EDucate!A Quarterly on Education & Development

CHOMSKYLearning from

ExclusiveInterview

WithNoam Chomsky

I s sue No . 3 , Vo l . No . 1Rs

. 45

CHOMSKYSpecial

COVERSTORY Page 7

Page 17

Cover Story

RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT 24The March Of TheMonocultureby Helena Norberg-Hodge

PEOPLE CENTERED DEVELOPMENT 50Sustainable DevelopmentConventional versus emergent alternative wisdomby David C.Corten

LEARNING FROM CHOMSKYA fascinating selection of dialogue

between Noam Chomsky &David Barsamian

by Ambreena Aziz

Page 7

Page 17

UR On...Noam Chomsky

An Interview for EDucate!by Mashhood Rizvi

EDUCATION

SOCIETAL LEARNING

BOOKS FOR A BETTER WORLD 38Book reviewsby Naureen Mushtaq

WEBSITES FOR A BETTER WORLD 39Website reviewsby Aziz Kabani & Somaiya Ayoob

CRITICAL EDUCATORS 35Critical pedagogy in the shadow of terrorby Peter McLaren

RETHINKING EDUCATION 44Reclaiming our creativities from aready-made worldby Manish Jain

AN ILLITERATE’S DECLARATION TO 49THE LITERACY PREACHERby Shri Dyal Chandra Soni

DEVELOPMENT

WHAT HAPPENS TO DISSENT? 21A Reflection on Chomsky’s Visit to Pakistanby Dr.Tariq Rahman

THE CHOMSKY ARCHIVE 29Morality, Human Behavior & Educationby Tor Wennerberg

NOAM CHOMSKY& THE STRUGGLE AGAINSTNEOLIBERALISMby Robert McChesney

40

E D u c a t e ! I s s u e 3 , V o l . 1

Cove

r by

Fat

ima

Zaid

i

CHOMSKY

EDucate!A Quarterly on Education & Development

Learning from

ExclusiveInterview

With

Noam Chomsky

I s sue No . 3 , Vo l . No . 1

Rs. 4

5

CHOMSKYSpecial

COVERSTORY Page 7

Page 17

C H O M S K YS P E C I A L

This pioneering magazine has been created to challenge ethically,morally and intellectually the inequalities in the existing

paradigms of education and development in order to liberatepeople’s thoughts and actions.

CHAIRPERSONProf. Anita Ghulam Ali

EDITOR–IN–CHIEFMashhood Rizvi

CONSULTING EDITORSTehseena Rafi, Shahbano Bilgrami

EDITORAmbreena Aziz

ASSISTANT EDITORSAziz Kabani, Naureen Butt

CONTRIBUTORSMichael W. Apple, David Barsamian, Shri Dayal Chandra Soni,

Robert McChesney, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman,Helena Norberg-Hodge, Manish Jain, David C. Korten,

Peter McLaren, Farooq Qaiser, Dr. Tariq Rahman, Ted Trainer,Professor Umme Salma Zaman

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCEShakeel Ahmed, Naeem Nizamani, Samuel Ray

DESIGNERZulfiqar Ali Zulfi

ILLUSTRATION/PHOTO CREDITFatima Zaidi, Hussain Zaidi, Paul Hilkens,

Naeem Nizamani, Shakeel Ahmed,www.monkeyfist.com:8080/chomsky, www.robertmcchesney.com,

www.identitytheory.com, www.shariati.com

CORRESPONDENCE MANAGERSomaiya Ayoob

CIRCULATION MANAGERShukri Rehman

We welcome your questions, suggestions, support and contributions.Letters to the editor should not exceed 500 words. Essays and articlesshould not exceed more than 3000 words. Previously published articlesand essays should be supported with references and permissions toreprint. The editor reserves the right to edit submissions prior topublication.

C O N T R I B U T I O N S

EDucate! is published quarterly by the Sindh Education Foundation.The opinions reflected in the various contributions and articles do notnecessarily reflect the views of the Sindh Education Foundation.

D I S C L A I M E R

Please address correspondence to the Correspondence Manager at theabove address or via e-mail at dprc@cyber.net.pk or sef@cyber.net.pk.Correspondence relating to subscription, membership, previous issuesa n d c h a n g e o f a d d r e s s s h o u l d a l s o b e a d d r e s s e d t o t h eCorrespondence Manager.

C O R R E S P O N D E N C E

EDucate! Issue No. 3, Vol. No. 1January 2002 - March 2002

P R I C E

PakistanInternational

Rs. 45.00US$ 4.25

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISINGWord Rate: Rs.15 ($0.5) per word*

Display Rate: Rs.1500 ($26) per inch*

Please indicate the desired heading for your ad copy (the first few wordsof your ad may appear in caps). The column width for display ads is2 inches. Type or clearly print your advertising copy as you wish it tobe printed. Indicate the heading you want it to appear under.

