'Good' Knowledge Gone Bad? The Sinister Side of Expertise

by Rommel A. Curaming

A cursory glance at key debates in different branches of the human, social and natural sciences reveals that scholars’ primary, if not the only, focus is on whether or how one gets things right theoretically, methodologically, analytically and empirically. The holy grail of this preoccupation is the notion, and, of course, the attainment of, expertise.

Expert knowledge represents the pinnacle of scholarship’s achievement. To the extent that scholarship is viewed as polar opposite of politics, expertise exemplifies in the highest order the success, or the aspiration to succeed, of the community of scholars in transcending the contaminating influences of the social environment. What is often overlooked, it should be noted, is the possibility that no matter how good scholarship is, it cannot exist in a socio-political vacuum. In many instances expertise is precisely what the powerful and the unscrupulous need and, in fact, use often to advance or justify their interests, usually at the expense of the unsuspecting public.

Any scholar who produces knowledge by undertaking research or by any other means starts with good intentions. The moment the results are published, however, knowledge assumes a life of its own; it circulates and is used in society in ways independent of the original intent. Scholars often absolve themselves of the responsibility by skirting around it, thinking in all honesty that their job ends co-terminus with the boundaries of scientific knowledge production. Easily set aside is the likelihood that exactly it is their expertise that lends knowledge a lasting credibility and power that enable both legitimate use and misuse of knowledge. It ought to be recognized, therefore, that good intentions and strict adherence to established scholarly protocols are not, or cannot be, enough. Knowledge, regardless of accuracy, is not inherently amoral or neutral; it is the fluid contexts of knowledge production, distribution, consumption and evaluation that decide.

 This situation calls for greater and concerted efforts to document, analyse and map out the range of actual and potential uses and abuses of expert knowledge in various fields of human endeavour. As the evolving national, regional and global order increasingly locates knowledge at the centre of almost everything—as exemplified, for example, by the notions of knowledge society and knowledge economy—there is a corresponding demand for a greater accountability in knowledge use. The sustainability and vitality of the public sphere that protects and promotes the welfare of common people hinge on the transparency of knowledge production, distribution and consumption.  At the end of the day, we scholars do not wish to inadvertently inflict harm in our efforts to do good.

What seems needed is to strengthen significantly the early warning mechanism within scholarship itself to help minimize, if not neutralize, the misuse of  knowledge. The scholarly community is not totally oblivious of the need for this mechanism. Awareness has always been there right from the beginning as clearly indicated in the presence of the code of ethics in every profession, including scholarship. Unfortunately, the persistently marginal (or marginalized) status of any field that examines knowledge socio-politics, such as social epistemology and sociology of knowledge (including the sub-fields it spawned such as sociology of scientific knowledge, SSK), and the backlash against or the long receding influence within the academy of  the critique of knowledge that the proponents of postcolonialism-poststructuralism-postmodernism have long underscored, indicate the less than adequate appreciation and efforts of the scholarly community in general to address attendant problems—both potential and actual.

In UBD, a few colleagues and I have formed a group within the Science and Technology Research Cluster precisely for this purpose. Called the Good Knowledge Gone Bad sub-cluster, our group—with members from education, health science and social sciences—seeks to develop a mechanism for monitoring and examining the actual use and abuse of knowledge in our respective fields. We are a new group and we wish to extend an invitation to anyone, in any field of studies, who shares our concern to join us in this undertaking. We shall form an international network of scholars who are keenly interested in helping prevent the misuse of knowledge in our own fields. Anyone interested may signify intention to participate by sending a CV to racuramingubd@gmail.com 

