some mental floss on democracy and education
In words of Abraham Lincoln, Democracy is “the rule of the people, for the people and by the people”. The original word demokratia is from Greek words demos: the people and kratos: to rule. Further there are some common factors which all definitions of democracy share vis-à-vis that democracy is that not only the government chosen by the people but also the final decision making power rests with those elected by the people based on a free and fair election. In this election, each adult citizen has one vote and each vote must have one value. Further more a democratic government operates within limits set by constitutional law and citizen rights.
Critics of democracy have been vocal about changing leader-ship, political competition and power dynamics which leaves little scope for morality and ethics in democracy. Also, the consent of too many people is needed in decision making and hence leads to delay in decision making. History is proof that modern day economic disasters like The Great Leap Forward implemented by Chinese government which resulted in death of some 30 million people from 1958-1961 could have been avoided if China had multi party elections, an opposition, party and a press free to criticize the government: all of which the democracy on the other side of Himalayas (India) possessed and hence was saved from the disaster by channeling proper resources to compensate for food scarcity.
This brings me to one of the main reasons, why I ardently support democracy as it is better in responding to the needs of people. The process of decision making might be slow, but we should keep in mind that democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. When a number of people put their head together, they are able to point out possible mistakes in any decision. This takes time but reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Such discussions do lead to differences of opinions and interests especially in socially and culturally diverse countries like India and America. In other forms of government such differences ( diversity) might be resolved by brutal power where the high and mighty will dictate its terms while the others will have to accept that where as democracy offers a peaceful alternative as no one is a permanent winner and no one is a permanent loser! Fair elections can change it all.
Democracy for me is actually an ever evolving, scientific way of thinking. Much like science it involves inquiry, contemplation and conflict resolution. This iterative process is carried out till we reach a perfectly harmonious system which some of us call utopia. This argument is supported by the various changes which the definition and interpretation of democracy has gone through over time. We are inching very slowly but surely towards this utopia.
The idea of political equality is the heart and life a democracy. The notion that every-one is an equal contributor is what make me trust democracy and its workings. This political equality also enhances dignity and sense of pride in people who are members of democracies. According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, human beings possess dignity. If all persons are granted dignity then what is due to each of them is that they have the opportunity to lead out: develop and pursue their chosen goals and talents. This process of leading out is education. (the word education originates from latin verb duco -to lead). To lead out what is in pupil’s mind: a spirit of incessant questioning and inquiry. To induce this spirit, the system offers various catalysts in form of subjects and fields of study. Hence we can see how education is microcosm of democracy and equality in education is important to realize equality in democracy. This democratic equality approach to schooling is the most political of the purposes of education as it involves citizenship training, equal treatment and equal access. Quite early on we start to induce the awareness to the learner about their role in democracy by teaching civics and making sure that the education system makes them a whole rounded citizen who can actively and equally participate in democracy. Equal Treatment is restored in the education system through social promotion of student from grade to grade, removal of decisive religious practices from public schools, reducing discriminatory practices in a class-room, using instructional tools which are inclusive, multicultural and diversity friendly there-by helping to provide equal learning opportunities for every learner irrespective of sex, religion, race and ethnicity. I consider this to be similar to the principle of treating equals equally in education as all learners share certain characteristics as human beings. Therefore they deserve equal rights and equal treatment which would require that that all students are not be discriminated against on grounds of class, race or gender. But there are circumstances where it seems that treating every-body equally would be unjust. It might be important to have a same base line of equal rights to start from, i.e. the above definition of equality will work well if every one is equal from the beginning i.e. every one had same opportunities.
Also for democracy to survive in a non-barter society, members contribute not only by casting votes but by providing finances for the system to survive by paying their dues in form of taxes. To pay taxes, we earn our living by trading our knowledge, expertise and/ or labor. In order to survive it is essential that the members of democracy should at least be sufficient to pay the taxes. Hence education should promote not only traditional academic subjects but also vocational training needed for specific jobs. That is the economic intention of education (Social Efficiency). To be economically productive schools have become highly stratified which is a serious problem for democratic equality but is needed for social efficiency as people who have acquired higher learning will also be more skilled and productive there by contributing more in terms of taxes.
Social efficiency tends to treat education as a public good where as social mobility goal perceives education as a private good.
Parents want not that their children have equal opportunity but they get the best that is possible. Education tends to adopt a more economic and trade like picture in which parents (and students) take the role of consumers demanding a structure of education that offers qualitative differences between institutions at each level. Such demands lead to disparity in property prices based on school districts there by leading to more disparities and inequalities in education (and democracy).
It is when one tries to look at education as a private good that the concept of consumer, market and free trade that Milton Friedman talks about become clear.