Payment must accompany order.Mail copy along with your name, address, phone number and fullpayment to:

EDucate! MagazineData Processing & Research Cell

Sindh Education FoundationPlot 9, Block 7, Clifton 5, Karachi-75600,

Pakistan

Phone: (92-21) 5874075, 5872974Fax: (92-21) 5863068

E-Mail: educate@sef.org.pk

*Please note that these are introductory rates and are subject to change

M a i l i n g C h a r g e sPakistan Rs. 100 per yearSouth Asia US$ 8.00 per yearRest of the World US$ 10.00 per year

S U B S C R I P T I O N

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years

Pakistan (Rs.) 170.00 315.00 450.00

International US$ 17.80 25.5 35.7

Please include mailing charges

Sindh Education Foundation. No written permission is necessary toreproduce an excerpt, or to make photocopies for academic orindividual use. Copies must include a full acknowledgment and accuratebibliographic citation. Electronic copy of the magazine can be viewedat www.sef.org.pk. Copies are available at the Sindh EducationFoundation, Plot 9, Block 7, Kehkashan, Clifton 5, Karachi–75600,Pakistan.

P E R M I S S I O N S

For advertising details contact Correspondence Managersomaiya@sef.org.pk

OPEN LETTERS 4

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRPERSON 4Professor Anita Ghulam Ali

ICON OF LIBERATIONMuhammad IqbalA manifestation of

self-reconstructionand reformation

By Dr. Ali Shariati 31

REGULAR FEATURES

EDITOR’S NOTE 6

WAKEUP CALLS, INSPIRATIONS & REFLECTIONS 43

VOICE OF THE VOICELESS 54What is the root cause of poverty?by Muhammad Khan Zada

DEVELOPMENT DIARY 56Is Chomsky only for the elites or...by KT

FINAL ANALYSISThe hope of possibility,The possibility of hopeby Mashhood Rizvi & Howard Zinn 58

...OnDevelopment

Uncle Sargam5

To subscribe, please enclose a cross cheque/demand draft in the nameof ‘Educate Magazine, Sindh Education Foundation, Pakistan.’ Cashpayments can also be made directly to DPRC, Sindh EducationFoundation.

Claims for missing issues must be made within four months of the dateof publication.

OPEN letters“...Looks good! The format isvisually engaging and the overallcontent is articulate and veryinteresting.”

Michael Apple,Professor of Curriculum & Instruction &

Educational Policy Studies,University of Wisconsin, USA

“...Is very useful and would be ofgreat help for researchers whorequire further information aboutthis subject”

Prof. Muhammad Ali Shaikh,Director,

SZABIST,Center for Information & Research,

Karachi, Pakistan

“Thank you very much for thewonderful effort. It is a uniquecontribution in that it combinesbeauty with knowledge – andmakes it affordable!”

Dr. Tariq Rahman,Professor of Linguistics and South Asian

Studies,Quaid–e–Azam University,

Islamabad, Pakistan

“Congratulations on bringing outa m a g a z i n e o f q u a l i t y a n d

substance on a subject of greatimportance. Most of the articlesand interviews in the second issueare very informative and thoughtprovoking. The content is highlyencouraging, for it can generatedebate on i s sues re la t ing toeducation. I hope your journalwill keep the present standard.”

Dr. Syed Jaffer Ahmed,Pakistan Studies Center,

Karachi University,Karachi, Pakistan

“I am happy to learn of yourtimely initiative to develop acrtical magazine in Pakistan. Ibelieve that, more and more, weneed dedicated efforts like yourswith the courage to announcenew ways of thinking as theworld becomes uglier and a moredangerous place. Please do counto n m y s u p p o r t a n d f u t u r econtributions”.

Donaldo Macedo,Professor of Liberal Arts & Education,

University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.

“Two things are striking about therecent issue: the Urdu glossaries(farhang) at the end of somearticles, and Voice of the Voicelessby Muhummad Khan. These areo f ten the two most l e f t out

sections in a magazine. As for therest of the articles, just one word:great! Keep up the good work!

Abbas Hussain,Director,

Teachers’ Development Center,Karachi, Pakistan

“...Opens a whole new world,e n r i c h e s o u r t h o u g h t s a n dprovides valuable informationabout issues that are of interestto our local intellectuals. Thearticles are really interesting,i n c i s i v e , i n f o r m a t i v e a n dthought–provoking.”

Mukesh Kumar Mandhan,Lecturer,

Department of English,Sindh Agricultural University,

Tandojam, Pakistan

“...Is an excellent and innovativeapproach and is appreciated by allwho read it.”

Prof. Shuja–ul–Mulk,Chakesar, Shangla,

N.W.F.P, Pakistan

“ F i r s t l y , I w o u l d l i k e t ocongratulate Professor Anita andthe DPRC team for producingsuch a unique magazine, whichunveils the ‘real meaning’ ofdevelopment and is an eye–openerf o r m o s t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

Dear Friends,

Asalam–o–Alaikum,

This issue of EDucate! brings with it our best wishes for the year2002 and a gift for those who are watchers of world events. Oneis tempted to pontificate on a host of issues, but our team hashad the privilege to trail the master Professor Noam Chomskyduring his recent visit. An exclusive interview presents part ofthe package that we hope will vet your appetite for expositionsthat ‘bless and burn’. The Editorial Board promises to give itsreaders reflections of Pakistanis on development issues which theyhope will nurture a vocal forum for those who have been thethinking and the silent. Perhaps, the institution of debate willm a k e E D u c a t e ! t h e v e h i c l e o f d e c i s i o n s o f c h o i c e .

Anita Ghulam Ali

4

Reflections from a Reader“It’s hard to imagine a more poignant time (at least during mytime) to reflect on life than the one we find ourselves in the midstof. The year end usually represents a benchmark to have the visionsof Janus (the roman goddess of hind/foresight(s), and the originof the word January). It seems quite dismal with the threat of anuclear exchange looming and most of our neighborhood in ruinsalready. Pictures around the world don’t appear too promisingeither with economic meltdowns or rapid social fragmentation -the most “alluring” offerings of the new millennium so far.