Let us not 'educationalize' political and social problems

Note: This is an abridged version of an article I co-wrote with an Indonesian friend and colleague,  Freddy Kalidjernih. The article is entitled "Good Knowledge Gone Bad: The Politics of Blame in Education Discourses in Indonesia" and it was published in Education in Indonesia: Perspectives, Politics and Practices, a volume I co-edited with Frank Dhont. It came out in 2012 as book No. 4 in the Yale Indonesia Forum Book Series. Here we take a close look at two influential no-nonsense critics of education issues in Indonesia, Mochtar Buchori and Winarno Surakhmad, to demonstrate the unintended, and often unrecognized, risks that go with well-meaning expert critiques. The issues raised in this article reinforce the points put forward in my previous post on MTB-MLE

by Rommel A. Curaming

Indonesia is not alone for nurturing spirited national discourses on educational problems. The Philippines and Malaysia show similar tendencies, as evident in press coverage, both mainstream and alternative. Perhaps, the strident critiques of education sector are an inherent feature of every Third World society that pretends, claims, or aspires to be democratic. Be that as it may, Indonesia seems a standout for making a comparatively sizable publication ‘industry’ out of the weaknesses of education sector. This is evident in numerous books on education published in the past several years, as well as in the generous space allotted by newspapers and magazines for education-related issues. Other media outlets such as television, radio, and of course the internet exhibit the same tendency. Furthermore, the presence of ‘superstar’ critics or commentators whose specialty is in education issues, such as Mochtar Buchori and Winarno Surakhmad, is also indicative of this situation.

What are some of the features of this discourse?  First, the propensity among critics or commentators to blame education—or certain stakeholders such as teachers, or pedagogical practices or educational policies—more than it deserves for moral, political, economic, social and cultural woes of the country. 

Second, the tendency to socialize responsibility for problems that otherwise ought to be shouldered heavily by certain groups who, incidentally, cannot but be happy to be absolved of the full weight of such a responsibility.  Responsibility becomes ‘socialized’ when more and more people are being convinced that “It is our fault! Everyone has a role in it” neglecting the fact that access to power and resources is grossly lopsided in favor of certain groups (e.g. government officials, politician etc.). Easily forgotten is the principle that  those who have the greater power ought to be held more accountable.

Equally pernicious, and this is the third, is the tendency at scapegoating. Whereas socialization of blame distributes responsibility across a wide range of stakeholders,  thus diluting if not really sidelining the question of accountability, escape-goating puts wrongly the weight of accountability on certain individuals or groups (teachers, usually) who by virtue of being marginalized do not deserve to be held fully responsible. 

These features emanate from the inclination among observers and practitioners to ascribe greater autonomy, power and capability to education sector than it actually has. The underlying idea is that education sector has the power to effect the changes needed to prevent or achieve something. Easily forgotten is that education is just a part of the bigger socio-economic-political-cultural systems and it depends considerably on forces outside of itself. Many of those that are regarded as educational problems are not really educational in origin, or in nature, but merely symptoms of deep seated political, social, economic and cultural maladies.

The tendency to exaggerate the role of education sector in general and of teachers in particular may be explained by a number of factors. First, many critics or commentators, such as Buchori and Surakhmad, genuinely believe in the enormous potentials of teachers and educational system in general to effect change. The fact that there are some teachers, dedicated and competent as they are, who managed to live up to this expectation drives the point: that it’s just a matter of a steadfast commitment to the calling of being a ‘true teacher,’ in addition to the correct knowhow of teaching. In their apparently mistaken view many in the current generation of teachers simply refuse, for one reason or another, to commit themselves to it and/or they don’t have enough capability or training to teach properly. It is in the critics’ forceful way of exhorting them to ‘do their job properly’ that they have found in exaggerating the role of educators a rhetorical ally.

Second, being the front-liners, the executor or implementor of educational programs, and ones who are in contact with students and parents or the community in general on a regular basis, it is easy for the public to equate the students’ failings to those of teachers'. Their visible presence puts them on the first line of blame whenever things go wrong—teen-age pregnancy, drug addiction, laggard school performance, all sorts of students' misbehaviors.

