A Call for Pedagogical Reform

 

Sanzioblog2-1281x612

“Renaissance in Person” by Rick Steves

From what we know, formal education, in other words, the practice of a group of students learning together in a designated space, has existed since ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient India, and ancient China. Education systems flourished differently according to the culture and place it existed in. After all, nothing is produced in a vacuum. In Western Europe, cathedral schools flourished during the Early Middle Ages from as early as the 500’s CE, while in the Islamic world madrassa’s (Arabic word for “school”) flourished from the emphasis on knowledge. Madrassa’s were separate from the mosques, where learning and religious activities were conducted.

Yet education was not accessible to all levels of people in society until the 19th society. The industrial revolution led to a rise in demand for education and an educated workforce. Education became available to the poor masses, producing a prototype for the modern global education system existing today.

State-owned education originated in 19th century Prussia (today’s Germany). After the Prussian army was defeated by Napoleon, the Prussian aristocrats installed the first ever compulsory education system, believing their defeat was rooted in lack of education, or discipline.

Gradually, education underwent a series of global synchronization, which can be understood through three main peaks of expansion: the Colonial Era, the World War, and the Cold War.

Education Systems Today

There is a fundamental crisis in our global education system. Today’s global education systems are primarily designed in the form of disciplinary learning. This method of disciplinary learning constrains the learner into a number of commandment that must be the underlying basis and start towards analysing and examining the subject matter within that discipline.

Let us look at the topic of war. War has always been a part of the human condition, and so, if history has taught us anything, it is that wars will continue to be a part of societies. Which discipline should be used to study war?

An International Relations student would examine war from its perspective on nation-states, how they engage in intra-state and inter-state wars, preventable measures for war, post-war paradigms, how wars impact and shape the nature of global political relationships. Meanwhile, a sociology professor would examine war from a macrolevel level, the patterns of war making, including how societies engage in warfare, the meaning that war has in society, and the relationship between state structure and war making. A historian would examine war from a historical point of view, simply an archival take on the list of wars, its impact on history, and is beneficial to all other disciplines. A political scientist would collect and analyse the data of wars to extract plausible conclusions. An anthropological perspective of war and violence may focus on the sub-group of the military – their norms, values, and so on. An economical approach would reveal patterns and conclusions regarding the relationship between the economy and wartimes- whether this be a correlative or cause-and-effect relationship. Linguistics and/or English Literature would focus on examining the roles of propaganda and language in warfare. Psychology would shed light on what are the psychological causes and effects of warfare.

In order to attain the most holistic understanding of the subject matter, there needs to be an analysis of war from each of these disciplines. The International Relations student would end up having a completely different perspective on war than the Sociology student, and so on and so forth. What if you put them all in a room- how much could they learn from each other, wouldn’t the collective outcome of all their perspectives and methods of analysing and examining the same subject of war lead to a more holistic understanding and therefore beneficial and useful in application to, for example, finding and implementing solutions to post-war conflict or in methods of preventing interstate or intrastate wars?

Revolutionising Pedagogy

The concept of interdisciplinary studies has its origins in the 18th century, today it is most widely seen in America’s liberal arts colleges. As American educational reformer and philosopher John Dewey wrote in his The School and Society book, Chapter 3, “Waste in Education”:

“We do not have a series of stratified earths, one of which is mathematical, another physical, another historical, and so on. All studies grow out of relations in the one great common world.”

Therefore, “all studies are naturally unified”.

This argument pushed for changes in mainstream pedagogy through the likes of John Dewey, Ralph Tyler, and Benjamin Bloom through enabling a more interdisciplinary-curriculums to exist, today it is far from being the primary form of education systems provided to children.

This would require collaboration amongst educators. Indeed, it is more than implementing changes in how students select their topic of study for university, but indeed, a revolution of the very nature of how education systems are set up to examine the world around us. In order to ensure collaboration of professionals within their respective fields, talks and meetings should be set up across cities and in university programs to first introduce this concept of an interdisciplinary education and its importance to understanding what is, naturally, a variant world that requires variant disciplines to study it.