For us educators it’s a burgeoning reminder that some criticalpieces in our supposed “panacea” (of schooling) seem to bemissing, with “deeply educated societies” sinking into genocidalhysterics. This has led serious thinkers to ponder whetherhuman beings as a species are a “biological error” programmedto destroy themselves.

L e t m e m a k e a m o r e u p b e a t a s s u m p t i o n . A s alearner/educator I believe that today’s chaos represents adeeply dialectical juncture of maybe more promising prospectsof generating and rebuilding than ever. It will be a privilegeto participate/contribute in such quests with colleagues andfriends like you.

Prayers and Peace &A Happy New Year

Wasif Rizvi

development practitioners. EDucate!provides an opportunity to ‘rethink’education and development practices tor a d i c a l l y s h i f t t h e p a r a d i g m o fdevelopment, spread new avenues forsocietal learning and discover theimportance of human values and aboveall social justice. It also provides a rayof hope to all those, who in theirc a p a c i t i e s , a r e t r y i n g t o c r e a t eawareness for soc ia l change andtransformation.”

Nooruddin MerchantKarachi, Pakistan

“In a world awash in fundamentalism– both Eastern and Western varieties– there is now, more than ever, aneed for voices of understanding,justice, and peace. EDucate! magazineis such a voice. It asks its readers toquestion conventional wisdom, to rejectr i g i d a d h e r e n c e t o i d e o l o g y. I tencourages the readers to th inkcritically. As a result, it is an island ofreason in a global ocean of insanity.”

Stephen Fein,www.thirdworldtraveler.com

5

Development

What wonderfuldevelopment by Man!

Filling his ‘lap’ withdiseases,

Smoke all over, polluted air,Noise rises and thinking

shrinks.Chirping of birds - humming of

waterfalls,All eaten up by the engine’s rumbling,

(He is) Dying an unwarranted deathby destroying the environment,

What wonderful development by Man!Heaps of garbage - diseased life,

Cloud of gun powder - rain of ailments,Conspiring to raze the forest,

What wonderful development by Man!!!

UNCLE SARGAM

Uncle Sargam is an old and much loved puppet, createdby Farooq Qaiser. Uncle Sargam joins us with excerpts from his book,

“My Beloved God (Meray Pyare Allah Mian).”

The last quarter saw a lot happening, the most significant being Chomsky’s visit to Pakistan.Keeping this in perspective, it was not merely a temptation to give him utmost coverage in ourlatest issue of EDucate! it was an important responsibility. I say responsibility for these reasons:1) Noam Chomsky is hardly known in this part of the world where we live, therefore, it’snecessary to talk about him and all that he stands for, 2) Those who know him (like the majoritypresent at his talks in both the cosmopolitan cities) misinterpreted him as being merely a criticof his country’s foreign policies and did not acknowledge him for what he really is: aworld–renowned linguist, philosopher and political analyst of our times, 3) People are overwhelmedby his prowess for linguistics and politics and tend to “idolize” him, which he has remainedvehemently opposed to. Chomsky is a pursuer of freedom and social justice, who denies any cultfollowing. It’s important to understand and learn from his struggle for truth rather than ‘glamorize’it.

This EDucate! celebrates the life and works of Noam Chomsky, the most cited revolutionary ofour times. It would not be an overstatement to say that he is to us what Socrates was to theGrecians. In fact in the history of intellectual pacesetters, he ranks eighth, just behind Plato andFreud. Also he is one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities along with Marx,Shakespeare and the Bible. James Peck, in his introduction to the Chomsky Reader, writes, “Inall American history, no one’s writings are more unsettling than Noam Chomsky’s… Nointellectual tradition quite captures his voice… No party claims him; he is a spokesman for noideology.” Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he has to hiscredit some 70 books and a steady stream of articles, not to mention his assiduous speakingschedule that frequently takes him around the world. His enigmatic flair for both linguistics andpolitics sets him apart from the typical academic faction and makes him, in the words of DavidBarsamian, “a very special person to many people – not just in the United States, but aroundthe world.” Although never truly brought in the limelight by the mainstream media, Chomsky’sworks still dominate the progressive global academia, journals and the Internet. His words exudethe supremacy to draw audiences in the thousands even though he is not a charismatic speaker,as he himself admits.

“Learning from Chomsky” – a comprehensive feature that glimpses into his works, beliefs andteachings will hopefully prove invaluable to all those who want to learn more about Chomskyand understand his standpoints on a number of issues. Compiling it was surely an enlighteningexperience.

The readers will find some parts missing from this issue; the Urdu glossaries (farhang), someregulars like “Global Media for Global Control”, “Devil–opment”, etc. But since this is entirelya Chomsky special, therefore, we tried hard to include articles that exclusively revolved aroundhim and his teachings. We promise to bring you EDucate! including all its customary attributesnext quarter.

Chomsky gives us a message of hope… He is the embodiment of hope and he teaches us toscrutinize and challenge our conditions rather than being submissive to them. It is importantto learn from him because his relentless logic and “razor–sharp intellect” are a guiding light inthese hours of ignorance, despair and privation. Through EDucate! we aspire to propagate thesame hopefulness and we bel ieve that you too wi l l share our spir i t and struggle .

forEDucating Social Change

Ambreena Aziz

Editor’sNote

6

C o v e r S t o r y

ChomskyLearn ing f rom

“In conversation (withDavid Barsamian),

Chomsky is morerelaxed, tentative, and

discursive than he is inhis books or his publicspeaking engagements.”