We are still seeing disparities in education. Inspite of countless policies and studies we still have inequalities in education starting from the grass root level till the highest strata. Countless public money has been spent and we still haven’t got equality. Women are still not seen in physical sciences, minorities are still scarce in higher academia. Somehow the whole idea of ‘unity in diversity’ and equality and all seem far fetched.
How can we make policies which are ‘totally democratic’? In my moments of despair I always wonder is there a simple scientific model through which every decision making process can be sieved so as make sure that desired results are attainable. Those results for me are equality: every human is equal.
My mental floss of last few weeks took me to works of American Philosopher, John Rawls who ‘In Theory of Justice’ argued that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be organized although we do not know which position we would ourselves occupy in that society. That is, we do not know what kind of family we would be born in, whether we would be born into an ‘upper’ class or ‘lower’ class family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. Rawls says that if we do not know, in this sense, who we will be and what options would be available to us in the future society, we will be likely to support a decision about the rules and organization of that future society which would be fair for all the members.
Rawls described this as thinking under a ‘veil of ignorance’. He expects that in such a situation of complete ignorance about our possible position and status in society, each person would decide in the way they generally do, that is, in terms of their own interests.
But since no one knows who he would be, and what is going to benefit him, each will envisage the future society from the point of view of the worst-off. It will be clear to a person who can reason and think for himself, that those who are born privileged will enjoy certain special opportunities. But, what if they have the misfortune of being
born in a disadvantaged section of society where few opportunities would be available to them? Hence, it would make sense for each person, acting in his or her own interest, to try to think of rules of organization that will ensure reasonable opportunities to the weaker sections. The attempt will be to see that important resources, like education are available to all persons. The merit of the ‘veil of ignorance’ position is that
It expects people to just be their usual rational selves: they are expected to think
for themselves and choose what they regard to be in their interest. The pertinent thing however is that when they choose under the ‘veil of ignorance’ they will find that it is in their interest to think from the position of the worst-off. Wearing the imagined veil of ignorance is the first step in arriving at a system of fair laws and policies and ensuring that equality is their in our decisions. It will be evident that rational persons will not only see things from the perspective of the worst-off, they will also try to ensure that the policies they frame benefit the society as a whole. Both things have to go hand-in-hand. Since no one knows what position they will occupy in the future society; each will seek rules that protect them in case they happen to be born among the worst-off. Fowl assumes man to be capable of making rational decisions: the argument which I disagree with and my arguments are still in formative stages.
Lately, I have started wearing this ‘veil of ignorance’ as it tends to keep every-one’s interest in mind. That could be my way to define democracy and equality.
Critics of democracy have been vocal about changing leader-ship, political competition and power dynamics which leaves little scope for morality and ethics in democracy. Also, the consent of too many people is needed in decision making and hence leads to delay in decision making. History is proof that modern day economic disasters like The Great Leap Forward implemented by Chinese government which resulted in death of some 30 million people from 1958-1961 could have been avoided if China had multi party elections, an opposition, party and a press free to criticize the government: all of which the democracy on the other side of Himalayas (India) possessed and hence was saved from the disaster by channeling proper resources to compensate for food scarcity.
This brings me to one of the main reasons, why I ardently support democracy as it is better in responding to the needs of people. The process of decision making might be slow, but we should keep in mind that democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. When a number of people put their head together, they are able to point out possible mistakes in any decision. This takes time but reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Such discussions do lead to differences of opinions and interests especially in socially and culturally diverse countries like India and America. In other forms of government such differences ( diversity) might be resolved by brutal power where the high and mighty will dictate its terms while the others will have to accept that where as democracy offers a peaceful alternative as no one is a permanent winner and no one is a permanent loser! Fair elections can change it all.
Democracy for me is actually an ever evolving, scientific way of thinking. Much like science it involves inquiry, contemplation and conflict resolution. This iterative process is carried out till we reach a perfectly harmonious system which some of us call utopia. This argument is supported by the various changes which the definition and interpretation of democracy has gone through over time. We are inching very slowly but surely towards this utopia.