Third, among stakeholders in education enterprise, the teachers occupy among the weakest or lowest positions. The constancy of blame on them reflects this, and the low-ness of their position  invites further blame. Those who have greater power wish to continue feeling good about themselves by quickly claiming credits for successes and by passing the responsibility for failures to anyone or anything they could, such as education and educators. It is convenient for instance for parents to pass the blame on to education system whenever something bad is committed by their children—bullying, teen-age pregnancy, drug addiction, low scholastic achievement. And for politicians, it is also convenient for them to claim that low economic productivity, growth and competitiveness and hence widespread poverty in the country lies in the inadequacies of education. This is not to deny that education has important role to play in all this, but we should not lose sight of the proportionate role of other factors such as governance, media, family, religious institutions, and of course politics. In addition, we should not forget that the extent to which education sector can successfully carry out its mandate depends significantly on the resources the government or politicians allow it to use. 

Fourth, the educators themselves tend to accept and propagate the view of the exaggerated role of education in solving societal problems, thus reinforcing the myth of its paramount role. Partly owing to their weak position in the scheme of things, educators tend to overcompensate by finding comfort in, and by promoting, the supposed importance or elevated position of education. Nurturing the discourse on the importance of education helps them feel good about themselves. It is a salve that helps them cope with the difficult and marginalized position they are in. For critics like Buchori and Surakhmad, who themselves are educators, what goes with the emphasis they give on education factors in analyzing national problem is the privileging of their field of expertise, and of themselves vis-à-vis others critics in a competitive field of opinion-making in Indonesia. For lowly positioned classroom teachers who toil day in and out, receiving meager salaries while carrying out heavy responsibilities and receiving the brunt of blame, the myth provides a psychological cushion that makes the otherwise unbearable situations appear better than they actually are.

Finally, the very nature of education—as a collective enterprise, a process, an institution, a tool for training, as social and culture-capital generating mechanism—makes it a perfect candidate for being the ultimate scapegoat. It offers practically everyone an excuse for practically everything. Just as it is often treated as a panacea for all kinds of problems, it can also be made an excuse for failing to address these problems. Its usefulness for practically everyone ensures that its importance will tend to be exaggerated.

Mass public education is probably one of the most politically astute inventions of modern democratic tradition. Politicians of all ideological persuasions—be they liberal, conservative, socialist, etc.—have found it useful for their political purposes. By offering educational opportunities for everyone, they appear true to the claim of being a promoter of public welfare;  they also provide a subtle mechanism for everyone to own the responsibility for their progress (or lack thereof), easing off much pressure from the political establishment. At the same time, by ensuring through lack of material support and political will, that public education will always be seriously problem-laden, they have an effective smokescreen for many of the nation’s failings for which leaders, as a collective, should be held largely responsible—low productivity and competitiveness, poverty,  moral degeneration, lack of nationalism, rise in delinquency, etc. In Third World democracies such as Indonesia and the Philippines, the education sector has served as a convenient whipping boy.

So what can educators do? I do not wish to perpetuate the problem my co-author and I have analyzed in this article by saying that the key to solving this problem lies in their hand. The truth is, they can only do so much. Their awareness of the problem, however, will be a step towards easing, if not really neutralizing, the pernicious multiplier effects of the 'mass education myth'. What well-meaning influential educators, scholars, intellectuals and opinion makers can do to help is to bring back the sense of proportion in analyzing issues. Let us not 'educationalize' and 'socialize' what are otherwise fundamentally political problems.

The Dark Side of Education Reforms? Musings on MTB-MLE

by Rommel A. Curaming

Preliminary Note: My first degree is in Secondary Education (major in Social Studies/History) and I am glad and grateful to have spent the first nine years of professional life as a classroom teacher, at the Philippine Science High School-Diliman and Colegio San Agustin-Makati. During much of this time, I also did part-time lecturing at the History Department of De La Salle University-Manila. Looking back, I've realized that the seeds of my interest in knowledge politics were nurtured during those years when, forced by circumstances, I came face to face on daily basis with the the various modes and phases of knowledge production, consumption and transmission whose politics were deeply concealed by  routine school activities. With this and the next post, I pay tribute to the memory of the late Dr. Ma. Luisa C. Doronila, my professor at College of Education, UP Diliman, to whom I owe much intellectual debt. It is a pity that I didn't manage to see her again to let her know before she passed away.  In a 32-hour, 2-unit credit capstone course simply called Senior Seminar, she adroitly tied together not only all the major strands of educational processes but also, and more importantly, what the synergy of all the seemingly innocuous pedagogical practices and ideas means to homo politicus among us in the batch. For me, it was an awakening: the educational may indeed be (cryptically) political at the same time.