In this way, students would be able to build their own interdisciplinary pathway. This would be done by choosing their own pathway to examine the subject matter. For example, in order to study global warming- anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, and geologists would need to come together and share ideas and lenses to examining the subject of global warming.

An interdisciplinary approach to education would also revolutionize the student’s role in the process. Promoting John Dewey’s criticism of the student as a passive-learner, this would instead promote the student as an active participant in a back-and-forth process with the teacher. This would open an entire new area of thought, for solutions to conflict, new ways of thinking by looking at traditional topics that have been studied in a more rigid and constraining manner.

 

 

 

China-Africa Relations: Parasitism or Mutualism?

With the rise of China as a new global power, and with relatively new phenomena like CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) and Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative, and in contrast to Trump’s pullout from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) during his first day in office, China is already a contesting force to the US as a global power with the ability to shape agendas around the globe. Therefore, examining China as an important and powerful player in global politics today is essential to understanding current international relations and the current international political economy.

screen shot 2019-01-11 at 11.55.49 pm

https://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00052201.html

The term “client-patron relationship”, as it is used in the discipline of international relations, refers to the dependency theory to cast light on the international political economy, first perpetuated by the Argentinian economist Raúl Prebisch. The exploitation of third world country by developed countries may be understood as a form of patron-cliency. A well known example may be the US and Iraq.

Today, it is no secret that China has newfound and deep interests in Africa – cementing Africa as its top trading partner and donor. Forum on China-African Corporation (FOCAC), created in 2000, witnessed current Chinese President Xi JinPing promising a loan of $60 billion in aid. The understanding of Africa as a largely severely underdeveloped continent in desperate need of infrastructure, aid and commodities, leads many to argue that it is a relationship of mutualism, where both sides benefit. So how does China benefit? Directly, cheap labor and the gratitude of many African countries. Indirectly, however, China’s expanding political influence through it’s economic expansion grants China much of Africa’s political support in organisations such as the UN.

It is arguable that the viewpoint that China’s expansion and current investment into Africa is an expansionist, post-colonialist matter is a Western view. Many within Africa view the partnership as mutually beneficial. Mehari Taddele Maru explains it succinctly in Al Jazeera (see original article here: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/africa-loves-china-190103121552367.html?fbclid=IwAR0m4dI95-VjoPxW8lSiMgzSI8w8K5wR_sEH7nj4Q4rna44X5howGZ7Ce7U) , that, quite simply, the viewpoint on the China-Africa relationship can be largely categorised into two groups:

  1. The “Sino-Phobic” View: This is the largely West-centric viewpoint, largely given that China is conducting a form of new colonialism with it’s actions in Africa with the intent of advancing Chinese values, power, economy, and therefore influence and dominance.
  2. The “Pro-China” View: China is a saviour, coming to haul Africa out of the rubble. This argues Africa not as the victim of Chinese colonisation, and that China has an “unconditional” coorporation with the African governments.

China has given numerous soft loans to African governments, as well as aiding African peace and security projects, such as UN peacekeeping missions, and confuding AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia). It is worth noting that, according to the World Bank, China has lifted around 800 million people out of poverty. However, many African politicians, spokesmen, educators, and so on, are wary of these new developments,

Mohamed Fayez, Asian Affairs expert at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, has stated that “this helps the development of countries with an established partnership with Beijing, but it is all in the service of BRI [Belt Road Initiative].” (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/25336.aspx)

Only time can tell. But if we look to history, examining the causal chain of events that occur when a developed country provides aid and invests in an developing country, or multiple countries as a collective (as is the case here), it becomes clear what sort of relationship China-Africa truly has.

ST_20180905_XI_4257092.jpg

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/xi-declares-new-chapter-in-china-africa-relations