Vancouver Sun

In accordance with thespirit of paying tributeto “arguably the mostimportant intellectualalive”, we bring to ourreaders a fascinatingselection of dialoguee x c e r p t s b e t w e e nv e t e r a n r a d i ointerviewer and longt ime act iv i s t Dav idBarsamian and NoamChomsky. Together theyexplore and fathom thep o w e r f u l m a z e o finformation, ideas andanalysis on subjects thatare usually best leftou t . They u rge thelisteners to evaluate,discern and condemnt h e i l l u s i o n s o fcorporate power andface the truth.

Compiled By:AMBREENA AZIZ

7

Learning about ChomskyA lot of people don’t know that your given nameis actually Avram. When did that switch take place?

Before I was conscious. My parents told me thatwhen I was a couple of months old they didn’t wanteveryone calling me Abie, so they figured they’dswitch to the second name.

Is Abie the diminutive of Noam?

No, of Avram. Avram is Abraham.

Is it Noam in Hebrew?

Yes don’t tell anybody – it means “pleasantness”.

Surely the irony was noted by your parents. Youonce told me there was a little bit of genderconfusion around your name.

I once had to get my birth certificate for somereason. I wrote a letter to City Hall in Philadelphia.They sent me a copy. The birth certificate had myname crossed off in pencil. Some clerk didn’t believei t a n d c h a n g e d N o a m t o N a o m i . T h a t ’ sunderstandable. But they also changed Avram toAvrane. I think the idea is that girls could havecrazy names, but boys have to have names like Johnor Tom. They didn’t change M to F, so I was stillmale.

You talked about the demands on your time, forexample, the hours you’re spending on e–mail. Howdo you organize your time? With the constant andever–increasing demands on your time, how do youdo it?

Badly. There’s no way to do it. There are physical

limitations. The day’s twenty–four hourslong. If you do one thing, you’re not doingsomething else.

But if you’re spending a couple of hoursresponding to e–mail, you’re not writingan article on linguistics or a political articlefor Z.

That’s a decision I made forty years ago.You cannot overcome the fact that time isfinite. So you make your choices. Maybebadly, maybe well, but there’s no algorithm,no procedure to give you the right answer.

I’d like to put readers in this office spacefor a moment. Your desk is pretty neatright now. There are usually even higherpiles of books. There are at least six orseven piles, stacks of books and papers, and

on your filing cabinets even more. How do youdivide your labor? You’ve just been away for abouttwo weeks. You come back and have this avalancheof mail, phone calls, things to read. How do youget through this? What are you prioritizing here? Isthere an order to this madness?

First of all, it looks remarkably neat now becausewhile I was away they did something really nasty.They painted and cleaned the office, which I neverwould have permitted while I was here. So it lookssurprisingly clean. You may have noticed I’m tryingto take care of that.

So it does look neater than usual. But if you wantto know what it’s like, you’ve been at our house.Around 4:30 this morning there was what wethought was an earthquake, a huge noise. Ourbedroom is right next to the study. We went in anddiscovered that these big piles of books, six feet high,a couple of piles had fallen and were scattered allover the floor. That’s where I put the books thatare urgent reading. Sometimes when I’m having anextremely boring phone call, I try to calculate howmany centuries I’d have to live in order to read theurgent books if I were to read twenty–four hours aday, seven days a week at some speed reading pace.It’s pretty depressing. So the answer to your questionis, I don’t get anywhere near doing what I wouldlike to do.

You make yourself available for various groups allover the country. You made that choice pretty earlyon. Why don’t other intellectuals, other privilegedpeople in your position, get engaged politically?

Individuals have their own reasons. Presumably thereason most don’t is because they think they’re doingthe right thing. That is, I’m sure that overwhelminglypeople who are supportive of atrocious acts of powerand privilege do believe and convince themselves that

forEDucating Social Change

8

it was the right thing to do, which is extremely easy.In fact, a standard technique of belief formation isto do something in your own interest and then toconstruct a framework in which that’s the right thingto do. We all know this from our own experience.We always manage to construct our own frameworkthat says, yes, that was the right thing to do andit’s going to be good. Sometimes the conclusions areaccurate. It’s not always self–deception. But it’s verye a s y t o f a l l i n t o s e l f – d e c e p t i o n w h e n i t ’ sadvantageous. It’s not surprising.

One of the things I’ve observed over the years ofworking with you and watching you interact withothers is a sense of balance and enormous patience.You’re very patient with people, particularly peoplewho ask the most inane kinds of questions. Is thissomething you’ve cultivated?

First of all, I’m usually fuming inside, so what yousee on the outside isn’t necessarily what’s inside. Butas far as questions are concerned, the only thing Iever get irritated about is elite intellectuals, the stuffthey do I do find irritating. I shouldn’t. I shouldexpect it. But I do find it irritating. But on theother hand, what you’re describing as inane questionsusually strike me as perfectly honest questions. Peoplehave no reason to believe anything other than whatthey’re saying. I f you think about where thequestioner is coming from, what the person has beenexposed to, that’s a very rational and intelligentquestion. It may sound inane from some other pointof view, but it’s not at all inane from within theframework in which it’s being raised. It’s usually quitereasonable. So there’s nothing to be irritated about.

