technical Education’, Unpublished PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Bourdieu, P. and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Chalam, K.S. 1990. ‘Caste Reservations and Equality of Opportunity in Education’, Economic and Political Weekly, 25(41): 2533–8. Chanana, K. 1993. ‘Accessing Higher Education—The Dilemma of Schooling: Women, Minorities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Contemporary India’, in S. Chitnis and P.G. Altbach (eds), Higher Education Reform in India: Experience and Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 115–54. Page 20 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life Chitnis, S. 1972. ‘Education for Equality—Case of Scheduled Castes in Higher Education’, Economic and Political Weekly, Special Number(August): 1675–81. Dalit Media Network. 2000. ‘IITs: Doing Manu Proud—Academic Terrorism, Casteism go Unnoticed’, available at http://ambedkar.org/research/IITs.html (accessed 17 February 2005). Goffman, E. 1956. ‘Embarrassment and Social Organisation’, American Journal of Sociology, 62(3): 264–71. ———. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. ———. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin. ———. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Anchor Books. IIT Madras. 2005. Report of Undergraduate Admission Committee 2005, Appendix B 4. Chennai: IIT Chennai. ———. 2006. JEE—2006, A Report to the Senate, Appendix B5. Chennai: IIT Chennai. Indiresan, P.V. and N.C. Nigam. 1993. ‘The Indian Institutes of Technology: Excellence in Peril’, in S. Chitnis and P.G. Altbach (eds), Higher Education Reform in India: Experience and Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 334–64. (p.223) King, A.D. 1970. ‘Elite Education and Economy—IIT Entrance: 1965– 1970’, Economic and Political Weekly, 5(35): 1463–72. Kirpal, V. 1976. ‘Higher Education for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’, Economic and Political Weekly, 13(4–5): 165–7. Kirpal, V. and M. Gupta. 1999. Equality through Reservations. Jaipur: Rawat. Kirpal, V., N. Swamidasan, and A. Gupta. 1984. The Adjustment of SC/ST Students in IIT-Bombay: A Report. Bombay: IIT. Prakash, S.O. 1995. ‘Psychological Symptoms amongst Untouchable Students of IITs: Challenge for the Technical Educational Planners’, Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 7(2): 165–80. Rajagopalan, C. and J. Singh. 1968. ‘The Indian Institutes of Technology: Do They Contribute to Social Mobility?’, Economic and Political Weekly, 3(14): 565– 70.

Page 21 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life Ramaswamy, U. 1985. ‘Education and Inequality’, Economic and Political Weekly, 20(36): 1523–72. Rao, S.S. 2002. ‘Equality in Higher Education: Impact of Affirmative Action Policies in India’, in E.F. Beckham (ed.), Global Collaborations: The Role of Higher Education in Diverse Democracies. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, pp. 41–62. Sharma, K.N. and N. Ram. 1974. Educational Arithmatic of Social Inequality: A Study of Admission and Adjustment of IIT-Kanpur Students. Kanpur: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. Velaskar, P. and G.G. Wankhede. 1996. ‘From Old Stigma to New…Exploring the Changing Identity of Urban Educated Dalits’, Indian Journal of Social Work, 57(1): 115–34. Wankhede, G.G. 2006. ‘Affirmative Actions and the Scheduled Castes: Access to Higher Education in India’, Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research, Policy and Praxis, 5: 329–42. Xaxa, V. 2002. ‘Ethnography of Reservation in Delhi University’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(28): 2849–54. Notes:

(1.) The term ‘Dalit’ is used interchangeably and synonymously to refer to SCs. It is this term by which the ex-untouchable groups prefer to call themselves to designate their disadvantaged and oppressed condition, rather than the usual label of SC given by the Constitution of India. (2.) The Parliament of India passed the IIT Act in 1961, which declares each IIT as an ‘institute of national importance’. The important objectives of equality and excellence are pronounced in the provisions of IIT Act (1961): first, to cooperate with educational and other institutions in any part of the world having objects wholly or partly similar to those of the institute by exchange of teachers and scholars, and generally in such manner as may be conducive to their common subjects. Second, every institute shall be open to persons of either sex and whatever race, creed, caste, or class and no test or condition shall be imposed as to the religious belief of the profession in admitting or appointing members, students, teachers, or workers, or any other connection whatsoever. (3.) The first generation of IITs at Kharagpur, Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, and Delhi, established after independence, between 1953 and 1963, were expected to act as centres of excellence in engineering and technology education, and also as pace setters of the technological changes in the country. IIT Guwahati was

Page 22 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life established in 1994, after a gap of nearly three decades after the last of the five first-generation IITs were set up. (4.) The institute is not named here for purposes of maintaining anonymity. (5.) The total number of candidates registered for JEE in 2006 was 299,087, out of whom 6,343 students qualified the examination, which is 2.1 per cent of the total registered candidates (IIT Madras 2006: 32). Out of the total qualified, 699 (11.02 per cent) are from SCs and 156 (2.45 per cent) are from STs. (6.) Numerous tutorial and residential colleges, particularly in the metropolitan cities such as Hyderabad, Delhi, and Chennai, offer this type of coaching, for which parents have to shell out huge sums of money for both lodging and boarding facilities. Some offer intensive package programme, in which students are taken as hostages and are not even allowed to see the outside world for several months. If a student does not make it to the IIT, the entire fee will be returned. Sometimes, the entry into such institutes itself is based on another screening test conducted by the coaching institutions themselves. (7.) Most important of the distant education coaching institutions mentioned by students in IIT Madras are Brilliant Tutorials, Chennai, and Agarwal Classes, Mumbai. (8.) Sometimes parents send their children to far-off places like Delhi, Hyderabad, Kota, and Chennai for a year-long intensive coaching, spending lakhs of rupees. At any given point of time, students registered for long-term coaching in Kota in Rajasthan is around 8,000 to 9,000, paying more than a Rs 100,000 for a year. (9.) In this course, running for a period of nine months or so, the students are placed in one of the IITs and are taught mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and at the end of the nine months, they are given an examination. Those who successfully complete and pass out are directly taken into the BTech course without having to write JEE again. In this process, these students loose one full year of their academic life attending the PC. These students could have made it into other second-rung engineering institutions, but prefer to take up PC as it allows them to enter IIT system. However, this separate stream of entry of SC/ST students seems to have more negative than positive consequences for these students subsequently in their institutional life and academic performance. (10.) These students are taught mathematics, physics, and chemistry, besides English. (11.) See Dalit Media Network (2000). The story reported that the answer sheets are also coloured.

Page 23 of 24

 

Structural Exclusion in Everyday Institutional Life (12.) When JEE convenor of an IIT was asked about the colour coding of the application, he refused to entertain the researcher. The same question was put to a former director of an IIT, but he feigned ignorance. The researcher could gather the ‘pink’ information sheet, which is part of the JEE application form. However, the information about colouring of the answer sheets could not be confirmed. (13.) In 2005, it was said to be yellow for the SC/ST candidates and plain white for the general category candidates. (14.) They may, of course, realize the differences when they pay less or no application fee. (15.) The general usage of the term ‘slow pace’ is also used to refer to the Direct Admission to Students Abroad (DASA)/non-resident Indian (NRI) students. (16.) This was taken from a letter Vijee had written to the President of India and the National SC/ST Commission, dated 4 February 2005. The letter was accessed by the author at the Regional Office of the SC/ST Commission in Chennai from the files of the Commission. The source was the files of IIT in the Regional SC/ST Commissioner, Chennai. I am reproducing this verbatim for the purposes of accuracy. (17.) The teacher refused to be named or even speak to the researcher in his chamber when he was approached for the interview. He took the researcher to a far-off place, to a canteen, to discuss his experiences of stigma on the campus. (18.) In fact, this was supported by an SC student, Hari Deepak, who experienced a similar situation. Initially, when his caste was not known, he was called ‘Maddy’ (the Bollywood and Tamil movie star Madhavan because looked like the actor). Once his caste is known, he was CATA student.

Access brought to you by:

Page 24 of 24

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies Life Inside a Madrasa Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0011

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the disciplinary mechanisms adopted by the Madrasa Ashrafiya Misbahul Ulum in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India, and analyses what strategies are used and what they mean to students. The cultural notion of sakhti (strictness)—pervasive both among the families who send their children to madrasas as well as within the madrasas themselves—is described. According to this reasoning, learning is unnatural, and children need to be strictly disciplined so that they are able to study. Besides adherence to strict rules such as deference to elders, corporal punishment, the recitation of the namaz etc., students are taught the disciplining and control of their own bodies with a view to increasing the mastery of each individual over his own body. Senior male students are specifically taught the necessity of control over bodily passions. The author points out that such disciplining increases the students’ agency because they learn about their life and bodies even as a particular form of Islamic (manly) behaviour is internalized. This makes them reject their ‘uncivilized’ ways of behaviour before coming to the madrasa. Through what the madrasa teaches and does, the students—usually from poor families—feel empowered to become part of ‘civilized’ society. The association with madrasas gives them status, which they would not have enjoyed in their earlier life in the villages and small cities from where they came. Keywords:   disciplinary mechanisms, madrasa, Islamic behaviour, sakhti, student discipline, Uttar Pradesh, madrasa education, controlling bodily passions, student agency Page 1 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies Academic interest in madrasas has seen a revival in the last decade. 9/11 has been one of the key moments to define this interest in madrasas as they came to be increasingly looked upon as dens of Islamic terrorism. A surfeit of literature published on the institution has swung between blaming madrasas for terrorism and its passionate defence. In the modern Indian context, barring the study of Deoband madrasa (Metcalf 2002) and a general survey of madrasas (Kaur 1990), not much academic work existed before madrasas became infamous. More recently, a more sombre view has tried to understand the genealogy of madrasas and what symbolic and substantive meanings it might have for the Muslims (Ahmad 2008; and Metcalf 2007); others have travelled through various madrasas to give us a glimpse of their stagnancy as well as change (Sikand 2007). There are still very little anthropological writings on Indian madrasas, so that we hardly know about life within this institution. This chapter is primarily about this lesser-known aspect of the madrasa as an institution. In doing so, the chapter tries to understand the forms of disciplinary mechanisms which the madrasa adopts to ‘control’ its students, and what these strategies mean for the madrasa students. The present chapter is about a Barelwi1 madrasa, called Madrasa Ashrafiya Misbahul Ulum (hereafter Ashrafiya), located in Azamgarh in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Before describing the regime within this madrasa, a brief history of the madrasa is important to appreciate the context in which it operates.

(p.225) From Maktab to Madrasa Mubarakpur is a small town located in Azamgarh district of eastern Uttar Pradesh in north India. Since long it has been a town of low-caste Muslim weavers who call themselves Ansaris (Mubarakpuri 1974; and Pandey 1984). Even today, the town is primarily known for weaving Banarsi sarees, which are traded both in India and abroad. According to the 2001 Indian census, Mubarakpur had a population of 51,100,2 although it is disputed by the local Muslims who put the figure at approximately 80,000. According to Muslim residents, the Hindus comprise 10 per cent of the population. The Muslims are divided into Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, and the Shia; the majority of them being Barelwi Muslims. It is not just for their craftsmanship that the Ansaris of Mubarakpur want to be known, but also as upholders of Islam.3 All these maslaks (denominations) have their own madrasas: the Shia, Bab-ul-Ilm; the Ahl-e-Hadith, Dar-ul-Taleem; the Deobandi, Ehya-ul-Ulum; and the Barelwi, Ashrafiya. It is generally acknowledged that both Ehya-ul-Ulum and Ashrafiya madrasas have had a common origin in a maktab (a writing school, where basics of religion are taught to young children) which was founded around 1899. The institution was financed by few wealthy families as well as through popular donations. Two teachers taught there full time, their names being Maulvi Maroof and Maulvi Siddique Ghoswi. During this time, the maktab was housed in a mosque called Masjid Deena Baba. After this initial recognition of a common Page 2 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies origin, the histories written by the two madrasas, Ashrafiya and Ehya-ul-Ulum, diverge. Both claim that they have retained the original name of the maktab. For the Deobandis, the original name of the maktab within the Masjid Deena Baba was called Ehya-ul-Ulum, while the Barelwis claim that it was called Misbahul Ulum (Misbahi 2001; and Qasmi 1997). The maktab faced difficulties, which included a shortage of space, and there were plans to develop it into a proper madrasa. During 1915–16, differences arose between the two teachers over the maslaha (theological problem) of imkan-e-kizb—whether Allah could lie or not. While Maulana Maroof argued that since Allah was capable of doing anything, he could also lie, Siddique Ghoswi argued that Allah could not lie and it is blasphemous to ascribe bad deeds to Allah. Ghoswi charged Maroof of being a Wahabi and under the influence of Deobandi ideas. This led (p.226) to the formal split within this maktab, and both the teachers moved out of Masjid Deena Baba to found their own respective madrasas. While Siddique Ghoswi, with the support of a section of Muslims, became the head teacher of Madrasa Lateefia Ashrafiya Misbahul Ulum, Maulana Maroof stayed with the old patrons of the maktab who were sympathetic to his viewpoint and became a teacher in Ehya-ul-Ulum. This was one of the starting events which led to the awareness of being a Barelwi or a Deobandi. The contest over Islam had, in a sense, started in Mubarakpur. However, even after this, the Friday prayers continued to be said under the same imam, which meant that the differences among them had not become so acute. But even this did not last for long. In the year 1917, Madrasa Ehya-ul-Ulum saw among one of its ranks, a person called Shukrullah Mubarakpuri. Fresh from the madrasa at Deoband, Maulana Shukrullah was given the nizamat (managership) of the madrasa. True to his reformist Deobandi ideas, Maulana Shukrullah criticized various customary practices among the Muslims of the time. These were practices associated with circumcision ritual, during Eid festival, and during marriage ceremonies. He was particularly incensed that Sunnis had adopted the rituals of the Shias, and he came down heavily on customary practices associated with Muhharram (Mubarakpuri 2004). He was also instrumental in separating the common Friday prayers. The presence of an alim (a man learned particularly in Islamic legal and religious studies) of Deoband in Mubarakpur surely added to his stature and he was influential in winning over a section of Muslims to his (Deobandi) point of view. It should be noted that the Deobandi Ehya-ul-Ulum, during this time, was supported by relatively educated Muslims of the qasba (small town). Thus, the first Nazim of Ehya-ul-Ulum, Maulvi Ilahi Bux, was himself a practising Tibb (practitioner of Unani medicine) and maintained a personal library in the city of Azamgarh. It should also be kept in mind that the Deobandis, during this period, were also the more prosperous section among Muslims (Mannan n.d.)4. Islamic reform in this case entailed a relationship of power in the sense that it was

