Towards an argumentative academic culture
By
Dr. Gita Chadha
(Talk given at St.Xaviers College, Mumbai - Feb 2006)

Not being an expert in the field of education, it is with great trepidation that I approach this subject and whatever I say, I say as an educator. Another limitation of what I say comes from the fact that the following insights have emerged through a narrow ‘scape’ – a scape of teaching sociology in higher education institutions in elite South Bombay. Therefore, the applicability of the insights would be limited.

I started by teaching Sociology in Maniben Nanavati Women’s College at the SNDT University, went on to teaching at K.C. College of Mumbai University, took a break and traveled, came back to do my Ph.D. and am now teaching in an Institution which teaches the University of London course and, in many ways, signifies the globalization of education.

Since this is a seminar on higher education, let me start by putting as a backdrop the UNESCO definition of higher education, which is,

all types of education (academic, professional, technological or teacher education) provided in institutions such as Universities, liberal arts’ colleges, technological institutions and teacher colleges for which a) the basic requirement is the completion of secondary education, b) the usual entrance age is about 18 years, and c) in which the courses lead to a giving of a named award (degree, diploma or certificate of higher studies).

In contrast, some sociologists like Suma Chitins argue that “conceptually it is more appropriate to think of higher education in broader terms as an advanced phase in the exploration and transmission of knowledge in a formal system of education which is structured in phases”. Thus taking a wider view to education, the sub field of the sociology of education has made extensive contributions to the study of the education system. Though there have been more studies on school as an educational institution and not so many on universities, the sociological contribution to the study of pedagogical practices in schools can to some extent be applied to colleges and universities too. Classical Structural functionalists like Talcott Parsons and Emile Durkheim attribute the pattern maintenance function to education i.e. the system that socializes individuals into the needs and norms of the society. This view reinforces a conservative or closed pedagogy that firstly sees learning as the absorption of specific canons of knowledge. This pedagogy also views learning as determined by the child’s hereditary and environmental factors external to the school. Further, such pedagogies accept that the appropriate teaching style is one where teachers are experts who have authority over pupils and thereby direct the learning of subordinates. The curriculum, according to such pedagogies constitutes the sacrosanct classroom knowledge. In the closed pedagogy paradigm, besides the academic curriculum, there are also a set of values, attitudes or principles – a hidden curriculum – that are implicitly conveyed to pupils by teachers. Critiques of the hidden curriculum believe that it not only promotes social control at school and in society at large by training people to conform and to obey authority, but also teaches them to regard social inequalities as natural and thereby ensures the cultural reproduction of the status quo

In contrast to the structural functionalist view of pedagogy, Marxists argue that education is part of the superstructure which reflects a dominant class ideology. While closed pedagogical systems emphasize social control through education, carrying within it all the baggage of teacher superiority and pupil subservience, the emphasis of open pedagogy is on personal autonomy and questioning which needs to be encouraged among students. In fact, various studies indicate that the reproduction of social and cultural ideology of the middle class is resisted in school through counter cultures thus making the university, and the classroom within, a subversive site.

My experiences as a teacher indicate that in present day urban India, we as teachers find ourselves struggling between these two paradigms of teaching and learning. On the one hand, we pay lip service to the merits of criticality and questioning, on the other, we struggle with large classes, discipline issues and bad curricula. On the one hand, we want students to ‘think out of the box’, on the other, we ‘prepare them for the exams’. In a way, as I shall discuss, we straddle a contradiction that find its way into our strategies of teaching in the classroom. Naturally, the strategies sometimes fail and at other times succeed. It depends on how much and how well you manage to catch the pulse of your class and shape it into an argument which is at best what you can do in discursive subjects like sociology. But what is contained in an ‘argument’?

Since the title of my talk fashionably draws upon Amartya Sen’s book, The Argumentative Indian, I would like to quote the opening line from that book which says that, “Prolixity is not alien to us in India”. As I read this I was reminded of a colleague (not an Indian) who observed how Indian students “want to discuss all the time”. Though my initial reaction was one of pride, a sense of exasperation in her tone did not go unnoticed. Reflecting later upon what she said, I realized that there is a difference between discussing and arguing, a distinction crucial to pedagogical practices in the classroom. The nature of discussion which we witness perhaps at social gatherings, in talk shows or even activist gatherings largely aim at polemics, quick questions and formulaic answers. The art of argument, on the other hand, which distinguishes academic discourse from these, requires a degree of patience to be with an idea i.e. a thesis, its contradiction i.e. an antithesis and a resolution, the synthesis. The rigor of dialectics and the depths of reflection are perhaps the hallmarks of an argumentative culture. Having said this, it is important to ask oneself the question of relevance, necessity and value of such a culture, generally, in society and, particularly, in academics.