You may be sorry about the conditions in which thequestions arise. The thing to do is to try to helpthem get out of their intellectual confinement, whichis not just accidental, as I mentioned. There arehuge efforts that do go into making people, toborrow Adam Smith’s phrase, “as stupid and ignorant

as it’s possible for a human being to be.” A lot ofthe educational system is designed for that, if youthink about it, it’s designed for obedience andpassivity. From childhood, a lot of it is designed toprevent people from being independent and creative.If you’re independent–minded in school, you’reprobably going to get in trouble very early on. That’snot the trait that’s being preferred or cultivated.When people l ive through all this stuff, pluscorporate propaganda, plus television, plus the pressand the whole mass, the deluge of ideologicaldistortion that goes on, they ask questions that fromanother point of view sound inane, but from theirp o i n t o f v i e w a r e c o m p l e t e l y r e a s o n a b l e .

In all these talks that you’ve given, you must havereached hundreds of thousands of people, yourarticles, the interviews, the radio, the TV. It mustput a tremendous, not just a physical burden onyou, but an emotional one, too. Everything is ridingon your shoulders. I’m concerned about that, just asa friend.

I don’t feel that way at all. I feel I’m riding onother people’s shoulders. When I go to give a talkin Chicago, say, I just show up. They did all thework. All I did is take a plane, give a couple oftalks, and go home. The people there did all thework. I just came back from Australia. Those guyshave been working for months to set everything up,and they’re still working. I went, had a nice time,talked at a bunch of places. I’m exploiting otherpeople. Actually, it’s mutual exploitation. I’m nottrying to be modest about it. There are some thingsthat I can do pretty well. Over the years I’ve triedmy hand at a lot of things.

Like what?

I did spend a lot of t ime, bel ieve i t or not,organizing and going to meetings, like in the earlydays of Resist, of which I was one of the founders.

forEDucating Social Change

Learning aboutTheoriesYou’re not big on theories. Whynot?

I think theories are great. Iwork on them all the time. Butthe term “theory” shouldn’t beabused. You have a theoryw h e n y o u h a v e s o m enon–obvious principles fromwhich you can draw conclusionsthat explain in surprising wayssome of the phenomenon thatare worth studying. That’s hard

to do. It’s done in the hardsciences. There are a few otherareas where it’s done. But forthe most part it’s impossible.You can understand that. Evenin the sciences, when you getto matters of any complexity,t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n gdeclines quite sharply.

When you get to human affairs,I can’t even think of anythingt h a t d e s e r v e s t h e n a m e“theory”. Marx is certainlyw o r t h s t u d y i n g. H e w a s atheor i s t o f cap i t a l i sm . Hedeveloped a certain abstract

model of capitalism. There’snothing wrong with abstractidealization. That’s the way tostudy things. He investigatedwhat might happen in that kindo f s y s t e m . H o w m u c hrelationship it had to the realworld of that time, one has toask. He had essentially nothingto say about socialism, a fewscattered sentences here andthere. He had no theory ofrevolution or of social change.But you study what he did forit’s important work, and oneshould know about it. If youwant to call it a theory, OK.

9

I religiously went to all the meetings and sat thereand was useless and bored. Finally, out of all this,a kind of division of labor emerged by mutualconsent. We would all do the things we can do.There are some things I just can’t do at all andother things I can do very easily. I do the things Ican do easily. But the serious work is always doneby organizers. There’s no question about that. They’redown there everyday, doing the hard work, preparingthe ground, bringing out the effects. There isabsolutely no effect in giving a talk. It’s like waterunder a bridge, unless people do something with it.If it is a technique, a device for getting people tothink and bringing them together and getting themto do something, f ine, then it was worth it .Otherwise it was a waste of time, self–indulgence.

I had a glimpse of what you go through. InNovember I was in Seattle and Olympia. I gavethree public talks, three interviews, and a workshopin a day and a half. At the end of that time, mybrains were completely fried. I had no idea whatI’d said to whom. I was wondering, how do youkeep not just your equilibrium and equanimity, butthat separation of what you said?

As far as I know, I have only one talent. I’m nottrying to be modest. I think I know what I’m goodat and what I’m not good at. The one talent thatI have which I know many other friends don’t seemto have is I’ve got some quirk in my brain whichmakes it work like separate buffers in a computer. Ifyou play around with a computer you know you canput things in different places and they just stay thereand you can go back to them whenever you feel likeit and they’re there. I can somehow do that. I canwrite a very technical paper in snatches: a piece onan airplane, another piece three weeks later, sixmonths later finally get back to it and pick upwhere I left off. Somehow I don’t have any problemswitching very quickly from one thing to another. Ihave some other friends like this. I had one, awell–known logician in Israel, who was a very closefriend. We would see each other every five or sixyears. We would always just pick up the conversationwhere we had left it off, without any break, withouteven noticing it, particularly. We didn’t even noticei t u n t i l p e o p l e s e e m e d t o f i n d i t s t r a n g e .

You continue to be in tremendous demand for thesespeaking engagements. Are you considering stopping?

10

Learningnot–to–compete...Football coach Vince Lombardionce sa id , “ Winning i sn ’ teverything. It’s the only thing.”W h a t k i n d o f s o c i e t a lconsequences result from thatkind of thinking?