Page 3 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies primarily driven by educated and relatively well-off Muslims and was directed towards the ‘uneducated’ and low-class Muslims. The popularity of Maulana Shukrullah had not gone unnoticed among the more conscious Barelwis. Muslims of this area were the murid (disciple) of Ali Husain Ashrafi, the sajjada nashin (successor to (p.227) a Sufi master) of the famous shrine at Kichocha, from the lineage of Abdul Qadir Jilani. One of his murids was Maulana Amjad Ali5 who was also the spiritual successor of Ahmad Riza Khan (Qasmi 1976; and Sanyal 1999). Being from eastern Uttar Pradesh, Maulana Amjad Ali was quite a well-known alim in Mubarakpur. Moreover, he was related to Siddique Ghoswi, who used to teach at Misbahul Ulum. Sensing the growing popularity of Deobandis, Amjad Ali persuaded one of his students and khalifa (spiritual successor) called Abdul Aziz to go to Mubarakpur and arrest the march of the Deobandis. He told Abdul Aziz that he was sending him in an akhara (wrestling arena) and that, by the wishes of Allah, he will emerge victorious (Misbahi 1975). Immediately after his arrival, Abdul Aziz and Shukrullah Mubarakpuri involved the whole qasba in a series of munazaras (theological debates) between 1934 and 1936. At the end of this two-year period of intense ideological rivalry, both sides claimed victory. Yet, the most important result was not who won, but that the qasba had become a bit more ideologically polarized. In the year 1935, the prefix Ashrafiya was added to Madrasa Misbahul Ulum in deference of Ali Hussain Ashrafi and a foundation stone was laid to build a new building for this madrasa. Most the donations for this purpose were locally collected and the land on which the new building of the madrasa was to come up was donated by Amin Ansari, a resident of Mubarakpur. From humble beginnings, Ashrafiya today commands the respect of being the apex madrasa of the Barelwis in India. It has left far behind its rival Ehya-ul-Ulum. While Ashrafiya has grown to accommodate about 1,500 students in its various hostels, Ehya-ul-Ulum has the capacity to provide for only about 250.6 The influence of the Madrasa Ashrafiya also radiates through the fact that majority of the Muslims in Mubarakpur belong to the Barelwi denomination (maslak). Moreover, its donor networks as well as composition of students are much geographically varied as compared to Ehya-ul-Ulum. What brought about this change in fortune of Ashrafiya was the association of important ulama with the madrasa. Among its ranks were Mufti Abdul Mannan, Zeya-ul-Mustafa (son of Amjad Ali), and Arshadul Qadri, who commanded vast respect among the Barelwis and were instrumental in creating a large network of prosperous donors. Also, the families which earlier supported the Ehya-ul-Ulum had now declined economically. Another important factor is the present in-charge (sarbarah) of Ashrafiya. (p. 228) A graduate from Aligarh Muslim University, his modern education has brought the madrasa new donors, especially since he has started schools for girls’ education.

Page 4 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies Despite the humble beginnings of the madrasa, it now sees itself in a civilizing role. It is common knowledge, though not often mentioned, that students who access madrasas mostly come from poor, semi, or non-literate and low-caste Muslim families. This chapter is about how students from such families relate to their new locale, which is going to be their ‘home’ for some important and formative years of their lives. Teachers of madrasa Ashrafiya regard students coming from such low-class families as uncultured (be-adab). They say that these students do not know how to converse politely and pay respect to their elders. Teachers also told me that before they came to the madrasa, students lacked a sense of cleanliness and personal hygiene. For them, a madrasa was not just about imparting education (talim), but to also learn proper ways of behaviour and Islamic etiquette (tarbiyat). In this sense, madrasas see themselves as institutions of a ‘civilizing mission’, which intend to transform be-adab students into ‘cultured’ (ba-adab) students (Jefferey et al. 2004). One of the important criticisms that madrasas level against the modern/English schools is that they focus solely on transmitting knowledge, as a result of which students do not learn ‘proper’ ways of behaviour. However, ‘civility’ is not always formally taught in the madrasa; it is also transmitted through a series of pedagogical actions which have a bearing upon the minds as well as bodies of the students. This chapter is about such actions of the madrasa and its reception and effects upon the students.

Space, Surveillance, Control After being established in the qasba and functioning from there for more than four decades, Madrasa Ashrafiya gradually shifted to its new location. Presently located just outside the qasba, one cannot miss this imposing structure. Surrounded by concrete boundary walls, the madrasa complex is comprised of a number of buildings for different purposes, some of which are still being constructed. One enters the madrasa through a huge iron gate which leads to the main and one of the oldest buildings of the complex. This main building has administrative offices on the ground floor which includes the office of the principal. The next two floors are occupied by classrooms. Most of the teaching goes on in these (p.229) two floors, although it is not uncommon for junior classes (for example, hifz [memorization of the Quran]) to be held in an open area or within the madrasa mosque. On the right side of this building are two students’ hostels, a building where computers and English are taught, and the students’ mess. The design of both the students’ hostel is more or less the same. A central courtyard is surrounded by four rectangular blocks. Students’ rooms are built into these rectangular blocks. Both these hostels have an upper floor where the arrangement of space is similar. On the left side of the main building is an open rectangular water tank, primarily for the purpose of ablution. This left section also contains a student hostel and a library. The number of students in the hostel here is much smaller as compared to the other two, partly because it does not have an additional floor on top of it. Towards the extreme left, a new Page 5 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies students’ hostel is being constructed.7 Behind the main building is the massive mosque of the madrasa, which is nearing completion. The daily prayers, the Friday prayer, and other important events like the ‘tying of the turban’ (dastar bandi) during the graduation ceremony are held in this mosque. On the right side of the mosque is the dargah (mausoleum) of Abdul Aziz, which is the site of special veneration for all those who visit this madrasa. Just adjacent to the main gate, on its right side, is the living quarter of the head clerk of the madrasa. This building also has few rooms for the guests of the madrasa. The madrasa has lots of open areas, especially towards its left, where students compete with each other over friendly cricket matches, played mostly on Fridays, when they have their weekly holiday. Buildings in India have been a statement of power and prestige. During the ‘age of empire’ in India, colonialism inaugurated new buildings and modified existing ones which attested to their glory and powerful presence in the subcontinent. Simultaneously, colonial modernity brought with it notion of spaces which were not the rule in India. It is important to remember that pre-colonial madrasa education in India was not considered a specialized activity. A teacher could, at the same time, be a trader or an imam in a mosque. There was no perceived contradiction and multiple roles were the norm. Similarly, the notion of specialized space for the purpose of teaching was also not the norm. A madrasa could be located anywhere. In the case of Ashrafiya, the madrasa had shifted from being located in someone’s house to a mosque, and even within a shop. Colonial modernity brought with it new ideas (p.230) about schooling and education. And one of the important changes was in the realm of reconceptualizing space itself. Teaching was considered a separate and specialized activity for which full-time teachers were to be appointed. Moreover, teaching and learning from now on would be carried on in separate buildings made exclusively for that purpose. The plurality of educational sites was to be discarded in favour of ‘proper’ school buildings. Thus, earliest school buildings such as that of the Hindu College (1817) and the universities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1857, all approximated the definitions of proper educational structures in Europe. Such specialized institutions were said to have profound impact on the students’ minds in terms of acculturation and social change. As Mayo remarked in Bombay, ‘The native student…receives unconsciously each day a thousand moral and social as well as intellectual impressions. Only by personal experience of College life can it be known how great a change in character is so produced in a few years’ (Tikakar 1984: 30). Madrasas were not behind in internalizing this modernist notion of education as a specialized activity which required a separate site for transmission. The establishment of the madrasa at Deoband in 1867, with its classrooms and timetable, serves as an example of internalizing of such a colonial modernity. The madrasa conceived itself as a distinct institution, not relegated to a corner of a mosque or a home, as was the case earlier. As soon as possible, it acquired Page 6 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies classrooms and a library and was run according to modern bureaucratic style (Metcalf 2002). There was also a symbolic motive in establishing separate buildings for the madrasa. According to Metcalf, with the decline in Mughal power, ‘there were no princes to construct the grand tombs, city mosques, ceremonial gateways and forts that had been the material statement on the physical landscape of the existence of Muslim culture’ (Metcalf 2002: 112). Madrasas, like in Deoband, now began to symbolize Muslim culture as reflected in the use of domes and arches in their architecture. Additionally, separate building of madrasas came to attest the concrete evidence of Muslim presence. Established much after Deoband madrasa, Madrasa Ashrafiya also provides an example of such rational bureaucratization at one level and a symbol of Muslim culture at another level. Students at Ashrafiya are proud of the building of their madrasa. Students come from very poor families and take pride that they would be staying in such a big madrasa for some years of their lives. It gives (p.231) them a sense of empowerment to tell their families back home about the grand (shandar) physical structures of their madrasa complex. Yet, they are also aware that life in their village and in the madrasa is very different. One of the students’ told me, ‘back home I could go anywhere I felt like during any time of the day, but here it is not like that. The nizam (organization) here, is different from that in home’ (author’s field notes). Students use various words like pabandi (prohibition) and sakhti (strictness) to differentiate their daily routine in Ashrafiya from that of their homes. Yet, at the same time, they are united in their opinion that it is only through a strict discipline that they would be able to become good talibs (students). The huge iron gates of Ashrafiya and the boundary walls signify its physical separation from the outside world. This spatial insularity gives the madrasa considerable spatial autonomy to control its students. From the main building of the madrasa, where the important offices are located, one can see the main gate of the madrasa, making it easy to spot if any student has ventured out during class hours. During the evenings, this function is performed by the caretaker of the madrasa, whose living quarters are strategically located just adjacent to the main gate. Moreover, some of the teachers also reside within the complex, which makes it all the more difficult for students to escape the surveillance of the madrasa. The spatial organization within the students’ hostels reinforces this aspect of control and surveillance within the madrasa. In Ashrafiya, many students share one room. The allotment of rooms is done according to the grade of the students. Thus, students studying for almiyyat (a course in a madrasa leading to the degree of Alim) (a higher madrasa degree) are normally lodged in one room. Similarly, students pursuing hifz share their rooms with others who are studying for the same degree. However, care is taken to ensure that each room has some juniors and seniors. Thus, in a room where almiyyat students would stay, some students will be from junior grades of the same course and Page 7 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies some will be from senior grades. Normally, a single room will have about eight to 10 occupants. This number could rise up to 25 depending upon the size of the room. It is the norm of the madrasa that in the larger rooms, students pursuing courses such as hifz or nazra (a beginners Quran reading course in a madrasa) would be accommodated, while the smaller rooms are mostly given to students pursuing higher degrees such as almiyyat or fazilat (a higher degree in a madrasa). There (p.232) are no beds in these rooms. Students, both senior and junior, sleep on mattresses on the floor. There are inbuilt cupboards in the rooms where students keep their books and other valuables. However, since there are limited number of cupboards, seniors in the room have first claim to them. Junior students have to lock their stuff in the tin trunks kept on the room floor which they had brought from their homes during the time of admission. There is thus no conception of a private individual space for students in the madrasa. Much like Bentham’s Panopticon, the spatial arrangements within the madrasa makes ‘visible’ each and every aspect of students’ movement (Foucault 1995). Like the Panopticon, the madrasa resembles an apparatus which creates and sustains a power relation independent of the person who exercises it so that the students are caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves bearers. For Foucault, ‘the organization of serial space was one of the great technical mutations of education’ (Foucault 1995: 147). It made it possible to supersede the traditional system where a pupil worked for a few minutes with the master while the rest of the group remained idle and unattended. By assigning individual places, it made possible the supervision of each individual and the simultaneous work of all. Such a description of a ‘classroom’ does not accurately portray the organization of classroom practices within Madrasa Ashrafiya. Students at lower grades study in much the same fashion in what Foucault describes as the ‘traditional system’. There are no table and chairs in Ashrafiya’s many classrooms. Students squat on the floor along the walls of the room forming a big square. The teacher typically sits in the position from where he can keep an eye on the whole body of students. Groups of students come to him to recite the lessons which they were taught the previous day. During such periods, the pedagogical gaze on other students is temporarily suspended. As an example of modern disciplinary regime, Foucault argues that the school’s method of surveillance and control also has an ‘individuating’ influence on the students. Within Ashrafiya, however, this clearly does not seem to be happening. Rather the madrasa regime, and the spatial arrangements within it, is more conducive to the development of a communal/communitarian identity. Henrietta Moore, in her study of Kenya, has argued that spatial relations represent and even produce social relations and that there are relations of likeness between social distinctions and spatial boundaries (Moore 1986). In the social organizations of space in Ashrafiya, (p.233) relationships which are obtained within the students’ family are reproduced. The hierarchy and the authority structure between brothers, father, and son is reproduced within the Page 8 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies madrasa environment. In terms of space therefore, the madrasa does not represent a departure from the normative values obtained within the family. Senior students exercise various forms of authority over juniors within the madrasa. Within the rooms, juniors are often asked to run errands for the seniors. Thus, during my stay in one of these rooms, the seniors often asked the juniors to get tea and other things for me. Madrasa authorities consider such an organization of authority as an inalienable part of talim-o-tarbiyat (education and character). In their conception, the madrasa is like a family. Within the family, the argument goes, there are elder brothers and father who have to be obeyed. Within the madrasa, senior students are like elder brothers to the junior students and teachers are like their fathers. From childhood, a person is taught to respect his elders and the madrasa also does likewise. Junior students echo such as understanding of authority. They likened the seniors to their elder brothers, who look after them when they need some help. The seniors help them with their difficult lessons, look after them when they are sick, and at times, they also help them financially during times of crisis. Far away from their families, such gestures go a long way to foment a relationship of hierarchy between seniors and juniors. It is also by emulating the seniors that they learn what they consider as the right etiquettes and proper behaviour (adab).