Borneo, the world’s third largest island, is a haven for those studying languages. With enormous linguistic varieties in the island, common are places where many people understand and use three or more languages in their daily life. Among other things, this makes Borneo a veritable laboratory for examining the fascinating world of multilingualism.

A colleague at UBD, Dr. James MacLellan, had a seminar recently on efforts to maintain and revitalize indigenous minority languages in Borneo. The specific communities or cases covered include Dusun and Tutong in Brunei, Kadasandusun and Iranun in Sabah, Bidayuh in Sarawak and Kenaytn in West Kalimantan. I am not a language or linguistic person, but I have found in these fields a fertile ground for a productive exploration of the intricacies and fundamental roots of knowledge politics, my main interest. After all, the much derided and at the same time celebrated (at least in some quarters) onslaught by poststructuralism-postmodernism-postcolonialism of the scholarly world is not called “linguistic turn” for nothing. “It’s language, stupid!”, so I remember overhearing one saying in jest to another during a discussion on the crisis of representation in history held some time ago.

The seminar was engaging and informative and one among other aspects of the discussion that caught my keen interest was the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). It is, so the presenter had noted, one of the avenues by which indigenous minority languages may be ‘saved’ from the threat of language shift, if not downright extinction. It then crossed my mind that the Philippines and Timor Leste were among countries that have, rather boldly, adopted the MTB-MLE framework recently. The Ministry of Education in the Philippines announced that starting school year 2012-2013, which began in June 2012, MTB-MLE would be carried out as part of the newly instituted K-12 Basic Education Program. Its counterpart in Timor Leste envisions next year, 2013, as the start of the program’s implementation. As expected the decisions were met by mixed reactions in the two countries.

In the Philippines the announcement generated, among other things, skepticism. This is particularly rife among some classroom teachers, principal and head teachers who know very well the tightly constrained situations on the ground which effectively circumscribed any effort at reforms, particularly the high-sounding ones that the government has initiated since decades ago. On the other hand, as evident in media coverage the announcement elicited enthusiastic support from many groups and individuals, particularly from the progressive, liberal blocs in the academia, NGO communities, legislature, media as well as in the bureaucracy. The decision has been viewed as an enlightened policy that was long due and that it would address the deeply rooted problems in education. In an article I have co-written on the case of Timor Leste, which will appear as a chapter in a book to be published by Palgrave on Language, Identities and Education in Southeast Asia, my co-author and I have echoed the research findings on the sound pedagogical basis for MTB-MLE. The use of mother-tongue in the first few years of basic education will, so researches show, serve not only as a mechanism for facilitating a less painful, may be even more effective, transition to literacy in another language/s; it is also key to establishing a stronger foundation for students’ cognitive and psycho-social development. In addition, the desire to maintain or promote local cultures and identities, so trenchant and widespread in various places where intellectuals are acutely aware and are wary of the ‘threat’ of globalization, may also be served.