Sen. argues that the richness of the tradition of argument in India makes a difference to sub-continental lives today. He states “It shapes our social world and the nature of our culture. It has helped to make heterodoxy the natural state of affairs in India: persistent arguments are an important part of our public life. It deeply influences Indian politics, and is particularly relevant, I would argue, to the development of democracy in India and the emergence of its secular priorities”. Drawing upon the spirit of this position, I would say that the role of the teacher in reproducing the argumentative character of the Indian tradition, with its potential for subversion and criticality, is significant.

As a teacher of sociology and as a sociologist, I find that the task becomes easier, yet more complex, in the teaching of sociology – easier, in the sense, that sociology emphasizes on challenging the taken-for-granted, normalized character of social reality; complex, in the sense, that it requires a distancing from not only the common-sense view but also from deeply socialized thoughts and behavior patterns. While sociology is about making connections between private lives and public worlds, it is also about recognizing the limits of individual agency and yet about gaining freedom from social constraints and becoming agencies of social change. It is this link between argumentation and social change that needs to be strategically written into the teaching of sociology. If we strategize our teaching of sociology to produce conformism, we produce puppets but if we make our students realize that the strings holding us up like puppets can be broken, even with a slight gesture of the argumentative mind, we are producing reflexive people. I do believe that the classroom can become a site for such pedagogy through less emphasis on teacher-control in the classroom and more on autonomy of the learner. But as I indicated earlier, we all know that the task of conducting a lecture requires a measure of discipline – which reinforces a closed pedagogy. The effort, I guess, is one to invoke an internal sense of order, in thought and conduct and to simultaneously allow a fair amount of chaos that is essential in developing an argument. Fine balance to draw!! It is in this sense then that I argue that the present day pedagogical practices are simultaneously constrained by conservative or closed philosophies of education, which also reflect conventional sociological theories of education, and by the liberal and open philosophies of education as developed by Marxists like Paulo Freire

Having said this, while teaching the canon of the discipline – theory and method – one comes across certain tensions and dilemmas which I want to speak of. While in the teaching of methodology more innovation is easily possible, aided by new and interesting ways of documentation like photography, films or internet, it is in the pedagogy related to theory that one faces serious questions. The over-emphasis on the applied aspect in teaching has resulted in the espousal of teaching theory by the way of illustrations and examples. I believe that while examples are useful in bringing home a point to students, it is also necessary to help the student develop the ability for abstract thinking which is not constrained by one example in one context but is potentially applicable across contexts. A useful way of arriving at this is to present theory through an argument between two or more positions all of which vie for the coveted status of ‘truth’. In going through an argument, where one position claims a greater truth value the student can clearly see the need for theoretical reasoning. Moreover, in looking closely at the truth-claims of different locations, the student also appreciates the value of notions like relativity and reflexivity. I have found that another strategy in attempting to familiarize students with theory is to pose it as something emerging out of common sense and to posit it as being part of a continuum with common sense rather than as being opposed to common sense. This ethno-methodological approach helps the student feel more comfortable with abstract systems, making them identifiable and located within their own contexts. The above two strategies help in both freeing an idea from its contexts and also allowing the students to see it within their own contexts. A further problem in the pedagogy of theory also arises because of the wide advertisement that recent critiques of theory have received so that a beginner is already aware of notions such as `end of theory’. In the light of such pronouncements, it is natural for a student to question the value of a classical canon. One has to deliberate with the student about the value of going through the classical canon which one might dare to believe lies in dialectically developing the adequate theoretical machinery and tools which allow us to take a critical view of the classical tradition itself at a later stage.

As a teacher, one is always negotiating the tensions of the pull factors of an open pedagogy and the push factors of a closed one: between assuming an ideological position and doing justice to the demands of a fair and unbiased pedagogy. The positive force of this tension is, of course, that it pushes an argumentative academic culture to its full potential. Particularly, in the teaching of theory.