Power, Discipline, Agency Power, in Madrasa Ashrafiya, can be understood as interspersed at two levels. At one level, the hierarchical organizational structure of the madrasa concentrates absolute power in the hands of the sarbarah- e-ala (president). Although there are administrative councils within the organizational structure of the madrasa, mostly, the members act as ‘yes men’ of the sarbarah-e-ala. Control and surveillance is codified within the dastur (constitution) of the madrasa. Under its ‘rules and duties of students’,8 the dastur makes it clear that students are not allowed to leave the precincts of the madrasa without the permission of the nazir (student supervisor). It also states that any ‘non-shariat’ behaviour will not be tolerated within the madrasa. Since the definition of shariat is (p.234) extremely flexible, this clause gives the madrasa authorities enough leeway to throw out or penalize any student if they want to. Students are not allowed to be members of any political or even social organization (dastur; Clause v and viii). Finally, the control of students also extends to their bodies as the dastur (Clause xiii) clearly says that the dress of the students will have to be like ‘that of the Ulama’.9 To reinforce discipline, the madrasa provides for a student supervisor (nazir). His duties include controlling the students living in the hostels, to change the rooms of the students to maintain discipline, and to see that the students diligently perform their prayers. Through such codified mechanisms of control, the madrasa aims to discipline its students. At another level, power also flows through much more localized channels discernible through the interaction of teacher–student and the relationships obtained within the student community itself. Control and mechanisms of Page 9 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies discipline are also much more banal and decentralized, and are effected through seemingly everyday routine social practices of the students. It is with this latter aspect of power, and the effects it has on the students, with which we are concerned here. For a student, a typical day in Ashrafiya starts with the early morning prayer. Students generally get up themselves, but on some days, the nazir sees to it personally (with a stick in his hand) that they leave the hostels well in time for the morning prayer in the mosque. Although namaz can be recited alone, but within the madrasa, it is compulsory for the students to pray in congregation (dastur; Clause xi). Thus, the ritual of namaz here is not just about earning religious merit, but also becomes an important mechanism through which the madrasa monitors and controls its students. Some students continue to stay within the mosque even after the prayer to prepare for their classes. Formal classes (durus, sng.dars) start at eight in the morning and go on till four in the evening. As mentioned earlier, there are separate classrooms for different grades. Students of lower grades, such as hifz and nazra, generally squat in front of the teacher to recite the lesson which they had learnt the previous day. If satisfied with the progress, the teacher proceeds to the next lesson or tells the students again to recite the text properly. Control and authority is inbuilt within the process of recitation. Writing about medieval Cairo, Berkey (1992) mentions that the practice of reading a text aloud helped in reinforcing the authority of the teacher since the reading of the student had to be constantly checked against that of the shaikh (teacher). (p.235) Styles of recitation are generally passed down from the teachers to the students, and depending on the way in which a hafiz recites the Quran, the discerning would be able to tell which madrasa that particular hafiz has studied from. Students of higher grades such as fazilat (a higher grade in madrasa) do not have to recite their lessons everyday and are assessed according to their performance in the half-yearly examinations. Like other madrasas, students generally get free time between five and seven in the evening, during which they normally go out of the madrasa to the basti10 or spend their time in one of the many dhabas (eating joints). Students are not engaged in classrooms for the whole day. There are breaks in between for various grades. A common break for all is for lunch which is between one and two. Since the dining room cannot accommodate all the students, some students get their lunch to their rooms from the kitchen. Mostly, it is the students of the lower grades who bring the food for their seniors. Some students do not take food from the kitchen at all. They eat at the roadside dhabas located just in front of the madrasa. However, this privilege of eating out is restricted to those students whose economic status is better than others. For students eating from the madrasa kitchen, there are two kinds of foods. Those who pay for their food get better lunch and dinner, while those who cannot have to survive on inferior food.11 Thus, apart from the way in which space—as a set of power relations—controls students, the division of time, as seen in the madrasa routine, also seeks to extend such a control over the students.

Page 10 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies Corporal punishment is regularly employed as a means to discipline students. It is not uncommon for teachers of hifz or similar lower grades to use the stick without much reservation. It is a common belief even amongst the parents of the students that without being beaten, students cannot learn properly. Some madrasas claim that they are better off precisely because they are ‘strict’ as compared to others. This cultural notion of sakhti (strictness) is pervasive both among the families who send their children to madrasas as well as within the madrasas themselves.12 According to this reasoning, learning is unnatural and children need to be strictly disciplined so that they are able to study. The notion of strictness includes beating up children in order to instil in them value for education. Moreover, since teachers are like fathers, beating up students does not raise any questions as it carries legitimacy of parental authority and control. Teachers at Ashrafiya told me that they were both ‘strict’ (p.236) and ‘kind hearted’. ‘If there is a need to be strict with the child, we are strict, but if he does his work properly and on time, then there is no need for us to wield the stick,’ they argued (author’s field notes). They add that every child in the madrasa does get beaten up as they make some mistake or the other. One of the teachers reminiscences, ‘when we were students, there was much more strictness and beating. Nowadays it is not so’ (author’s field notes). He also argued that because of more strictness in earlier times, good teachers and ulama were produced, but now, because of laxity on the part of teachers, it was not the case. He was quick to point out that one of the reasons that Ashrafiya became such a ‘great’ institution was because it dealt strictly with its students. The use of stick is more frequent in classroom settings and among the lower grades. Sometimes, it is also used against those who do not get up well in time for the early morning prayers. However, at times, even senior students get beaten up for a number of reasons.13 For the madrasa authorities, physical punishment is necessary for the disciplining of students. They also said that it (beating) reinforces the authority of the teachers over the students. Most of the students that I spoke to did not argue against this idea of their teachers. Some of those who had got beaten up actually justified the viewpoint of their teachers. At the same time, teachers who did not inflict physical punishment on the students remained their favourite. This may seem like a contradiction. But within the social space of Ashrafiya, students coming from poor and non-literate families are bound to have many articulated and unarticulated contradictions. It must be understood that even if they do not like being beaten up, they cannot say it openly as it will be construed as a rebellion against the authority of the teacher. Another form of corporal punishment is denial of food. For students of very poor families who eat free from the kitchen, this form of punishment is particularly harsh. It is not uncommon for other madrasas to employ this punishment (Alam 2007).

Page 11 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies There are other subtle ways of disciplining students. Within the Barelwi tradition, a follower is supposed to kiss the hand of his master. Within Ashrafiya, students pay respect to their teachers and other officials by kissing their hands while simultaneously bowing down a little. This very act places the madrasa authorities in a relationship of reverence to the students. I observed that respect for teachers also meant that students would not look directly into their eyes while speaking to them or even when they happen to pass by. The lowering of the gaze, (p.237) a quality understood as feminine, is practised by the students in front of their teachers, thus, in a sense, re-gendering their relationship. This relationship between the teachers and students is also found among the senior and junior students, where junior students do not look into the eyes of the seniors directly while speaking to them. I also observed that sometimes a junior student, if he saw a teacher sitting at some distance, would change the path and take a different route to reach his destination to avoid seeing the teacher. Sometimes, he would just postpone his work. This, again, is very similar to the traditional norm for Muslim girls who are required to seclude themselves to the extent possible to avoid the male gaze. The disciplinary regime of the madrasa can also be seen in students’ bodily postures. A student cannot sit in front of his teacher or a high madrasa official. Even when asked to sit, he must first refuse. Upon persistence, the student will sit down but never cross legged as it is considered disrespectful to the teacher or someone senior. Students are not supposed to talk back to their teachers but just listen to whatever they are saying and obey accordingly. These measures place the students in a relationship of powerlessness with respect to the madrasa authorities which evokes the parallel of female powerlessness in relation to males. Disciplining and control of student’s body forms an important part of the madrasa regime. According to Foucault, ‘a body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved’ (Foucault 1995: 136). Furthermore, the main aim of the disciplinary process is to increase the mastery of each individual over his own body. We have already seen how some of the disciplinary procedures within Ashrafiya directly impinge on students’ bodies. Students’ movements and gestures are under constant surveillance, if not from the madrasa authorities teachers, then from within the students themselves. Ways of reciting lessons, talking to elders and seniors, and even taking food subject the body to a range disciplinary control. In fact, in any discussion of madrasa life, it is hard to overlook the story of the body. But how do the students take to these disciplinary mechanisms. Students seemed very bemused at first when I asked them questions about their conceptions of the body, for they could not understand why I was interested in knowing about what they thought of their own bodies. The human body, in its present shape, for them, was a constant reminder of what they termed as the ‘genius of god’. Acute functionalists,14 they told me that each part of the body has (p.238) its own functions and without each others’ Page 12 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies cooperation, the body as a whole cannot function and will collapse. Even as this interconnectedness of the body reminds them of the power of god, the body needs to be ‘trained’ so that it does not go ‘astray’. God made the mind and kept it on top of the body so that the latter commits no sin. For the students, human (and male) body is prone to lust and therefore, it is important to keep it in check. It seems that students were as convinced as their teachers to discipline their bodies. The body is understood as raw, uncouth, and potentially dangerous. It was necessary to ‘refine’ the body, and education, they argued, was one of the means to do so. In Foucauldian terms, active, unrestrained bodies were to be rendered docile. Students felt that madrasa education had made desirable changes to the ways in which they related to their bodies. They recalled that before coming to the madrasa, they did not care much about personal hygiene. For example, they did not care to wash their hands before taking a meal, wear clean clothes, or take bath everyday. The madrasa taught them the virtues of cleanliness, most importantly, by way of institutionalizing the ritual of prayer which exposed them to the necessity and virtues of being ‘clean’. Senior students were particularly concerned about the necessity of control over bodily passions. Discussion with them frequently brought the topic of unconscious discharge of semen and ways to cleanse oneself as soon as one realized that such a thing had occurred. Students argued that control over bodily passions (by which they mostly meant proclivity towards sexual activity) was an important part of their education. This control was manifested through ‘lowering the gaze when a seeing a woman’, not reading books and newspapers which have female pictures, and by not thinking about sex at all.15 A parallel to sexual repression during medieval Christianity is tempting here. That, however, is not the case with our madrasa students. They were quite clear that control over their desires was only meant for student days or before marriage. Quoting from the scriptures, they argued that god made women for the pleasure of men, and ‘legitimate’ (within marriage) sexual activity was one of the many bounties bestowed by god. Control over body and sexuality is also manifested through the ‘dress’ worn within and outside the madrasa. Kurta–pyjama is worn, not only by the students, but also by the teachers and staff of the madrasa. As remarked earlier, there is no consensus over what constitutes appropriate Islamic dress, particularly for Muslim men. Over the years, however, kurta–pyjama (p.239) has increasingly become known and accepted as an appropriate Islamic dress.16 Within the madrasa, this loose-fitting garment is understood as giving considerable ‘freedom’ to bodily movement; trousers and shirts are considered as restrictive and constraining. Moreover, it is cheaper, and hence affordable, for the majority of madrasa students who come from poor families. It is also understood as a modest dress. One of the reasons given by a student for not wearing trouser was that ‘it reveals what is where in the body’.17 This notion of modesty through ‘covering up’ the body is so thoroughly internalized by madrasa students, that Page 13 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies even when some of them go for university education, they continue to dress in their traditional clothing as it makes them feel more comfortable.18 Pierre Bourdieu, taking of pedagogy, argues that the success of any pedagogical action depends on the degree to which pedagogical authority has become part of the common sense of the individual receiver, even in the absence of any pedagogical transmission. Relevant to our discussion here, Bourdieu also talks of the habitus which lies at the interface between the individual self and the larger social organism. It is the means by which structures of the social order are inscribed, encoded, or written onto the individual body, in the most corporeal forms of gestures, accents, patterns of dress, etc. (Bourdieu 1990). Through the habitus, political mythology of the social order is ‘made flesh’. Amidst such a disciplinary regime, is it possible to conceive of students’ agency? Do the students subvert or even resist the structure that is imposed on them by the madrasa? A possible answer comes from Foucault who argues that the process of discipline itself transforms its objects into subjects. Writing about the effects of discipline on the body, Foucault (1995) argues that the main aim of the disciplining process is to increase the mastery of each individual over his own body. This statement hints at the ambivalence between subordination and agency, because the process of disciplining increases the potential for agency, while simultaneously training the body to be docile. In other words, certain forms of disciplining may increase the students’ agency because they learn about their life and bodies, while at the same time, a particular form of Islamic manly behaviour is internalized. We see this in the case of Ashrafiya students. It is the internalization of discipline which makes them reject their ‘uncivilized’ ways of behaviour before coming to the madrasa. Through what the madrasa teaches and does, the students feel empowered to become part of the ‘civilized’ society. Students learn how (p.240) to converse politely, how to interact with elders, and how to talk to their juniors. It is through the internalization of the norms of the madrasa that students feel that they gain respect in society. After all, it is the madrasa which gave them knowledge through which they can discern what is good and ignore what is forbidden. However, complete subordination to the madrasa regime hardly happens all the time. Watching television is strictly forbidden within the madrasa and most of the students I talked to disapproved of watching it and considered it as one of the important causes of increasing obscenity in society. But the pull of cricket is too much to resist and students go to the qasba to watch it on television. Similarly, listening to music is forbidden, but some of the students did listen to it on radio and walkman right in their hostel rooms, albeit on a low decibel. While not in Mubarakpur, once in a while, they also watch films in cinema halls, an act which might expel them from the madrasa if the authorities come to know. Such discreet acts of defiance do not challenge the authority of the madrasa directly. Although they enjoy watching television, students will say that it is not the right thing to do. Thus, there is no questioning of the basic religious norms laid by the Page 14 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies madrasa. It seems that for the students, there exist two separate worlds: an ideal world towards which they want to approximate; and the real world which they have to negotiate on an everyday basis. Ultimately, it is the approximation to the ideal world which gives them rewards. These rewards can be in terms of what Bourdieu has called cultural, social, and symbolic capital. Capital for Bourdieu refers to ‘all goods, material and symbolic, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation’ (Bourdieu 1977: 178). In addition to economic capital therefore, there can be cultural capital (valued information of educational qualification), social capital (valued relations with significant others), and symbolic capital (other forms of capital when recognized as legitimate, in the form of prestige and honour). The interesting thing about such a usage of capital is that forms of capital are interchangeable. Thus, cultural capital can be converted into economic capital and vice versa (Bourdieu 1986). For the students of Ashrafiya, one of the first acts of empowerment is the very process of studying in these madrasas itself, which bestows on them a certain measure of institutional capital. It must be understood that students are not passive recipients of the normative transmission of the madrasa regime. However, coming from poor and (p.241) low-caste families, they have very low self-esteem. The association with madrasas gives them status, which they would not have enjoyed in their earlier life in the villages and small cities from where they came. It is thus not a question whether their agency resists the structural constraints which have been put on them. Rather, the more important question is how they negotiate this structure and what they get out of following the rules of the madrasa. References Bibliography references: Ahmad, I. 2008. ‘Power Purity and the Vanguard: Educational Ideology of the Jamat-i Islami of India’, in J. Malik (ed), Madrasas in South Asia: Teaching to Hate? London: Routledge, pp. 142–64 (p.243) Alam, A. 2007. ‘Understanding Deoband Locally: Interrogating Madrasat Diya al-Ulum’, in J.P. Hartung and H. Reifeld (eds), Islamic Education, Diversity and National Identity: Dini Madaris in India Post 9/11. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 175–95. Berkey, J. 1992. The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo, A Social History of Islamic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 15 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies ———. 1986. ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–58. ———. 1990. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans. by Richard Nice. Oxford: Polity Press. Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage. Jefferey, P., R. Jefferey, and C. Jefferey. 2004. ‘Islamization, Gentrification and Domestication: “A Girls’ Islamic Course” and Rural Muslims in Western Uttar Pradesh’, Modern Asian Studies, 38(1): 1–53. Kaur, K. 1990. Madrasa Education in India: A Study of Its Past and Present. Chandigarh: Center for Rural and Industrial Development. Mannan, A. n.d. ‘Ashrafiya Se al Jamiatul Ashrafiya Tak’, Unpublished manuscript, Courtesy: Mufti Abdul Mannan, Mubarakpur. Metcalf, B.D. 2002. Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. ‘Madrasas and Minorities in Secular India’, in R.W. Hefner and M.Q. Zaman (eds), Schooling Islam: The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 87–106. Misbahi, B.Q. 1975. Ashrafiya Ka Maazi Aur Haal. Mubarakpur: Shoba e Nashiriyat, al Jamiatul Ashrafiya. Misbahi, Y. A. 2001. Al Jamiatul Ashrafiya: A Brief History and Introduction. trans. by A. Naseeb and N. Sajjad Misbahi, Mubarakpur: Publication Department. Mubarakpuri, Q.A. 1974. Tazkira Ulama Mubarakpur. Mubarakpur: Daira Millia Mubarakpuri, Mubarakpuri, Sadiq bin Jamil Ahmad. 2004. Akabira Ihya al Ulum: Ek Dilchasp Mutala (Revered Elders of Ihya al Ulum) (Mubarakpur). (Note: Publisher’s name is not given for this book). Moore, H. 1986. Space, Text and Gender: An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pandey, G. 1984. ‘Encounters and Calamities: The History of a North Indian Qasba in the Nineteenth Century’, in R. Guha (ed.), Subaltern (p.244) Studies