What is often missed amid the celebration of progressivism is the deeply concealed political consequences, or implications, of educational reform efforts, such as MTB-MLE.There is no doubt  the support thrown into MTB-MLE by progressive scholars and intellectuals in the Philippines and elsewhere is fueled by good intention. The side effect, however, may be gleaned in the danger posed by educationalizing the otherwise political and social problem. The adoption of MTB-MLE creates an unintended impression that all along it is the  medium of instruction that is “the problem,” thus obscuring the more fundamental factors rooted in the material and political conditions in the country. The question for instance of high attrition rate and the relatively poor educational outcomes among those who survive may be explained, if viewed from the lens of MTB-MLE, as a result of the non-use of the mother tongue at a crucial stage of a pupil’s cognitive development. The government officials, politicians and other stakeholders who should have allowed more budget to education—to build more schools, to pay higher salaries, train and hire more qualified teachers, to produce more and better textbooks--can only find solace in this line of argument. I can imagine them laughing their way out of accountability. What makes education sector such a vulnerable target and concurrently an effective agent of escape goating, and what can educators do to help prevent it, will be the focus of my next post.

Anapolethics

by Rommel A. Curaming

To herald the birth of this blogsite, allow me to coin a new word, anapolethics. This anagram combines three words—analytics, politics and ethics. In addition to Southeast Asia, which serves as my empirical base for exploration, these are the main themes that run through the short and long pieces that will come out of this blogsite. 

Let me take neologism a step further. Anapolethics has two components. First, ana(po)lytics or ana(po)lytical which signifies the close entwining of the analytic and the political, as if to say the analytical is political. Second, polethics or polethical which presupposes the ethical dimension of things or acts within the political sphere, if one may grant autonomy to such a sphere.

The political nature of scholarship has long been mooted and it has been the main stuff that fuels much of the poststructuralist, postmodern and postcolonial criticisms. The notion of anapolytics as I use here builds upon, but will endeavour not to rehearse, this long-standing tradition. What I aim to examine and demonstrate in this blogsite is, among others,  how in the micro-level the analytic act may at the same time be a political act. Put differently, I wish to explore the question how it becomes possible to imagine a space beyond the political that the scholarly is supposed to inhabit.  All this may sound inane and hifalutin; I will clarify in due course the origins, full import, justifications and implications of this question.

The politics-ethics nexus is also an age-old question. The self-serving, dirty play for power that has long been associated with real politik, however, has hijacked the otherwise conceptually equal and neutral relationship, and has brought it to the realm of negativity. Analytic (and I should admit, also political) imperatives demand the re-imagining of this relationship back into its primordial—original—state. As I will also clarify in due course, this is necessary to enable the shedding of a number of analytic blinders that conceal the (sometimes insidious) relationship between scholarship, politics and, ultimately, ethics.

In the anagram anapolethics, I deliberately grant ethics the full name simply because I take it as the hinge around which the other two ought to revolve. Whereas analysis and politics are a means, I envision ethics as the end. One may argue that ultimately politics subsumes ethics, for in final analysis, so the argument  goes, it is the political that decides what is ethical. I do not disagree, particularly from a purely analytic standpoint. From a political standpoint, on the other hand, it is one’s subjectivity as analyst that will decide, and I am one among those who elevate ethics as perhaps the highest (and sublime?) form of the political. I recognize the attendant philosophical challenges in this position, which I hope to elucidate and deal with in due time.

The above is more than enough to make this blogsite unpalatable to many people. I recognize these high-flown pronouncements might easily be misconstrued as no more than empty musings of someone who have ample time to spare, which is not true, of course, given my workload. Too academic or pedantic or too philosophical, even pretentious, some might say. One thing I can assure my reader, the target of the whole excise is of fundamental importance to our life as individual: its aim is primarily to contribute towards expanding the sphere of freedom--freedom held back by unlikely sources, which have to be exposed for what they are.

It will be largely academic in flavour, as it reflects what am I, but I will try my best to write in a manner accessible to broad intelligent audiences who may be interested in Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, Indonesia and to an extent Malaysia, in addition to those who are keen about the intricacies of knowledge politics and ethics of scholarly practice. Long before, I wanted to be a journalist, one who writes regular columns in opinion page of a widely circulated newspaper. That dream was aborted, about which I will tell more about later. After so much dilly-dallying, it is time, though this blogsite, that I try to approximate, if not re-live, that dream.