If anyone were to take thatseriously, if you do it on thesports field, it’s just obscene. Ifyou do it in the general society,it’s outrageous. It happens. I seeit with children’s sports. Let megive you a personal experience.One of my grandchildren is asports fanatic. He was describingto me with disappointment ag a m e t h a t w a s c a l l e d o f f .Seven–year old kids playingbaseball, they’re all organizedinto teams which is OK. Youwant to play teams that’s fine.They had a game scheduledwith another team. The othert e a m d i d n ’ t h a v e e n o u g hplayers. Some kids didn’t comethat day. My grandson’s teamhad more than enough players.

So they had to call off thegame.

The kids were all disappointed.There was an obvious solution.Let some of the kids on histeam play on the other team.In fact, you could have oneteam and still have a game, thekids that are in the field couldb e t h e k i d s a t b a t , j u s tintermingle . Then they a l lwould have had fun. But thenit wouldn’t have been a gamein which the team with onecolor won and the team withanother color lost. This waythey all had to be disappointed.This isn’t a huge problem, buti t ’ s c a r r y i n g t h e c u l t o fcompetition to childish absurdity.

When it enters into the rest oflife, it’s extremely harmful. Anydecent human existence is goingt o b e b a s e d o n s y m p a t h y,solidarity, and mutual support. Ifwe push it to the limit, theidea that the only thing to dois win, then in a family thestrongest person would take allthe food. This is just inhuman.

It’s just as inhuman when yougeneralize.

W h a t d o y o u s a y t o t h eargument that competition isintrinsic to human nature andn o t o n l y t h a t , i t b u i l d scharacter?

I t bui lds a certa in k ind ofcharacter, namely the kind ofcharacter that wants to beato t h e r p e o p l e d o w n . I s i tintrinsic to human nature? Firsto f a l l , a n y o n e w h o s a y sanything about what’s intrinsict o h u m a n n a t u r e i sautomatically talking nonsense,because we don’t know verymuch. But it’s a plausible guessthat all kind of characteristicsare intrinsic to human nature.

Much of the educational systemis built around a system ofr eward s ba s ed on g rade s ,beating other students in tests,and then coming to the front ofthe classroom and being praisedby the teacher.

It is, and that’s a particular

forEDucating Social Change

I would be delighted to stop. For me it’s not a greatjoy, frankly. I do it because I like to do it. You meetwonderful people and they’re doing terrific things.It’s the most important thing I can imagine doing.But if the world would go away, I’d be happy tostop. What ought to be happening is that a lot ofyounger people ought to be coming along and doingall these things. If that happens, fine. I’m glad todrift off into the background. That’s fine by me. It’snot happening much. That’s another thing that Iworry about. There’s a real invisibility of leftintellectuals who might get involved. I’m not talkingabout people who want to come by and say, okay,I’m your leader. Follow me. I’ll run your affairs.There’s always plenty of those people around.

Learning to Encounter PropagandaLet’s ta lk about a theme that we return top e r i o d i c a l l y, a n d t h a t i s p r o p a g a n d a a n dindoctrination. As a teacher, how do you get peopleto think for themselves? Can you in fact imparttools that will enable that?

You learn by doing, and you figure out how to do

things by watching other people do them. That’s theway you learn to be a good carpenter, for example,and the way you learn to be a good physicist.Nobody can train you on how to do physics. Youdon’t teach methodology courses in the naturalsciences. You may in the social sciences. In any fieldthat has significant intellectual content, you don’tteach methodology. You just watch people doing itand participate with them in doing it. I don’t try topersuade people, at least not consciously. Maybe Ido. If so, it’s a mistake.

The right way to do things is not to try to persuadepeople you’re right but to challenge them to thinkit through for themselves. There’s nothing in humanaffairs of which we can speak with very greatconfidence, even in the hard natural sciences that’slargely true. In complicated areas, like human affairs,we don’t have an extremely high level of confidence,and often a very low level. In the case of humanaffairs, international affairs, family relations, whateverit may be, you can compile evidence and you canput things together and look at them from a certainway. The right approach is simply to encouragepeople to do that. A common response that I get,even on things like chat networks, is, I can’t believe

11

kind of training. It’s training inextremely antisocial behaviorthat is also very harmful to thep e r s o n . I t ’ s c e r t a i n l y n o tnecessary for education.

In what way is it harmful toa person?

It turns them into the kind ofpeople who do not enjoy theachievements of others but wantto see others beaten down andsuppressed. It’s as if I see agreat violinist and instead ofenjoying the fact that he’s agreat violinist and I’m not, I tryto figure out a way to break hisviolin. It’s turning people intomonsters. This is certainly notnecessary for education. I thinkit’s harmful to it. I have myown personal experiences withthis, but I think they generalize.

H o w d o y o u d e a l w i t hday–to–day s i tuat ions i s acomplicated matter. But as faras schooling was concerned, itjust happens that I went to a

school up to about age twelvewhere there was no competition.I didn’t know I was a goodstudent unti l I got to highschool. Everyone was encouragedto do their best and to helpo t h e r s d o t h e i r b e s t . Yo uapplauded them if they did. Ifthey fell short of their ownstandards you tried to helpthem meet them. I didn’t reallyk n o w a b o u t t h e i d e a o fcompetition for grades until Igot into an academic city highschool. And the educationallevel declined at that point.