Page 16 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies III: Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 234–9. Qasmi, A.M. 1997. Ehya ul Ulum ki Deeni Khidmaat. Courtesy: Abdul Moeed Qasmi, Mubarakpur. Qasmi, H.R. 1976. Tazkira Ulama e Azamgarh. Benaras: Jamia Islamia. Sikand, Y. 2007. Bastions of Believers: Madrasas and Islamic Education in India. New Delhi: Penguin Sanyal, U. 1999. Devotional Islam and British Politics in India: Ahmad Riza Khan and His Movement, 1870-1920. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tikakar, A. 1984. The Cloister’s Pale: A Biography of the University of Bombay. Bombay: Somaiya. Notes:

(1.) The Barelwis are numerically dominant community among Indian Muslims. As opposed to the Deobandis, they believe in a mediated experience of Islam. An excellent work on their religious worldview is Sanyal (1996). (2.) Data from Mubarakpur municipal population register. (3.) One of the common phrases which I heard from them was: ‘Hum Islam ka parcham buland kiye hue hain’ (We have kept the flag of Islam flying in this area). (4.) Abdul Mannan was the member of the shura and Mufti of Madrasa Ashrafiya till the 1980s. This assertion is also based on various interviews conducted with elderly residents of the qasba. (5.) Amjad Ali (1878–1948), also known as ‘Sadr us Sharia’ among the Barelwis, spent 18 years at Bareilly in the service of Ahmad Riza Khan, often helping him with fatwa writing as well teaching in the madrasa there. (6.) Data is for the year 2003–04; from the offices of madrasas Ashrafiya and Ehya-ul-Ulum respectively. (7.) The madrasa authorities told me that this new students’ hostel will have air conditioner (AC) in all the rooms and is being built to accommodate foreign students who complain of the excessive heat during the summer season. They will have to pay more than those students who live in other hostels. Madrasa authorities did not seem to be too much bothered about the class divisions which this new hostel would create in the madrasa. For them, class divisions were naturally ordained and they found nothing wrong in charging more from those who can pay. The foreign students they had in mind were primarily from Page 17 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies families, and their relatives, who had migrated to the United States (US) and Europe, and who were desirous to instil Islamic values in their children fearing the ‘corrupting’ influence of the West. (8.) All officials of the madrasa have duties as well as rights. However, there are only ‘rules and duties’ for the students. Legally then, they have no rights within the madrasa. (9.) This means that following the practice by the ulama, the students cannot wear anything except a kurta–pyjama. It must be mentioned that in the wider Muslims world, there is a considerable and open debate about what constitutes an ‘Islamic dress’ and there is no consensus on it. Thus, students at Nadwatul Ulama, a famous madrasa in Lucknow, can be seen in shirts and trousers but still claim to be practising Islam. But within Ashrafiya, the notion that Islamic dress means kurta–pyjama still persists and is practised. (10.) Literally, habitation; students refer to the town as basti. (11.) Ashrafiya is not alone in having such an arrangement. Most madrasas serve different qualities and quantities of food depending upon the paying capacity of students. In some smaller madrasas, teachers are served much better food than the students, a practice which has been criticized from within the madrasa system itself. (12.) One is reminded of the famous film, Mother India, in which the ‘mother’ asks the school teacher not to use the stick on her son. In response, the village teacher reminds her, ‘education is incomplete without punishment’. (13.) One of the students with whom I stayed got beaten up in front of the madrasa gate, in full view of others. The person who beat this young adult was the nazir, (un)popularly known as Master. He was angry that the student concerned did not say salam to him while he passed by him. On the other hand, the student said that because the place was crowded, he could not see the nazir. For this ‘lax’ behaviour, the student got so severely beaten up that he started bleeding from his nose. Other students showed sympathy with this student but none dared to say anything against the nazir. Public beating is an important technique of bringing shame on the person as well as telling others to ‘respect’ authority. (14.) I call them functionalists in the very theoretical sense of the term. (15.) Talks about control over bodily passions invariably brought women in the picture. In the minds of the students, ‘women and their ways’ were the main cause of distraction for the males, an argument which many of the students justified scripturally.

Page 18 of 19

 

Controlling Minds, Disciplining Bodies (16.) Although controversy still remains regarding the proper length of the pyjama, members of the Tabligh Jamaat, for example, insist that the pyjama should not cover the ankle. For students of Ashrafiya, the above-ankle pyjama is a sign of Wahabism. Clothes, and the ways in which they are worn, thus become symbolic of differences of identity. (17.) ‘Jism ke hisse apne apne jagah dikhte hain’. (18.) The assertion is based on interaction with some ex-students of Madrasa Ashrafiya who later on went to study in a university in Delhi.

Access brought to you by:

Page 19 of 19

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Ayurveda Education in Contemporary India* Geetha B. Nambissan S. Srinivasa Rao

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.003.0012

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines Ayurveda education in India and the reproduction of indigenous knowledge in a pluralist culture. The story of indigenous knowledge systems such as Ayurveda, especially in the last century, has been one of power struggles resisting the authority, prestige, and the hegemonic tendencies of biomedicine, while selectively co-opting the rival’s therapeutic knowledge and practices in order to be relevant and contemporaneous. Today, Ayurvedic education both contests and collaborates with biomedicine, providing an interesting instance of simultaneous reproduction of plural knowledge systems. Contemporary Ayurvedic education raises several questions pertinent to sociology of education (SoE) in India. Having schooled in the biomedical sciences, how do students make the necessary cognitive shift into the Ayurvedic body of knowledge and its conceptual categories? How do modern Ayurveda colleges organize and realize these conceptual shifts and cultural transitions? The author analyses the role of culture in medicine and in education, and describes the educational and cultural processes of knowledge reproduction in the modern institutions of traditional medicine. This chapter also discusses the curricular and extra-curricular strategies used by Ayurveda colleges to address the marginalization of Ayurveda and the dominance of biomedicine. It also considers how Ayurvedic education contests the binaries between two

Page 1 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures knowledge systems and attempts to counter the power hierarchies ensuing from them. Keywords:   Ayurveda education, indigenous knowledge, medical pluralism, Ayurveda and SoE, Medical knowledge system, culture and medivine, biomedicine, power hierarchies, pluralist culture, allopathic hegemony

Modern educational institutions that train professionals in different systems of medicine is a feature observed in many Asian countries. This pluralism in medical education has expanded and consolidated in recent decades in India with the growth of a number of medical colleges in different systems of medicine such as Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathy, and biomedicine.1 Viewed from a sociological perspective, pluralism in medical education seems anomalous since professionalization of medicine implies the institutionalization of universal norms regarding training and practice, and the establishment of autonomy and control over medical knowledge and practice by the modern biomedical system (Friedson 1970). The transformation of an occupation into a profession, which is an important aspect of modernity, is argued to be a political process aided by modernization and rationalization and supported by the modern state. The ascendancy of biomedicine as a profession and the establishment of its monopoly in medical education in the West were achieved by the nineteenth century, (p. 246) by displacing all other indigenous medical knowledges by the state rendering them illegal (Foucault 1973; and Friedson 1986). In India, however, the joint efforts by the colonial administration, the British Medical Council, and the nascent medical ‘profession’ to establish a similar monopoly during the same period failed for a variety of reasons (Jeffery 1979). The colonial administration was reluctant to invest in training doctors and in medical facilities in adequate numbers. There was political resistance by the nationalists and supporters of indigenous2 systems of medicine (ISMs) such as Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani. But more important was the administration's inability to contain the spread and influence of the indigenous practitioners through legal measures. The contestations and negotiations with the ideological and material aspirations of the colonial state, and the biomedical establishments, by the indigenous practitioners and their supporters resulted in the unique situation in India of state-legitimized, extensively institutionalized, and hierarchically structured medical pluralism constituted by both ‘indigenous’ as well as ‘Western’ systems of medicine. However, biomedicine dominates the field, as evident from the professional power it wields, visibility of its institutions, high social and economic status of its practitioners, and the almost exclusive state support that it enjoys. In the current discourse on medicine, the significant contributions of indigenous systems to health care that range from providing primary care to masses not reached by biomedicine to alternative and specialist care to those within the reach of biomedicine are trivialized, and often seen as aberrant, obsolete, or exotic practices. This divide between biomedicine and other systems can be Page 2 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures traced to the colonial discourse on medicine that created categories of ‘Western and indigenous’, ‘scientific and unscientific’, and ‘modern and traditional’, in an attempt to legitimize Western medicine and culture by denigrating, and then marginalizing, indigenous knowledge and associated practices. This discourse created a binary classification by positing unbridgeable, foundational differences between the two categories of knowledge systems. Moreover, by privileging one category over the other, it also established a hierarchy that legitimized the professional authority and higher social prestige of biomedicine, secured through the generous support of the colonial state that conferred legal powers and special privileges. India inherited this colonial legacy, but because the nationalist movement supported the cause of indigenous systems and because of the (p.247) ground reality of the great need for health care services, the independent state ceded recognition to indigenous systems and endorsed their institutional development that had already begun during the colonial period. The state, however, maintained the political and ideological divide between medical knowledges and the power relationship between biomedicine and ISMs through disproportionate budgetary allocations (over 90 per cent for biomedicine) and through administrative segregation of biomedicine from all ‘other’ medical systems, clubbed together as ISM or Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH). Medical education in India is therefore conceptually and organizationally bifurcated into ‘(Bio)Medicine’ and ‘Indigenous or Indian Systems of Medicine’ (ISM/AYUSH) which includes Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy. Currently, in the country, there are about 300 colleges of biomedicine training about 32,000 graduates and about 485 colleges of the ISMs training about 30,000 graduates, annually. While the growth of biomedical colleges is not surprising, that of ISMs from about 60 at the time of independence to a figure approaching 500, in an overall environment of political and professional subordination, is a growth worthy of attention. Focusing on Ayurvedic education in India, this chapter examines how indigenous knowledge systems negotiate the century old political, ideological, and epistemological subordination by the powerful ideology and institutions of biomedicine in contemporary times. The number of Ayurveda colleges alone increased from around 50 at the time of independence to 262 presently, with a major growth recorded since the 1990s as a result of the privatization of higher education (Central Council of Indian Medicine 2011). The growth, spanning a century, has also seen marked changes from the colonial times in the organization and content of Ayurvedic training. There have been several curricular revisions, changes in the medium of instruction, parity with biomedicine in the credential requirements for entry and exit, and more importantly, inclusion of biomedical knowledge in Ayurvedic training. The cumulative effect has been an Ayurvedic education that resembles biomedical education in its structure and organization (Brass 1972). These Page 3 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures changes and their appropriateness were intensely debated by Ayurvedists and were resisted by biomedical practitioners. Thus, the story of indigenous knowledge systems such as Ayurveda, especially in the last century, has been one of power struggles resisting the authority, prestige, (p.248) and the hegemonic tendencies of biomedicine, while selectively co-opting the rival’s therapeutic knowledge and practices in order to be relevant and contemporaneous. So, what we have today is an Ayurvedic education that both contests and collaborates with biomedicine, providing an interesting instance of simultaneous reproduction of plural knowledge systems. Contemporary Ayurvedic education therefore raises several questions pertinent to sociology of education (SoE) in India. Having schooled in the biomedical sciences, how do students make the necessary cognitive shift into the Ayurvedic body of knowledge and its conceptual categories? How do modern Ayurveda colleges organize and realize these conceptual shifts and cultural transitions? In other words, what are the cultural and educational processes of knowledge reproduction in these ‘modern’ institutions of ‘traditional’ medicine? What is the role of culture in medicine and in education? The chapter addresses some of these questions and shows that modern Ayurveda colleges employ various curricular and extra-curricular strategies to negotiate the historical marginalization of Ayurveda and the overwhelming hegemony of biomedicine. It argues that by building epistemic bridges across the two knowledge systems and through various cognitive, cultural, and ideological strategies, Ayurvedic education contests the binaries and counters the power hierarchies ensuing from them.