The idea of political equality is the heart and life a democracy. The notion that every-one is an equal contributor is what make me trust democracy and its workings. This political equality also enhances dignity and sense of pride in people who are members of democracies. According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, human beings possess dignity. If all persons are granted dignity then what is due to each of them is that they have the opportunity to lead out: develop and pursue their chosen goals and talents. This process of leading out is education. (the word education originates from latin verb duco -to lead). To lead out what is in pupil’s mind: a spirit of incessant questioning and inquiry. To induce this spirit, the system offers various catalysts in form of subjects and fields of study. Hence we can see how education is microcosm of democracy and equality in education is important to realize equality in democracy. This democratic equality approach to schooling is the most political of the purposes of education as it involves citizenship training, equal treatment and equal access. Quite early on we start to induce the awareness to the learner about their role in democracy by teaching civics and making sure that the education system makes them a whole rounded citizen who can actively and equally participate in democracy. Equal Treatment is restored in the education system through social promotion of student from grade to grade, removal of decisive religious practices from public schools, reducing discriminatory practices in a class-room, using instructional tools which are inclusive, multicultural and diversity friendly there-by helping to provide equal learning opportunities for every learner irrespective of sex, religion, race and ethnicity. I consider this to be similar to the principle of treating equals equally in education as all learners share certain characteristics as human beings. Therefore they deserve equal rights and equal treatment which would require that that all students are not be discriminated against on grounds of class, race or gender. But there are circumstances where it seems that treating every-body equally would be unjust. It might be important to have a same base line of equal rights to start from, i.e. the above definition of equality will work well if every one is equal from the beginning i.e. every one had same opportunities.
Also for democracy to survive in a non-barter society, members contribute not only by casting votes but by providing finances for the system to survive by paying their dues in form of taxes. To pay taxes, we earn our living by trading our knowledge, expertise and/ or labor. In order to survive it is essential that the members of democracy should at least be sufficient to pay the taxes. Hence education should promote not only traditional academic subjects but also vocational training needed for specific jobs. That is the economic intention of education (Social Efficiency). To be economically productive schools have become highly stratified which is a serious problem for democratic equality but is needed for social efficiency as people who have acquired higher learning will also be more skilled and productive there by contributing more in terms of taxes.
Social efficiency tends to treat education as a public good where as social mobility goal perceives education as a private good.
Parents want not that their children have equal opportunity but they get the best that is possible. Education tends to adopt a more economic and trade like picture in which parents (and students) take the role of consumers demanding a structure of education that offers qualitative differences between institutions at each level. Such demands lead to disparity in property prices based on school districts there by leading to more disparities and inequalities in education (and democracy).
It is when one tries to look at education as a private good that the concept of consumer, market and free trade that Milton Friedman talks about become clear.
We are still seeing disparities in education. Inspite of countless policies and studies we still have inequalities in education starting from the grass root level till the highest strata. Countless public money has been spent and we still haven’t got equality. Women are still not seen in physical sciences, minorities are still scarce in higher academia. Somehow the whole idea of ‘unity in diversity’ and equality and all seem far fetched.
How can we make policies which are ‘totally democratic’? In my moments of despair I always wonder is there a simple scientific model through which every decision making process can be sieved so as make sure that desired results are attainable. Those results for me are equality: every human is equal.
My mental floss of last few weeks took me to works of American Philosopher, John Rawls who ‘In Theory of Justice’ argued that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be organized although we do not know which position we would ourselves occupy in that society. That is, we do not know what kind of family we would be born in, whether we would be born into an ‘upper’ class or ‘lower’ class family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. Rawls says that if we do not know, in this sense, who we will be and what options would be available to us in the future society, we will be likely to support a decision about the rules and organization of that future society which would be fair for all the members.
Rawls described this as thinking under a ‘veil of ignorance’. He expects that in such a situation of complete ignorance about our possible position and status in society, each person would decide in the way they generally do, that is, in terms of their own interests.
But since no one knows who he would be, and what is going to benefit him, each will envisage the future society from the point of view of the worst-off. It will be clear to a person who can reason and think for himself, that those who are born privileged will enjoy certain special opportunities. But, what if they have the misfortune of being
born in a disadvantaged section of society where few opportunities would be available to them? Hence, it would make sense for each person, acting in his or her own interest, to try to think of rules of organization that will ensure reasonable opportunities to the weaker sections. The attempt will be to see that important resources, like education are available to all persons. The merit of the ‘veil of ignorance’ position is that
It expects people to just be their usual rational selves: they are expected to think
for themselves and choose what they regard to be in their interest. The pertinent thing however is that when they choose under the ‘veil of ignorance’ they will find that it is in their interest to think from the position of the worst-off. Wearing the imagined veil of ignorance is the first step in arriving at a system of fair laws and policies and ensuring that equality is their in our decisions. It will be evident that rational persons will not only see things from the perspective of the worst-off, they will also try to ensure that the policies they frame benefit the society as a whole. Both things have to go hand-in-hand. Since no one knows what position they will occupy in the future society; each will seek rules that protect them in case they happen to be born among the worst-off. Fowl assumes man to be capable of making rational decisions: the argument which I disagree with and my arguments are still in formative stages.
Lately, I have started wearing this ‘veil of ignorance’ as it tends to keep every-one’s interest in mind. That could be my way to define democracy and equality.