Incidentally, going on to my lastforty–five years of educationalexperience, which happens to beat MIT, it is not a competitiveenvironment. In a graduatescientific department, technicallyyou have to give grades becausethere’s some formalism thatrequires i t . But people areworking together. You don’t tryto do better than the next guy.You have a common goal. Youwant to understand this stuff.

Let’s work on it. It’s certainlythe most positive way for ane d u c a t i o n a l o r a r e s e a r c hexperience to proceed.

Let’s say in a different kind ofenvi ronment , l i ke an autofactory, the boss tells you, Ifyou work an extra eight hoursthis week, I’ll increase your payby $100 and I’ll give you anextra week’s vacation.

That’s a different question. Thathas nothing to do with harmingother people and being first andmaking sure they’re second.That’s a question of how youwant to react to an inhumansystem in which you’re forcedto ex i s t . You ’ re compel ledbecause of lack of other choicesto exist in a system in whichsome human being can controlyou, which shouldn’t happen ina decent society, and you haveto ask, How do I adjust tothat? It’s like being in prison. Ifyou’re a human, you don’t doit.

forEDucating Social Change

anything you’re saying. It’s totally in conflict withwhat I’ve learned and always believed, and I don’thave time to look up all those footnotes. How do Iknow what you’re saying is true? That’s a plausiblereaction. I tell people it’s the right reaction. Youshouldn’t believe what I say is true. The footnotesare there, so you can find out if you feel like it, butif you don’t want to bother, nothing can be done.Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It’ssomething you have to f ind out for yourself.

Learning to live ‘together’Another comment I hear is that people say, I’m noNoam Chomsky. I don’t have his resources. I workat Logan Airport from 9 to 5. I’ve got a mortgageto pay. I don’t have the access and the ability. Doesit take special brains?

It doesn’t take special brains, but it takes specialprivilege. Those people are right. You have to havespecial privilege, which we have. It’s unfair, but we’vegot it. To have the resources, training, time, thecontrol over your own life. Maybe I work a hundredhours a week, but it’s a hundred I choose. That’s arare luxury. Only a tiny sector of the population canenjoy that, let alone the resources and the training.It’s extremely hard to do it by yourself. However, weshouldn’t exaggerate. Many of the people who dothis best are people who lack privilege, for one thingbecause they have several advantages. Not havingundergone a good education, not being subjected tothe huge flow of indoctrination, of which aneducation largely is, and also not having participatedby taking part in the system of indoctrination andcontrol, so that you internalize it. By indoctrinationI mean from kindergarten up through professional

life. Not being part of that, you’re somewhat morefree. So there are advantages also to being outsideo f the s y s tem o f p r iv i l ege and dominat ion .But it’s true that the person who’s working fiftyhours a week to put food on the table does nothave the luxury we do. That’s why people gettogether. That’s what unions were about, for workers’education, which often came out of the unions inthe workers’ movement. Over quite a range, in fact:literature, history, science, mathematics. Some of thegreat books on science and mathematics for thepublic (for the millions) were written by left–orientedspecialists, and such topics found their way intoworkers’ education, often union–based, sometimesoffshoots. Very little is done individually. It’s usuallydone in groups by collective action and interchangeand critique and challenge, with students typicallyplaying an active and often critical role. Part of thegenius of the system of domination and control is toseparate people from one another so that doesn’thappen. We can’t “consult our neighbors”, as one ofmy favorite Wobbly singers once put it back in the1930s. As long as we can’t consult our neighbors,we’ll believe that there are good times. It’s importantto make sure that people don’t consult theirneighbors.

Learning about ChildrenDo people have to “discover their inner child” inorder to ask the obvious questions?

Anyone who has had any dealings with childrenknows that they’re curious and creative. They wantto explore things and figure out what’s happening.A good bit of schooling is an effort to drive this outof them and to fit them into a mold, make them

forEDucating Social Change

Learning aboutInequalityThe issue of inequality, not onlyin the US but around theworld, as you just mentioned,is hard to ignore. Even theF i n a n c i a l T i m e s r e c e n t l yc o m m e n t e d t h a t “A t t h ebeginning of the 19th century,the ratio of real incomes perhead between the world’s richestand poorest countries was threeto one. By 1900 it was 10 toone. By the year 2000, it hadrisen to 60 to one.”

A n d t h a t i s e x t r e m e l ymisleading. It vastly understateswhat’s going on. The real andstriking difference is not thedifference among countries butthe difference within the globalpopulation, which is a differentmeasure . That ’ s r i sen verysharp ly, which means thatwithin countries the divisionshave sharply risen. I think it’snow gone from about somethinglike 80 to 1 to about 120 to 1,just in the last ten years or so.Those are rough figures. I’m notsure of the exact numbers. Butit’s risen very sharply. The top

1 percent of the population ofthe world now probably hasabout the income of roughlythe bottom 60 percent. That’sclose to 3 billion people. Theseoutcomes are the results of veryspecific decisions, institutionalarrangements, and plans whichcan be expected to have theseeffects. And they have theseeffects. These are principles ofeconomics that tell you thatover time things ought to eveno u t . T h a t ’ s t r u e o f s o m eabstract models. The world isvery different.