Medical/Epistemological Pluralism ‘Medical pluralism’, a term introduced in the 1970s by anthropologists studying health care practices in the Third World countries, referred to health seeking that involved medical systems other than Western medicine.3 Recent studies have endorsed the thriving nature of medical pluralism in contemporary India.4 From the epistemological point of view, the ISMs assert their individual identity by reference to the distinct philosophy and body of knowledge, and the different ways in which the material and metaphysical, the ecological, and cosmological dimensions in their theoretical framework promote a ‘holistic’ approach to human health and well-being.5 The practitioners often view these differences in the ontological and epistemological premises of their knowledge systems as important, and provide them as arguments against merging of the medical systems.6 Although systems such as Ayurveda, Unani, and Siddha have coexisted for centuries and exchanged elements of knowledge, they continue to maintain their independent identities on the basis of the (p.249) above differences. In the play of power/knowledge, the foundational differences between the systems are underplayed or magnified based on the political and practical contexts. The terms such as medical pluralism or epistemological pluralism, as they are used in this chapter, therefore refer to the foundational differences between Page 4 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures knowledge systems and to the underlying power dynamics of contestations and co-optations between systems, negotiating the foundational differences. The coexistence of multiple medical systems has been largely theorized as a transitional stage in a modernizing society—as the lingering presence of tradition while modernity takes over.7 Indeed some of the anthropological and historical studies of the transplantation of European science in the colonized countries have analysed the role of science/medicine as ‘tools of empire’. They have recorded the brutalities that underlay the transplantation, the inequities in the distribution of scientific knowledge, the creation of scientific dependency in the colonies, as well as the resistance put up by the colonized.8 However, with a few exceptions, these studies, explicitly or implicitly, endorse the epistemological superiority of science over indigenous systems. Even though they may acknowledge the rational theoretical and empirical orientation of Ayurveda, they still view it only as ‘proto-science’ and its contemporary presence as the continuation of ‘archaic reason’.9 Several anthropological studies comparing medical systems also slip into a framework of the simple hierarchy of Western medicine versus Asian medical systems. The latter are gratuitously referred to as ‘scholarly traditions’ or as ‘text-based traditions’. Science and these other systems are seen as belonging to two irreconcilable epistemological worlds where the difference is not in the rational, empirical bases of knowledge, but in the methodology of validation of knowledge. For instance, analytical categories such as ‘epistemic’ and ‘gnostic’ are employed to distinguish science from other knowledges based on the production and reproduction of knowledge in the Western and non-Western societies (Bates 1995). Epistemic knowledge is ‘knowledge based on the known’ (objective knowledge not amenable to subjective interpretations) and gnostic knowledge is ‘based on the knower’ (knowledge derived and reproduced through subjective interpretations). By this classification, biomedicine is epistemic and Ayurveda is gnostic. These analyses strengthen the colonial construct of the irreconcilable epistemological divide, and do not help analyse the ‘coexistence’ and ‘co-production’ (p.250) of biomedicine and Ayurveda in contemporary post-colonial societies, and the role of modern educational institutions in such co-production. Contemporary training of Ayurveda through modern colleges is analysed as a failed attempt to professionalize in a manner similar to that of Western medicine (Brass 1972; Leslie 1976; and Leslie and Young 1992), as a fall of the scholarly tradition ending up as a para-profession to the biomedicine (Zimmermann 1978), or as modern ‘reframing’ by a traditional knowledge (Ayurveda) that is ‘mimetic’ of modern biomedicine (Langford 2004).10 What is common to these analyses, coming from different disciplinary locations and theoretical perspectives, is that they view indigenous knowledge systems as socially located, with their relevance contingent on this location as opposed to Page 5 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures the universality and objectivity of science. When epistemological hierarchy is assumed, it leaves these analyses with only two options: either the indigenous systems will wither away in confrontation with biomedicine or that it will imitate the superior knowledge. This line of argument, however, ignores the critical analyses of the growth of biomedicine in the West and the normative practices in the creation of scientific knowledge advanced by recent science studies research. It also ignores the field reality in countries like India where experts and lay people alike (as in the ‘development projects’) navigate between knowledge and practices drawn from sources or epistemologies that belong to contrasting domains of indigenous (traditional) and scientific (modern) systems with no apparent epistemic conflicts (Agrawal 1995). The ascendancy of biomedical profession and the exercise of ‘bio-power’ beyond medicine is rarely derived directly from its superior theoretical claims, but constituted and buttressed by wider sources of political and ideological power (Foucault 1973; Friedson 1970, 1986; and Lock and Gordon 1988), and by medicine’s close alliance with the capitalist state and the market (Turner 1995). Further, a large body of research in the new sociology of scientific knowledge and feminist science studies has critiqued the absolute truth claims of modern science by showing the enterprise of knowledge production in science and its validation as cultural processes (Harding 1991; Knorr–Cetina 1999; and Pickering 1992). They have challenged the received view of science as autonomous, objective, and universal, and have deconstructed these claims by locating scientific and technological knowledge in its socio-historical contexts. By showing the multiple ‘epistemic cultures’ (p.251) in the laboratories and other scientific establishments, and the complex operations, especially of class, race, and gender power relations, within the scientific community as well as by examining the very methodology of science that selects knowledge claims or silences counterclaims, these studies challenge the authority of science and its claim to epistemological superiority derived from the universal, objective, and even rational nature of its knowledge. Recent studies of processes of knowledge creation across nations and communities have revealed the diversity within what is viewed as Western and indigenous, and also similarities between them (Turnbull 2003). The discernable differences within biomedical practice across countries such as India, China, or United States (US) are well known. Similarly, Ayurvedic practices in Kerala are perceptibly different from what is practised in Punjab or in Germany. Further, underneath the striking differences in the philosophies and knowledges of what is considered indigenous or Western, there may be substantial similarities that bridge the divide, enabling communication and transfer of knowledge across the two knowledge systems.

Page 6 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Turnbull, through a comparative study of the practices of Western science and indigenous knowledge in different societies, argues that ‘the common element in all knowledge systems is their localness, and that their differences lie in the way that local knowledge is assembled through social strategies and technical devices for establishing equivalences and connections between otherwise heterogeneous and incompatible components’ (Turnbull 2003: 13). Science is no exception as it assembles and accommodates seemingly incompatible knowledge produced by local cultures. He further argues that links between rationalities can be created by human endeavour, that is, creating shared ‘knowledge space in which equivalences and connections between differing rationalities can be constructed. Communication, understanding, equality and diversity will not be achieved by others adopting Western information, knowledge, science and rationality. It will only come from finding ways to work together in joint rationalities’ (Turnbull 2003: 13). Such a view opens up new ways of approaching the contestations and collaborations between Ayurveda and biomedicine that unfolds in modern Ayurveda medical colleges. Viewing the epistemological pluralism of modern Ayurveda colleges as a failed or mimetic attempt at institutionalization or professionalization by a traditional system is usually the result of a comparison of the overt features (p.252) of current allopathic and Ayurvedic medical education and from the trend of migration of Ayurvedic graduates into allopathic practice observed in many states. Such analyses, rather than provide insights into the power struggles between knowledge systems, succumb to the ideological power of science, and contribute to the reproduction of the legitimacy and authority of science instituted through colonialism. If the Ayurvedic system has a coherent body of theoretical and practical knowledge based on rational, empirical methods, which many studies in any case accept, then what would an analysis that approaches knowledge systems in non-hierarchical epistemic terms and views the hierarchy as a consequence of various socio-historical and political processes reveal? If science is viewed as culture and practice, it opens up possibilities of linking rationalities that are marginalized and displaced, and also taking on board the knowledge and experiences of subordinated social groups such as Dalits, tribals, and women.

Emergence of Modern Ayurveda Colleges: Socio-historical Contexts Ayurvedic knowledge compiled in the samhitas of Caraka, Sushruta, and Vagbhata between 500 BC–AD 800, has, over the centuries, continued to generate a vast repertoire of commentaries, redactions, and supplementary literature in Sanskrit and regional languages across the country. Different traditions within Ayurveda emerged due to specific regional socio-political developments, through exchanges with other medical systems such as Unani and Siddha, by incorporating local folk and tribal practices (Meulenbeld 1992), and as a consequence of the gurukula and apprenticeship modes of training.11

Page 7 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures The need to consolidate Ayurveda as a unified ‘system’ of medicine emerged during the colonial period towards the end of nineteenth century, specifically in response to the discriminatory policies of the state administration that debunked indigenous systems while favouring Western medicine. The colonial historiography of medicine in India shows that the transplantation of Western medicine was not a simple process of transmission of knowledge but was achieved through a series of sustained coercive as well as hegemonic policies and practices (Alavi 2007; Arnold 1988; Forbes 2005; Jaggi 1977; and Kumar 1997). This transplantation entailed the displacement of indigenous systems. The indigenous systems were clubbed together and pitted against European medicine in a discourse laden with (p.253) binaries such as ‘scientific/ superstitious’, ‘rational/cultural’, and ‘modern/traditional’. The constructions and imageries of Ayurveda, until then the dominant system of medicine, as inferior and primitive knowledge, and as potentially harmful practices, provided the necessary ideological justification for policies and actions discrediting and displacing indigenous knowledges. The cautionary approach adopted by the state after the 1857 uprising and the belief in the inherent power of Western science to displace indigenous systems prevented colonial administration from employing stringent measures such as banning the practice of Ayurveda and other indigenous systems.12 The state support, legal and administrative measures such as registration acts, and a separate medical council exclusively for Western medicine institutionalized the epistemic divide between medical systems while ‘securing’ for Western medicine a superior epistemic status. These measures were resisted by practitioners of indigenous systems, intellectuals, nationalist leaders, and even some prominent doctors trained in Western medicine. These factors led to the political organization of indigenous practitioners, who opposed the discriminatory policies and demanded state recognition and support on par with the colonial medicine. As these demands were ignored, some of the enterprising indigenous practitioners, in disillusionment and at times in defiance, set up medical colleges and drug production units in Ayurveda and Unani. Initially, these efforts were encouraged and politically supported by the nationalist movement. The political mobilization of indigenous practitioners in the form of the Ayurvedic Congress in 1907 and institution building in systems such as Ayurveda began simultaneously and gained momentum in the 1930s and the 1940s. The colonial domination turned hegemonic with the establishment of modern schools, colleges, and hospitals (Arnold 1988; Carnoy 1974; Dharampal 1983; and Jeffery 1979), and a consensus emerged gradually among a significant section of the educated elites—among whom doctors trained in Western medicine formed a powerful group—of the superiority of colonial medicine. This view began to resonate in the nationalist movement and when resolutions were made and planning documents were prepared, the choice gradually turned in favour of the Western system (Jeffery 1988). The upper-class and upper-caste Page 8 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures background of the doctors, their economic ambitions, the new opportunities for overseas jobs, and the nation-building agenda of a new India based on scientific development worked in tandem to overpower (p.254) the cultural arguments and the practical considerations that favoured indigenous systems like Ayurveda, resulting in the choice of a national health care system based exclusively on allopathy.13 The improved services of allopathy and its ability to control epidemics and infections also began to support the shift in ideological positions. In parallel with this process, Ayurveda reorganized itself. The upper-class and upper-caste background of the Ayurvedists, the perseverance of a few prominent nationalist leaders who ardently supported Ayurveda, and the institution building initiated as a countercultural and counter-hegemonic effort were instrumental in reclaiming, at least partially, a political space for Ayurveda (Abraham 1999). P.S. Varier in Kerala, Gangadhar Ray in Bengal, the Aziz brothers in Lucknow, and several others started colleges and large-scale commercial production of indigenous medicines. Despite strictures from the colonial administration, princely states such as Travancore, Cochin, and others found ways to support Ayurvedic education. Following the 1919 administrative reforms, when the health sector was brought under the provincial governments and which had increased Indian participation in the administration, colleges of indigenous systems received political and financial support. For instance, the Government School of Indian Medicine was established in 1925 in Madras (Brass 1972).14 The cumulative outcome of such varied efforts, individual and collective, private and quasi-state, was that Ayurveda colleges and pharmaceutical establishments outnumbered Western medical establishments in India at the time of independence. This ground reality however did not change the dominant thinking of the time that the indigenous systems and their practices would give way to Western medicine once the latter spread across the country and became available to the masses.15 The robustness of the medical pluralism that we observe today owes much to this colonial cultural and political history, and has been built and sustained through the institutional growth and expansion simultaneously of both the indigenous and the allopathic systems of medicines spread over a century.

‘Integration’ of Western and Indigenous Medicines While the colonial rhetoric focused on the epistemic incongruities between the indigenous and the Western medicine, at the level of practice, the divide was frequently crossed. The ‘Orientalists’ attempted (p.255) integration of indigenous and Western medical knowledge in the 1820s. This experiment was initiated by the East India Company as a cost-cutting strategy to limit the import of physicians and drugs from Europe and was guided by a group of Orientalists. The Native Medical Institution (NMI), started in the 1820s, marked the beginning of modern medical education in India with a curriculum that integrated modern medical subjects with Ayurveda and Unani using Sanskrit, Urdu, vernacular languages, and English.16 English medical texts were Page 9 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures translated into the Indian languages. Many Indians welcomed this move, extended financial support, and also joined the institution. There was no opposition from the Indian side to the integrated training, and the experiment was seen as successful, both in medical and financial terms. However, this experiment ended soon following the infamous Macaulay’s Minute on Education, seen as the Anglicists’ victory over the Orientalists in the field of education (Macaulay 1835 cited in Aggarwal 1993). The NMI was closed down in 1835 and the Calcutta Medical College was established in its place, transferring the teachers, students, and all the educational materials. With this move, the decision to impart medical education exclusively in Western medicine with English as the medium of instruction was taken. The ideological justification for this shift, as the colonial historiography of medicine and of education in India shows, was located in the superiority of Western medicine and of the English language. Interestingly, a century later, an integrated curriculum combining biomedical subjects with Ayurveda was revived by the Ayurvedists as part of the institutionalization and modernization of Ayurvedic education. Although the closing down of the NMI and the new educational policies institutionalized the epistemic divide by excluding the indigenous systems from formal education, the colonial administration did not hesitate to integrate the two at the level of practice. There are accounts of training indigenous practitioners in the subjects of Western medicine to serve the poor and in the mofussil areas. For instance, Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners were trained to dispense Western medicines in a bid to control epidemics (Hume 1977); indigenous variolators were employed as vaccinators (Arnold 1988; Naraindas 1998); and traditional dais, many of them illiterate, were trained to attend deliveries and assist in the hospitals in an attempt to reduce the high rates of infant and maternal deaths (Forbes 2005). There are references to the integration (p.256) of Western and indigenous systems in the everyday practice of medicine in the allopathic clinics and hospitals. Interestingly, none of these accounts refer to practitioners’ experience of epistemic conflict arising out of combining diverse medical practices, although there are accounts of resistance by dais and indigenous practitioners to forms of cultural domination that accompanied some of the integrative practices. The contradictions in the political rhetoric and practice, and the hiatus between medical claims and health care services, were intensely experienced at the time of epidemics when the administration was forced to acknowledge the public legitimacy of indigenous systems and deploy indigenous practitioners and drugs. The suspicious political climate and the contradictory medical policies also influenced the manner in which debates on the epistemological bases of Western medicine and indigenous systems were undertaken and received by both sides. The divide between rhetoric and reality, and epistemology and practice, became

Page 10 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures fuzzy, further legitimizing the development of institutions in indigenous medicines and the idea of integrating Western medicine with the indigenous. For instance, the debates by Ayurvedists pointed out where their system converged with allopathy, but emphasized the irreducibility and the nontranslatability of Ayurvedic concepts into Western science. While making these arguments, the institution builders of Ayurveda such as P.S. Varier favoured a curriculum for Ayurveda that was supplemented with biomedical knowledge.17 The contradictions between the ideological arguments that favoured Western medicine over the indigenous and the material reality that forced their integration were politically appropriated by the integrationists/modernists within Ayurveda to institute an integrated curriculum in the modern Ayurveda colleges.