With great pleasure, I welcome you to my imaginary world!

Is our analysis constipated?

by Rommel A. Curaming

The long-standing ambivalence of much of the post-positivist and ‘critical’ social sciences to relativism, the backlash against the ‘linguistic turn’ and the back-tracking among the early proponents of postcolonialism/poststructuralism/postmodernism (particularly within Asian Studies) exemplify a range of attitude among scholars—from fear to hostility to vacillation—towards the idea of pushing the logic of the knowledge-power nexus to its conclusion. To the extent that relativism or knowledge/power is recognised and adopted as analytic frame, it is tempered with moderation, or is forced to moderate its temperament. 

This moderation takes several forms. In the case of Mannheim, he confined his relationism to social sciences thereby excluding the natural sciences among the areas of concern of sociology of knowledge. Foucault (1988) did similar thing when he in effect exempted the whole of the natural sciences as object of his knowledge/power analytics. In the case of Barnes (1976) and Bloor (1991), they pushed for the so-called “value-free” relativism. Knorr-Centina (1982) for her part defends her relativist stance by making a distinction between  epistemic and judgmental relativism. Epistemic relativism, what she considers a defensible type of relativism, is committed to the idea that the basis for identifying ‘objective’ reality is “itself grounded in human assumptions and selections which appear to be specific to a particular historical place and time.” Still another good example is McCarthy (1996) who, while recognizing the social situatedness of knowledge, is quick to rescue his appreciation of Levi-Strauss’s contribution to SSK (sociology of scientific knowledge) by saying: “…to insist, after Levi-Strauss, that everything ‘factual’ is discursive does not require that one embrace a nihilism or an agnosticism about the moorings of these discourses…” He justifies this position by noting that “sociologists from Marx to Durkheim to Mannheim have argued (that) there is an institutional bases to ‘cultural production’” (1996). Friedman and Kenney (2005) nail the point when they declare, totally oblivious of its irony, thus: “Although we argue that all history is subjective, this is not to suggest a kind of relativism.”  Such ambivalence constitutes the most fundamental symptom of what I call ‘analytic constipation’.

Analytic constipation refers to the inability or unwillingness to push the logic of analysis to its ultimate conclusion. It arises from the situation when the logical conclusion carries exceedingly controversial philosophical, moral, religious, academic or political implications. Faced with this situation, scholars often hold back within the permissible zone, maintaining critical stance by continuously teasing the limits using, among other means, intellectually inflationary and involutionary practices of complexifying concepts, theories and methods. In the end seldom one can expect that they would be brave enough to break the barriers. In some cases that they do, penalties are heavy including the possibility of being kicked-out of the scholars’ moral community. The case of Feyarabend whose book Against Method, brilliant as it was, infuriated many scholars for its alleged apostasy against science and scientific method, may be a good example. Derrida’s stinging rebuke of Foucault’s Madness and Civilization offers a glimpse of a less heavier, but nonetheless not negligible, penalty for attempts at crossing a ‘holy’ line.

There are a number of factors that help explain this tendency, which will be explored further in other blog entry. At this point, suffice it to note that scholars belong to a community governed by mostly unwritten rules on ‘proper’ behaviour. The socialization process—with the accompanying systems of motivation, reward and punishment—that scholars undergo instil in them not just fear of the consequences of transgression but also inducement for collective enjoyment of reward and voluntary sharing of responsibility to protect and promote the interests of the community. For all the aspirations to objectivity, impartiality, and being apolitical, scholarship is far from being disinterested as it wishes, or pretends, to be. Anyone whose ideas and actions will endanger its collective interests ought to be dealt with ‘properly’. In Bourdieu’s view, scholarship is one of those fields where, via internal dynamics and interaction with other fields, various forms of capital are generated, social positions shaped, and power relations played out. It is, as some scholars aptly put it, politics by other means. 

In my future posts, I will give concrete examples from Southeast Asian Studies of what may be considered as constipated analysis. Abangan ang susunod na kabanata:)