Developments in Post-independent India Opting for an extensive national health system based on biomedicine, as recommended by the Bhore Committee, the independent Indian state began with an ambivalent approach to the ISM sector—it could neither embrace it nor discard it. The institution building in ISM had progressed too far to be dismantled and the ISMs had provided an important cultural platform for antiimperialist actions. As a result, the period up to the mid-1970s turned out to be rather chaotic for systems like Ayurveda. Several committees were set up by the government that (p.257) produced voluminous reports often contradicting the recommendations of the earlier ones. This period also witnessed a return to the earlier fierce arguments in favour of and against the shuddha/classical and the integrated models of Ayurvedic education, and these views are reflected in the various government committee reports. The confusion and state neglect led to the deterioration of the conditions in the colleges and the morale of the students. There were violent protests and turmoil in several college campuses against the poor quality of teaching and infrastructure. Between 1958 and 1964, there were 55 strikes involving 34 Ayurveda and four Unani colleges (Brass 1972: 355). Their main demands were parity with allopathic graduates in pay and employment in government services, and better quality training and infrastructure. The various state governments adopted different strategies to manage the situation by introducing a bridge course in biomedicine or allowing students to shift to biomedicine. The ISM students welcomed this move but allopathic students resisted it. The allopaths also protested against the inclusion of subjects such as anatomy, physiology and pathology in Ayurveda colleges. Perceived as epistemic transgressions or ‘misuse’ of their system, allopaths stressed the theoretical incompatibility and the possibility that quackery and cross-practice among Ayurvedists would grow providing them back door entry into allopathy. They were not, however, opposed to the Ayurvedic colleges per se but resisted any move that threatened their professional autonomy. The state intervened to bring order but the arguments gradually lost their vigour as, at a theoretical level, it became increasingly difficult to counter the demands of the Page 11 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Ayurvedists for better quality training and ‘scientific’ learning! Moreover, the manner in which the protests progressed in places like Kerala and in many urban areas revealed the anxiety of allopathic doctors over increasing competition in the labour market rather than the purported concern for people’s safety and health. In fact, the epistemological concerns with which the resistance began were soon lost sight of. The crisis was partly resolved politically through state intervention by retaining the allopathic content in the Ayurvedic curriculum while withholding the issue of parity in pay. A national syllabus was introduced in 1979 and the degree was renamed as Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS). At present, all recognized Ayurveda colleges are affiliated to universities and are governed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM). While they are all regulated by the state, only a handful are financed by (p.258) it. Admission is based on the Common Entrance Test (CET) for medical and allied courses conducted by state governments. While the academic schedules of Ayurvedic and allopathic colleges follow a similar pattern of four-and-a-half years of course work, followed by a year of internship, they are marked by different approaches to curriculum. The Ayurvedic colleges follow an inclusive curriculum incorporating biomedical subjects of anatomy and physiology, basic pathology, and elementary surgical procedures,18 while the allopathic curriculum is rigidly exclusive and does not include any content beyond its ‘scientific’ episteme. This integrative feature of Ayurvedic education has divided the Ayurvedists into ‘purists/traditionalists’, who resist inclusion of biomedicine, and ‘modernists’, who favour integration. The integrated programme, with varying content and quality, has continued now for over a century, while the criticism continues that it ‘dilutes’ Ayurveda and voluntarily subordinates it to the hegemonic influence of biomedicine. The notion of theoretical incongruity between the two knowledge systems advanced earlier to segregate the ‘scientific’ from the ‘unscientific’ is challenged, at least partially, in contemporary Ayurvedic education. Pluralism within Ayurveda continues now by accommodating its political opponent in healing and curing. Despite criticisms, the reorganized and reinstitutionalized training has helped practitioners acquire new skills, and their compulsory registration on completion of training has contributed to the construction of a ‘profession’, a unified community with a political identity. Such regulation, monitoring, and control, described as ‘professionalization’ by anthropologists, was seen as desirable by the Ayurvedists themselves, was demanded by the allopathic profession, and executed with the help of the state. The professionalization of allopathy in India aimed at displacing systems like Ayurveda, in an ironic twist, also ‘professionalized’ Ayurveda, albeit differently.

Page 12 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures However, ‘professionalization’ of Ayurveda is far from complete, as is evident from the fact that the colleges are diverse not only in terms of curricular and pedagogic transactions but also in terms of the commitment of the practitioners produced by them. Several graduates of these institutions continue to shift to allopathy. The government appoints them in the allopathic primary health centres (PHCs), while private allopathic hospitals, including large and well known, employ (p.259) them to manage their casuality department and intensive-care units (ICUs).19 The higher social status of allopaths and the better avenues of employment lure many Ayurveda graduates to allopathic practice. Nonetheless, as the experience of Kerala shows, the Ayurveda colleges have succeeded in producing a large number of graduates committed to Ayurveda. The following section analyses how Ayurvedic education negotiates biomedical hegemony and reproduces epistemological pluralism in medicine by bridging the historical and epistemic gap by allowing traffic of concepts and practices across systems and by encouraging students to engage with multiple epistemes through pedagogic, curricular, and co-curricular practices. The analysis that follows is based on data gathered from Kerala during 2007–9 through interviews of students, teachers, and graduates from various Ayurveda colleges. The data from Kerala must be used with caution while making generalizations at the national level, given the large influence of the specific socio-cultural and the regional political context in shaping Ayurveda education in Kerala. However, they provide important insights into the working of educational institutions in reproducing Ayurveda in modern times.

Modern Ayurveda Education in Kerala The story of Ayurveda in Kerala is also one of contestation, negotiation, and collaboration with its historical and epistemic ‘rival’, the allopathic system. Modern Ayurveda is also engaged, often in subtle ways, in intellectual and political tussles with its own ‘internal’ counterpart—the traditional Ayurveda. The traditional Ayurveda group consists mainly of practitioners trained through the older, non-institutional arrangements of gurukulams or family apprenticeship, and also includes institutionally trained practitioners who support the ‘shuddha’ or purist tradition.20 Kerala has had a strong and sustained tradition of Ayurvedic training that enjoyed wider social and political support. The first modern Ayurvedic school was established in 1889 and was financed by the Travancore state. However, there were several other traditional training centres run by Ayurveda scholars and physicians, some of which later became modern institutions offering a formal degree. Apart from these centres of Ayurvedic training, Ayurvedic texts were taught as part of the general curriculum in the traditional schools (Wood 1985) contributing (p.260) to a wider culture of Ayurveda in the state. Until the first allopathic medical college was established in 1951 in Kerala, Ayurvedists trained in Kerala, graduates from the School of Integrated Medicine in Madras, Page 13 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures licentiates from various allopathic medical schools, and a few allopathic graduates from medical colleges outside Kerala together provided health care services in the state. There are indications that graduates of various Ayurvedic schools and of the integrated school were employed in the modern dispensaries and hospitals set up by the Travancore and Cochin princely states, and also missionaries (Sarma 1977; and Vinayachandran 2001). Thus, integration at the level of practice was perhaps not uncommon in Kerala during the colonial period. It is from the mid-1950s onwards that allopathy became ideologically and politically powerful. Contemporary Ayurvedic education in Kerala needs to be therefore placed in these historical and cultural contexts. The Ayurveda colleges in Kerala have been following the national BAMS curriculum of 1976. The students complete one year of internship training at the general and mental hospitals attached to the college,21 and also complete one month of rural internship. The Ayurveda colleges have herbal gardens and drug production units attached to them. The course work is divided into three parts of one-and-a-half years each, referred to as the first, second, and third ‘professional’, with a university examination at the end of each part. In the ‘first professional’, courses on the history and principles of Ayurveda are taught along with biomedical anatomy and physiology. Knowledge of Sanskrit is mandatory and proficiency in it is expected by the end of this period. From the second professional onwards, the focus is on Ayurvedic diagnosis and therapeutics, medicinal plants and preparation of medicines, and the classical texts. The third professional covers different branches of Ayurveda. Clinical and practical sessions continue through the programme but are more intensive during the internship.

Negotiating Historical Marginalization and Biomedical Hegemony Despite the cultural and therapeutic presence of Ayurveda, allopathy holds overwhelming professional power and institutional authority in health care in contemporary Kerala. The power and social prestige of allopathy draws students to this profession and the growing (p.261) biomedicalization of the society promises them a bright career. Allopathy, therefore, is the first choice of aspiring medical graduates and Ayurveda is only the second or third choice. Lower CET rank and social pressure from family and peers force many students to accept Ayurveda. The high rate of unemployment among graduates in Kerala and the low status of non-professional degrees, combined with the rising aspirations and competitiveness among the middle classes to secure professional degrees, pressurize students into accepting their admission attained through a highly competitive procedure even if it is for an Ayurveda programme. According to the teachers, students from elite upper class and castes are few. Because of the feminine gender profiling of Ayurveda with less prestige and pay, girls accepted the second ‘choice’ of Ayurveda more easily than boys.22 Although they succumb to societal pressures in choosing Ayurveda and feel demoralized about their professional ‘choice’, it was boys who succeeded in eventually carving out better Page 14 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures careers. The socialization of men and women into the Ayurvedic programme reveals how dominant patriarchal norms shape educational choices and outcomes differently for men and women and how ‘modern’, ‘secular’ spaces of professional education reproduce gender asymmetry. It is therefore not surprising that a sense of failure and disappointment prevails among a substantial number of men and women during the initial months of joining the Ayurvedic programme. The interviews of students and teachers show that neither societal pressures nor gender socialization are sufficient to counter the ideological and hegemonic influence of allopathy on aspiring medical graduates. Schooling, based exclusively on the knowledge and methods of modern science, however inefficiently executed, foregrounds the superiority of science over all other knowledge systems. Schooling, therefore, prepares students cognitively and ideologically to pursue studies only in allopathy. The more than a century-old modern Ayurvedic education, and its general acceptance in Kerala, has had no impact on the school curriculum, which includes almost no mention about this system of medicine. Thus, Ayurvedic education, like Unani and Siddha, and unlike other professional education, faces the challenge of addressing the psychological and cognitive disadvantages among their students, produced cumulatively by the historical marginalization and political subordination of Ayurveda and the exclusivist modern school curriculum. The difficult task of enabling students to make the cognitive and ideological shift to Ayurveda (p.262) and of developing linguistic skills in Sanskrit is manoeuvred through a mix of cultural, curricular, and pedagogic practices in these colleges. One might then expect that the low levels of motivation and negative attitude towards Ayurveda among students, their ‘trained incapacity’ to understand its theoretical framework and conceptual categories, and the lack of essential linguistic and literary skills in Sanskrit eventually lead to poor learning outcomes and professional skills among the graduates of these colleges. Contrary to such expectations, there was a perceptible difference between the first year and final year students; the latter emerged as motivated, confident, and well socialized into the world of Ayurveda, with several of them preparing to pursue higher education, the MD degree in Ayurveda. The recollections of students during interviews show that several factors contribute to this changeover: peer support and peer socialization; activities of student organizations; motivated and encouraging teachers; high quality of infrastructure such as library, laboratory, hospitals, and herbarium, etc. They also mentioned the historical legacy of Ayurveda in Kerala and anticipated a bright future for it stemming from its global recognition and popularity. Together with all these factors, working in tangible and intangible ways, the structure and pace of professional education organized in the semester system packed with practical sessions and periodic examinations, sustained by the underlying competitive and meritocratic ideologies also plays an important role. This seems Page 15 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures to settle students into a routine they are familiar with and anticipate from a professional course. Recalling her experience, one of the final year students said, ‘before we could even figure out how to go about these “strange” subjects, we were faced with tests and examinations and soon everyone was busy studying to get good marks’. Encouragement and reassurance by faculty members and senior students helped the juniors overcome their initial anxiety and antipathy. Several faculty members, through formal and informal exchanges, shared with them their own initial experiences of frustration and disappointment and how they gradually realized, over a period of time, the theoretical and practical potential of Ayurveda. First acknowledging and later naturalizing students’ anxiety facilitated their initiation into Ayurveda. The teachers employed various pedagogic strategies to introduce Ayurveda as a ‘science’ by underscoring its rational and materialist bases, underplaying the metaphysical elements, and dismissing any mythical content in their texts. The thrust of the pedagogy was to communicate (p.263) to students that Ayurveda indeed is a shastram (science, scientific), yet different from other ‘sciences’. The discussions on the nature of Ayurvedic knowledge was aimed at establishing the uniqueness of Ayurveda, constructing it as an autonomous system both in theory and practice, simultaneously challenging the superiority of allopathy and dismantling its unique epistemological claim to truth. The dismantling and demystifying was however not confrontational. The programme appears to successfully socialize the sceptical new entrants into graduates who believe in the theoretical as well as practical possibilities of Ayurveda as a medical system, in several ways superior to allopathy. The responses of the final year students are indicative of the ideological transition: ‘Allopathy’s failure is Ayurveda’s strength’; ‘Ayurveda is a rational, logical, and systematic medicine based on careful observation and inference. No doubt in many ways it is superior to allopathy’; ‘Ayurveda is difficult to understand, we have understood only a small part of the vast knowledge’; ‘After allopathic treatment, patients do not experience sukham (well-being) that the Ayurvedic treatment provides’; and so on. These and other similar statements express students’ respect for the vastness and depth of Ayurvedic knowledge, the acumen of the ancient acharyas, the historical longevity of their knowledge, the simple yet successful therapies; and so on. These statements were often supported by quotes from texts and by recounting instances of successful Ayurvedic treatment in their hospitals of ‘cases’ (persons) treated unsuccessfully by allopaths, and ‘effective handling’ of iatrogenic effects (‘side effects’) produced by allopathic treatment. The historical marginalization of Ayurveda and the epistemological superiority of biomedicine are countered by creating a consensus among students that in many respects, Ayurveda indeed is a far more complex and a more ‘complete’ system than allopathy. Elements of cultural

Page 16 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures nationalism perhaps form a subtext to these discussions and there is a careful positioning of Ayurveda as representing both tradition and modernity.

Building Epistemic Bridges What is perhaps most successful by way of addressing the deeply entrenched ideology of the superiority of biomedicine is the attempt to establish links with its epistemology by adopting a comparative approach in the teaching of anatomy and physiology. Students were (p.264) most comfortable with the anatomy and physiology courses where they are in a familiar cognitive and conceptual terrain. The dissection classes, as gauged from the description of both teachers and students, were not aimed at elucidating the empiricist methodology or at developing the ‘clinical gaze’, but were primarily used as a heuristic device to establish similarities and differences between the two systems and to reveal to the students the ‘depth’ of Ayurvedic knowledge. Students, while learning the fundamentals of biomedical anatomy and physiology, were also dismayed at the vast and complex body of knowledge that ancient acharyas produced through careful and systematic observation, all without the assistance of modern science and technology! Both at the implicit and explicit levels, some degree of comparison between the two systems by way of theoretical discussions and therapeutic comparisons continues through the training. For instance, the classroom discussions in the first year centred on the scientific status of both systems and, in the final year, on the different therapeutic approaches and outcomes. The biomedical courses taught at the beginning, during the ‘first professional’, serve as ‘hidden curriculum’ in the ideological reorientation of students. Those very subjects that comforted the students and which they claim made their cognitive transition to Ayurveda easier are the ones that are critiqued by a section of the Ayurvedists, as well as others, as leading to ‘allopathization’ of Ayurveda or as ‘weakening’ Ayurvedic practice. The current Ayurveda education may lack the rigour that educationists and Ayurvedists idealize or that may be desirable. Yet, these are simplistic views as they are not cognizant of the complex reality of Ayurvedic training within an exclusively biomedically oriented schooling on the one hand, and the Ayurvedists’ predicament of having to treat a large number of patients dissatisfied with allopathic care which necessitates some knowledge of it on the other hand. The graduates of these colleges value the ‘conceptual bilingualism’ (Naraindas 2006) that they acquire through the training. A study of practitioners of ‘Kerala Ayurveda’ in Mumbai reveals that such conceptual bilingualism underlies their practice (Abraham 2009). Thus, in the light of the experiences of graduates and teachers of modern Ayurveda colleges in Kerala, the fears of the ‘purist’ or ‘traditionalist’ Ayurveda camp seem misplaced and contrary to the situation on the ground.

Page 17 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Not only the biomedical content and the pedagogic strategies of dissection and laboratory learning, but also the adoption of several (p.265) symbolic accoutrements associated with biomedical training contributed to the making of modern Ayurveda ‘doctors’. For instance, students were pleased with the mandatory requirement to wear a white coat in college and to carry a stethoscope for clinical sessions which made them feel they were indeed ‘medical students’. The pedagogic strategies along with the cultural practices in the contemporary Ayurvedic education built bridges between what is generally perceived as an irreconcilable epistemological and cultural divide between allopathy and Ayurveda. In simple terms, Ayurvedic education is not just about acquiring proficiency in Ayurvedic system, but about negotiating Ayurvedic and allopathic knowledge at the cognitive as well as cultural levels. The ‘epistemic bridges’ built through training were also reinforced by establishing social and professional ties with biomedical practitioners. For instance, male students particularly retained their social links with schoolmates in the allopathic programme or, on graduation, established professional links with biomedical practitioners in their neighbourhoods whose services they solicited when needed. They used modern diagnostic tests and biomedical language to communicate with patients and to bring efficiency into their practice. Thus, horizontal and vertical linkages between the two medical systems were valued and systematically cultivated. In this manner, the epistemic links at the cognitive level were secured with social ties and this seemed possible particularly in Kerala, where the health culture is shaped by both Ayurveda and allopathy, and where the institutional power of biomedicine is balanced by the social and cultural support for Ayurveda. *** Epistemological pluralism, a concomitant of medical pluralism, as we have seen, is a feature of post-colonial societies like India where multiple knowledge systems and their associated practices are engaged in hegemonic and counterhegemonic struggles. In India, this is most intensely experienced in the field of medical education and medical practice. The colonial medical discourse constructed ‘Western’ and ‘indigenous’ medical systems as binary opposites and placed them in an epistemological hierarchy. The struggles against the political marginalization of indigenous medical systems such as Ayurveda, and the contestations of the divide between ‘science/culture’ and ‘modern/traditional’, were also efforts to challenge Western science’s claims to (p.266) superior epistemology and universal truth. As the social history of Western science in India shows, these contestations were persistent and came from Indians with varied backgrounds, including Indian scientists trained in the West and Indian doctors trained in Western medicine (Habib and Raina 2007). However, institution building in indigenous systems was perceived by their practitioners as the most important counter to the cultural and intellectual domination of the Page 18 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Western medicine. While institutions of science and medicine in India largely emulated their Western counterparts, indigenous knowledge systems such as Ayurveda had to invent models of institution building which, while countering the hegemonic ambitions of ‘colonial’, ‘Western’ science and medicine, had to preserve the autonomy of its knowledge and practice, simultaneously making it contemporaneous. The indigenous responses of institutionalization not only prevented the political demise of medical systems such as Ayurveda but legitimized cultural and epistemological pluralism in medicine in India. The modern Ayurveda colleges and the transformations within Ayurvedic teaching and learning have to be located in this historical and political context of marginalization and subordination. By showing that Ayurveda has a sophisticated theoretical framework, entirely different from that of allopathy, and at the same time, highlighting equivalences between the two systems and specifically emphasizing the fact that ‘Ayurveda had already developed its knowledge centuries ago’, a reconfiguration of the epistemological hierarchy is attempted in these colleges. The curriculum and the pedagogic practices, especially in the first two years, are organized in a way that initiates students into the conceptual world of Ayurveda while demystifying the epistemological authority and superiority of allopathy (biomedicine) through a selective and comparative study of the two systems. The inclusion of selective content from the body of biomedical knowledge and practices in the Ayurvedic training cannot be viewed as a ‘mimetic’ approach adopted by Ayurveda, as some scholars argue, but is rather a means by which Ayurvedic training negotiates the medical hierarchy. Rather than engaging in epistemological confrontation, which in any case would prove to be futile in a context where biomedicine's contributions have been life saving and significant and where the discourse of science is powerfully experienced, the hegemony of biomedicine is countered through various curricular and extra-curricular institutional mechanisms and cultural practices of (p.267) building bridges between knowledge systems, as the forgoing discussion on Ayurvedic education in Kerala shows. By drawing upon the traditional cultural resources of Ayurveda and by establishing social networks with allopathic practitioners, the individual identity of Ayurveda and the composite health culture are reproduced simultaneously. As the new sociology of science argues, knowledge systems are a product of local cultures and are embedded in them. For instance, ‘it cannot be assumed that Western science is the lingua franca of all knowledge systems and that all other knowledge systems must be translated into it or if not translatable must be rejected as valueless’ (Gorenstein 1998: 3). As the analysis of contemporary Ayurvedic education shows, the strategy of epistemic pluralism may ultimately weaken the ‘purist’ tradition within Ayurveda, as many committed Ayurvedists fear, but it would be naive to believe that it will destroy the foundations of Ayurveda. The situation, as we have seen, is indeed complex and may appear as messy. But, as Turnbull points out, if we do not actively engage with the Page 19 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures ‘messiness of our knowledge making we will in the long run condemn ourselves to an inevitable death brought on by the inflexibility and sterility of a monoculture. In the long run, social and cultural complexity cannot be winnowed away; it's all there is’ (Turnbull 2003: 227). The sociology of education in India has largely ignored the international debates in the sociology of science and cultural studies of science. It has also stayed away from engaging with the complex issues and processes of reproduction of indigenous knowledge through modern educational institutions within India. In India, sociology of science, despite its significance for the country and despite significant studies, has failed to develop as a sub-discipline within sociology. Deeply committed to furthering the goals of modern science and to the developmentalist imaginations of the state, sociology in India did not develop a critical approach to science, either to the received Western science or to the various strands of indigenous sciences (Visvanathan 2011). Sociology of education too inherited the same legacy. The theories of social and cultural reproduction in the field of sociology of education engage with the question of how hierarchical social structures and the associated ideologies and cultural differences are reproduced through educational institutions, especially schools. The situation is quite different and complex in post-colonial societies such as India where modern educational institutions also reproduce plural (p.268) knowledge systems and their power hierarchies. Theories of the sociology of education have, in general, not addressed issues of epistemological pluralism in relation to issues of the politics of knowledge in the context of colonialism and post-colonial educational development. Since SoE adopts the received view of science, the attempt has so far been to address issues of democratizing and universalizing science education, excluding all other forms of knowledge. It may be relevant to ask questions such as what is the nature of current science education in schools (or of scientific practice in general) that allows students to accept epistemic pluralism after undergoing schooling devoted entirely to a singular episteme? Or we could ask: what is the relationship between students’ cultural contexts and science education in countries like India that enables conceptual shift to knowledge systems such as Ayurveda? Or is it that theoretical incongruences are not necessarily experienced or are ignored at the level of applied knowledge? Can Ayurvedic education provide new insights into our understanding of how local cultures shape pedagogy and knowledge transaction? For SoE in India to be relevant to Indian reality, it needs to engage with indigenous knowledge systems, their educational institutions, and pedagogic practices that reproduce and recreate plural knowledges and composite cultures. References Bibliography references: Page 20 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Abraham, L. 1999. The Social History of Medical Education (Indian Systems of Medicine), Report. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences. ———. 2005. ‘Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM) and Public Health Care in India’, in L.V. Gangolli, R. Duggal, and A Shukla (eds), Review of Health Care in India. Mumbai: (p.271) Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes, pp. 187–223. Abraham, L. 2009. ‘Medicine as Culture: Indigenous Medicine in Cosmopolitan Mumbai’, Economic and Political Weekly, 44(16): 68–75. Agrawal, A. 1995. ‘Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge’, Development and Change, 26(3): 413–39. Aggarwal, J.C. 1993. Landmarks in the History of Modern Indian Education. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, pp. 1–12. Alavi, S. 2007. Islam and Healing: Loss and Recovery of an Indo-Muslim Medical Tradition 1600–1900. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Arnold, D. (ed.). 1988. Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Societies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Banerji, D. 1986. Social Sciences and Health Service Development in India: Sociology of Formation of an Alternative Paradigm. New Delhi: Lok Paksh. Bates, D. (ed.). 1995. Knowledge and the Scholarly Medical Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brass, P. 1972. ‘The Politics of Ayurvedic Education: A Case of Revivalism and Modernization in India’, in S.H. Rudolph and L.I. Rudolph (eds), Education and Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 342–71. Carnoy, M. 1974. Education as Cultural Imperialism. New York: David MacKay. Central Council of Indian Medicine. 2011. ‘Status of Ayurveda Colleges for the Year 2010–2011 New Delhi’. Available at http://www.ccimindia.org/ colleges_status_ayurveda_2010-11.php?page=3& (accessed 5 June 2012). Chattopadhyaya, D. 1977. Science and Society in Ancient India. New Delhi: Research India Publications. Dharampal. 1983. The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century. New Delhi: Biblia Impex Private Limited. Djurfeldt, G. and S. Lindberg. 1976. Pills against Poverty. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company.

Page 21 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Forbes, G. 2005. Women in Colonial India: Essays on Politics, Medicine and Historiography. New Delhi: Chronicle Book. Foucault, M. 1973. The Birth of a Clinic. London: Tavistock. Friedson, E. 1970. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row. ———. 1986. Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gorenstein, S. 1998. ‘Introduction: Knowledge Systems’, in S. Gorenstein (ed.), Knowledge and Society, Research in Science and Technology Series, Vol. 11. London: JAI Press, pp. 1–14. (p.272) Gorman, M. 1988. ‘Introduction of Western Science into Colonial India: Role of the Calcutta Medical College’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 132(3): 276–98. Government of India. 1946. Report of the Health Survey and Development Committee. The Bhore Committee Report, New Delhi. Habib, I.S. and D. Raina. 2007. ‘Introduction’, in I.S. Habib and D. Raina (eds), Social History of Science in Colonial India. New Delhi, Oxford University Press, pp. xiii–xl. Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hume, J.C. 1977. ‘Rival Traditions: Western Medicine and Ynan-I-Tibb in the Punjab, 1849–1889’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 51(2): 214–31. Jaggi, O.P. 1977. History of Science, Technology and Medicine in India. Delhi: Atma Ram and Sons. Jeffery, R. 1979. ‘Recognizing India’s Doctors: The Institutionalization of Medical Dependency, 1918–39’, Modern Asian Studies, 13(2): 301–26. ———. 1988. The Politics of Health in India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kakar, S. 1982. Shamans, Mystics and Doctors: A Psychological Inquiry in India and Its Healing Traditions. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Khaleeli, Z. 2001. ‘Harmony or Hegemony? The Rise and Fall of the Native Medical Institution, Calcutta, 1822–35’, South Asia Research, 21(1): 77–104.

Page 22 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Khare, R.S. 1996. ‘Dava, Daktar, and Dua: Anthropology of Practiced Medicine in India’, Social Science and Medicine, 43(5): 837–48. Knorr–Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kumar, D. 1997. ‘Unequal Contenders, Uneven Ground: Medical Encounters in British India, 1820–1920’, in A. Cunningham and B. Andrews (eds), Western Medicine as Contested Knowledge. New York: Manchester University Press, pp. 172–90. Langford, J. 2004. Fluent Bodies. Ayurvedic Remedies for Post-colonial Imbalance. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Leslie, C. 1976. Asian Medical Systems: A Comparative Study. California: University of California Press. Leslie, C. and A. Young (eds). 1992. Paths to Asian Medical Knowledge. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Lock, M. and D. Gordon. 1988. Biomedicine Examined. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Meulenbeld, G.J. 1992. ‘The Many Faces of Ayurveda’, Ancient Science of Life, XI(3–4): 106–13. (p.273) Naraindas, H. 1998. 'Care, Welfare and Treason: The Advent of Vaccination in the 19th Century', Contributions to Indian Sociology, 32(1): 67–96. ———. 2006. ‘Of Spineless Babies and Folic Acid: Evidence and Efficacy in Biomedicine and Ayurvedic Medicine’, Social Science and Medicine, 62(11): 2658–69. National Planning Committee. 1948. Report of the Subcommittee on National Health. The Sokhey Committee Report, Bombay, Vora and Company. Paul, B.D. (ed.). 1955. Health, Culture and Community. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pickering, A. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Prakash, G. 2000. Another Reason. Science and the Imagination of Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sarbadhikari, K.C. 1962. ‘The Early Days of the First Medical College in India’, Indian Journal of Medical Education, I: 293–98.

Page 23 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures Sarma, S.S. 1977. Ayurvedam Kerala Kalasalakalil (Malayalam). Trivandrum: College Book House. Sujatha, V. 2007. ‘Pluralism in Indian Medicine: Medical Lore as a Genre of Medical Knowledge’, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 41(2): 169–202. ———. 2011. ‘Innovation within and between Traditions: Dilemma of Traditional Medicine in Contemporary India’, Science, Technology & Society, 16(2): 191– 213. Sujatha, V. and L. Abraham (eds). 2012. Medical Pluralism in Contemporary India. Hyderabad: Orient Black Swan. Turnbull, D. 2003. Masons, Tricksters and Cartographers: Comparative Studies in the Sociology of Scientific and Indigenous Knowledge. London: Routledge. Turner, B.S. 1995. Medical Power and Social Knowledge. London: Sage. Vinayachandran, P. 2001. Kerala Chikitsacharitram (Malayalam). Kottayam: Current Books. Visvanathan, S. 2011. 'Scripting Sociology of Science: Between Knowledge and Democracy in India', in Sujata Patel (ed.), Doing Sociology in India: Geneologies, Locations and Practices, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 290–313. Wood, A. 1985. Knowledge Before Printing and After: The Indian Tradition in Changing Kerala. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Zimmermann, F. 1978. ‘From Classic Texts to Learned Practice: Methodological Remarks on the Study of Indian Medicine’, Social Science and Medicine, 12B(2): 97–103. ———. 1987. The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An Ecological Theme in Hindu Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press. Notes:

(*) This chapter is based on data gathered for a research entitled, ‘Traditional Knowledge in Modern Settings: A Study of Reproduction of Ayurvedic Knowledge in Kerala’, under the Homi Bhabha Fellowship. (**) I acknowledge the cooperation of principals, faculty members, and students of two Ayurveda colleges in Kerala, and graduates of various Ayurveda colleges, currently practicing Ayurveda in Kerala. (1.) In India, biomedicine is referred to as allopathy, Western medicine, modern medicine, or just medicine. These terms are used interchangeably in this chapter

Page 24 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures depending on the political and historical contexts and the protagonists represented. (2.) ‘Indigenous’ is a contested term today and is used in a variety of contexts from the discourse of cultural nationalism to the political movements of tribals. We use it here in the context of the construction of indigenous versus Western knowledge as part of the colonial discourse of the state. It is not used in the sense of belonging to particular communities or nationalities, or in the sense of traditional and unchanging. (3.) In the Indian context, Leslie’s (1976) work popularized this term. (4.) Abraham (2005); Khare (1996); and also see the Special Issue on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(16), 18 April 2009. (5.) For some of these discussions, see Chattopadhyaya (1977); Kakar (1982); Sujatha (2007); and Zimmermann (1987). (6.) For a discussion on innovation within and between systems with regard to Siddha medicine, see Sujatha (2011). (7.) For a review of this literature, see ‘Introduction’ in Sujatha and Abraham (2012). (8.) Some analyses go beyond these. For instance, Habib and Raina (2007), critiquing the ‘standard tale’ of the diffusionist/osmotic view of the spread of science to the colonies, argue that local cultural contexts not only shaped the institutionalization of Western sciences in the colonies but also shaped in significant ways the institutional development of science in the port of origin, metropolitan Europe. (9.) See, for instance, Prakash (2000). (10.) For a critical review of these studies, see ‘Introduction’ in Sujatha and Abraham (2012). (11.) Similar perhaps to the gharanas of the classical music tradition. (12.) The colonial administration, on several occasions, contemplated banning all medical practices other than that of biomedicine but refrained from doing so fearing a backlash. There were violent responses to forced vaccinations, leading to the murder of a sanitary inspector in Poona (Pune). Indirect measures such as deregistering an allopathic doctor who had associated with an Ayurveda college were often used and were effective in disciplining the allopathic profession and humiliating the indigenous systems (Abraham 1999).

Page 25 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures (13.) The Joseph Bhore Committee report (1946) became the blueprint for planning health care services in independent India, setting aside the proposals of the National Planning Committee (1948). The former dismissed any role for the large ISM sector, while the latter assigned some role to this sector in the proposed plan. Any support for indigenous knowledges was directly in conflict with the Nehruvian dream of scientific development of India. (14.) In 1947, it became the College of Indian Medicine and later, in the 1960s, it was converted into an allopathic college, the Government Kilpauck Medical College. Many licentiate practitioners in Kerala, before the first medical college was established in the state, came from this integrated college. Brass (1972) reports that the Kilpauck Allopathic College Hospital continued to have an Ayurvedic ward and three research officers of indigenous medicine. (15.) This ‘optimism’ is reflected in the sociological and anthropological writings from diverse theoretical perspectives on medicine and health care during the 1960s and the 1980s in India. See, for instance, Banerji (1986); Djurfeldt and Lindberg (1976); and Paul (1955). (16.) For details of this institution, see Gorman (1988); Jaggi (1977); Khaleeli (2001); and Sarbadhikari (1962). (17.) There were Ayurvedists like Varier who had leant allopathy and openly acknowledged some of its superior therapeutics and recommended them. (18.) There are significant variations in the way the biomedical subjects are taught in Ayurveda colleges across the country, and the quality of training varies considerably in these colleges, as reported in a review of Ayurveda colleges in Mahrarashtra by the Nanal Foundation of Pune, 2002 (mimieo), and in the case of an Ayurveda college in Bangalore (Naraindas 2006). (19.) The recently established National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) incorporates a small component of AYUSH at the primary care level. Such moves, in effect, may push these systems back to its marginal position in the medical hierarchy. (20.) Kerala still has an influential traditional sector respected by the modern Ayurvedic community. It continues to engage in intellectual debates and periodically raise critical issues that pertain to the contemporary practice of Ayurveda, promoted by the modernists. I use the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ here to classify practitioners based on their training. Not all traditional practitioners are purists; some of them have welcomed the college-based training and the use of modern diagnostic techniques. Some of them are either founders of or are associated with modern pharmaceutical production of Ayurvedic medicines. So, the division of modern/tradition overlaps on the ground. Yet, in our discussion, this categorization is useful because it classifies Page 26 of 27

 

Reproduction of Indigenous Knowledge in Plural Cultures practitioners according to two important features: type of training (institutional or non-institutional); and exposure to the allopathic system. We do not include in the category of traditional practitioners here those who are untrained. (21.) Three of the colleges visited (two government and one private) had Ayurvedic hospitals with more than 300 beds that were fully occupied and the out-patient departments were well attended, two of them overcrowded. There seems to be no dearth of facilities for ‘clinical exposure’ in these colleges. However, the situation in the recently started self-financing private colleges in Kerala may be vastly different from these colleges. (22.) Women’s career in Ayurveda often ended with their marriage. For example, a postgraduate woman stated that out of the 30 students who graduated with her from a well-reputed Ayurveda college, 22 were girls and only seven are currently practising Ayurveda. Their career was truncated by marriage. Similar accounts were given by other women practitioners who were interviewed. This trend is not specific to Ayurveda but reflects the general trend regarding women's employment.

Access brought to you by:

Page 27 of 27

 

About the Editors and Contributors

Sociology of Education in India: Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns Geetha B. Nambissan and Srinivasa Rao

Print publication date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780198082866 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198082866.001.0001

(p.274) About the Editors and Contributors Leena Abraham is Associate Professor, Centre for Studies in Sociology of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. Her areas of specialization include sociology of education and sociology of medicine. She has co-edited Medical Pluralism in Contemporary India (Orient BlackSwan, 2012). She was awarded the Homi Bhabha Fellowship in 2007 for a study on Ayurveda in Kerala. Her current research pertains to social and cultural sites of knowledge reproduction, indigenous medicines, and politics of knowledge systems. Arshad Alam is Assistant Professor, Centre for Studies of the Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. His research interests include issues of Muslim identity, education, and politics. He has taught at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and was an International Ford Fellow at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Apart from academic publications, he writes for popular print and online media platforms. His recent publication is Inside a Madrasa: Knowledge, Power and Islamic Identity in India (Routledge, 2011). Karuna Chanana is former Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She has been a member of the UNESCO Regional Forum Scientific Committee for Asia and the Pacific. She has been a senior fellow with Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and a Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Fellow. Lately, she has been researching the impact of globalization and privatization of higher education on the academic profession and on women’s academic choices. She is editor of Socialisation, Education, and Women: Explorations in Gender Identity (Orient Longman, 1988); Page 1 of 4

 

About the Editors and Contributors author of Interrogating Women’s Education: Bounded Visions, Expanding Horizons (Rawat Publications, 2001); and co-author of Inclusion and Exclusion: A Study of Women and Men in Delhi Police (ICFAI University Press, 2005). (p.275) Suma Chitnis is former Professor and Head, Unit for Research in Sociology of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She has also been Vice-Chancellor, Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University, and Executive Director, JN Tata Endowment Trust, Mumbai. She has authored A Long Way to Go (Allied Publications, 1981); co-authored Field Studies in Sociology of Education (NCERT, 1970); and co-edited Papers in Sociology of Education in India (NCERT, 1967); and Higher Education Reforms in India: Experience and Perspectives (SAGE, 1993). Amman Madan is Professor, Sociology and Social Anthropology, Azim Premji University, Bangalore. His doctoral work was with Avijit Pathak at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has worked as a full-timer with Eklavya at Hoshangabad and also taught at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Kanpur. Currently, he is working on how social structures shape educational inequality and on school organization. He has written on civic education, political culture, social inequality, and higher education. He is coauthor of Teaching Social Science in Schools: NCERT’s New Textbook Initiative (SAGE, 2009). He is member of the editorial collective of Contemporary Education Dialogue. Nandini Manjrekar is Associate Professor, Centre for Education, School of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She is a PhD in Education from the Centre of Advanced Studies in Education, Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda. Her doctoral research was an ethnographic study of the hidden curriculum of gender in an urban government primary school. Her areas of research include gender and schooling, critical curriculum studies, sociology of childhood, education in conflict areas, and women’s studies. She is currently working on a study of Muslim girls’ schooling in post-2002 Gujarat. Geetha B. Nambissan is Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her areas of specialization include exclusion, inclusion, the education of marginal groups in India, and educational policy. Her current work focuses on the middle classes and educational advantage and the social and educational implications of private schools for the poor. She has published widely in these areas. She is co-editor of Child Labour and the Right to Education in South Asia: Needs Versus (p.276) Rights? (SAGE, 2003), and more recently, Education and Social Justice in the Era of Globalisation: Page 2 of 4

 

About the Editors and Contributors Perspectives from India and the UK (Routledge, 2011). She is on the editorial board of Contemporary Education Dialogue and on the advisory board of the Journal of Education Policy. She is also President (2013–14) of the Comparative Education Society of India (CESI). S. Srinivasa Rao is Associate Professor, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Before joining JNU, he was Consultant to the National Technical Support Group, District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), Educational Consultants India Limited (Ed. CIL) (1997), and to the Campus Diversity Initiative (CDI) Programme of the Ford Foundation (1998–9). His teaching and research interests include diversity, equality, and excellence in education. He has published papers and has contributed chapters to books for both school and higher education on social and comparative contexts. He has contributed to IGNOU’s course and textbook development for various post-graduate programmes in sociology and education. He was a recipient of the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute’s Faculty Research Fellowship, 2005, the Faculty Enrichment Award, 2011, and the Asia Fellow Award of the Asian Scholarship Foundation (ASF), 2007, Bangkok. He was a visiting scholar at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, at the Faculty of Education, McGill University, Canada, and at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). He was the General Secretary of the CESI in 2010–12. Padma M. Sarangapani is Professor and Dean, School of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. Her current research interests are in teacher education practice and policy, curriculum studies, and quality in education. She is currently working on quality and school diversification in the Indian context. She is part of the editorial collective of Contemporary Education Dialogue and is on the advisory board of British Journal of Sociology of Education. She was the recipient of the Fulbright Pre Doctoral Fellowship 1993–4 and the Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship 1998–2000. She has authored Constructing School Knowledge (SAGE, 2003); and co-edited Improving Government Schools: What Has Been Tried and What Works (Books for Change, 2004,). (p.277) Padma Velaskar is Professor, Centre for Studies in Sociology of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. Here, she teaches courses in sociology, women’s studies, and sociology of education. Her research interests include the sociology of caste and gender, inequalities in education, education of Dalits, and women’s issues. She has written and published on the intersectionality of caste, class, and gender, and on a range of policy Page 3 of 4

 

About the Editors and Contributors and disciplinary issues. Exploring the intersections between caste, class, and patriarchy, she is currently working on a book based on research on Dalit women in Maharashtra. G.G. Wankhede is Professor and Chairperson, Center for Higher Education, School of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He was born in and spent most of his early youth in a remote village in the state of Maharashtra, India. Belonging to a socially marginalized community and being a first-generation learner, he struggled to educate himself and ultimately attained a doctorate. He has been teaching and researching at TISS for the past three decades, and attributes his achievements to the affirmative action policy as well as to the social motivation he has drawn from the ideology and movement led by the champion of the marginalized, Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

Access brought to you by:

Page 4 of 4