12

behave, stop thinking, not cause any trouble. It goesright from kindergarten up to what Huntington wastalking about, namely, keep the rabble out of theirhair. People are supposed to be obedient producers,do what they’re told, and the rest of your life issupposed to be passive consuming. Don’t think aboutthings. Don’t know about things. Don’t bother yourhead with things l ike the MAI (Multi lateralAgreement on Investment) or international affairs.Just do what you’re told, pay attention to somethingelse and maximize your consumption. That’s the roleof the public.

Learning not to DeifyYou don’t think highly of the dei f icat ion ofindividuals and the construction of cults aroundpeople?

That’s putting it pretty mildly. I don’t think youshould deify anybody or anything. In the fields wherethere really is intellectual substance and progress,everyone knows that this is not how it works. In thehard sciences, for example, the way you makeprogress is in graduate seminars, where half the ideasare coming from the students. There are people whohave interesting ideas, and they’re usually partiallyright and particularly wrong. You can try to fix themup, improve and change them, but there’s noEinsteinism in physics. You have notions like thatonly in f ields that are, either consciously orunconsciously, covering up a lack of intellectualsubstance.

Learning about the InternetTalk about what’s been called the seismic shift from

print to cyberspace. What kind of effect is that goingto have on the future of research? What will thearchives of the future look like?Nobody really knows. Part of the reason is thatnobody knows the longevity of the methods ofstorage that are now being used There have beensome technical conferences of librarians and othersto discuss how long electronic storage will last. Youcan be pretty sure that seventeenth–century bookswill last, because they were made of good paper.Take a look at them. I do often. They’re in realgood shape and are fun to read. Then look at atwentieth–century book. It’s much less likely that it’sgoing to be around long. The paper’s much cheaper.It’s going to deteriorate and disintegrate. Things arebeing put over into electronic storage, and herethere’s just not a lot of experience. So it’s a goodquestion what the shape of the archives will be.

On the other hand, there’s an overload problem.The real problem in the sciences and elsewhere isnot shortage of information. It’s sensible analysis ofi n f o r m a t i o n . J u s t t h e a m o u n t o f e – m a i lcommunication is a terrific burden, and a growingone, for business too.

Another thing which I see myself is that it’s just toodamn easy. Anybody who has some harebrained ideafor three seconds can punch a key, and all of asudden there’s something that half the people in theworld see. It’s a sense of power. The half of thepeople of the world who are receiving it have to dosomething with it. You should see some of the stuffI get.

Also, people get addicted. There are people who aresimply addicted to the Web. They spend time surfingthe Web. People who wouldn’t care where France is

forEDucating Social Change

…A woman in the audiencea s k e d y o u , i n a p r e t t ystraight–ahead question, Howcome you don’t factor genderinto your analysis? You prettymuch agreed with her, but your e a l l y d i d n ’ t a n s w e r h e rquestion.

In fact, I’ve been writing aboutit quite a bit in recent books inconnect ion with structuraladjustment, globalization ofproduction, and imposition ofindustrialized export–orientedagriculture. In all cases, womenare the worst victims. What we

discussed the other day aboutt h e e f f e c t o n f a m i l i e s i sessentially gender war. The veryfact that women’s work is notconsidered work is an ideologicalattack. As I pointed out, it’ssomewhere between lunacy andid iocy. The who le we l f a re“debate,” as it’s called, is basedon the assumption that raisingchildren isn’t work. It’s not likespeculating on stock markets.T h a t ’ s r e a l w o r k . S o i f awoman is taking care of a kid,s h e ’ s n o t d o i n g a n y t h i n g.Domestic work altogether is notconsidered work because women

d o i t . T h a t g i v e s a nextraordinary distortion to thenature o f the economy. I tamounts to transfer paymentsfrom working women, fromwomen altogether and workingwomen in particular, to others.They don’t get social securityfor raising a child. You do getsocial security for other things.The same with every otherbenefit. I maybe haven’t writtenas much about such matters asI should have, probably not. Butit’s a major phenomenon, verydramatic now.

13

are getting the latest newspapers from Tibet. It’s anaddiction which could be harmful.

So, it’s contributing to the atomization that peopleexperience?

The interconnection among people that the Internetestablishes is very positive in many ways, fororganizing and just for human life. But it has itsdownside, too. I’ve spoken to friends whose teenagechildren go up to their rooms after dinner and starttheir social life with virtual characters, chat friends,and who make up fake personas and may be areliving in some other country. This is their socialcircle. They are with their friends on–line who arepretending to be such–and–such and they arepretending to be so–and–so. The psychic effect ofthis is something I wouldn’t like to think about.

We are human beings. Face–to–face contact meansa lot. Not having an affair with some sixty–year–oldguy who’s pretending to be a fourteen–year–old girlin some other country. There’s an awful lot of thisstuff going on. It’s extremely hard to say what thenet effect of the whole thing is.

However, this is all small potatoes. The real problemis totally different. The corporations have, only inthe last few years, discovered that this public creationcan be a tremendous tool for profit, for basically ahome marketing service. And marketing means notjust perfumes, but also attitudes, beliefs, consumerism,and so on. And they want to take control of it.Whether that’s technically possible is not so certain.But that’s being worked on.

Let’s move on to the Internet and issues of privacy.Unbeknownst to many Internet users, businesses arecollecting profiles and amassing data on people’spreferences and interests. What are the implicationsof that?

The implications could be pretty serious, but in myview they are all secondary to another issue, whichis Internet access. The huge mergers that are goingon in the media megacorporations carry the threatwhich is not at all remote that they’ll be able toeffectively direct access to favored sites, meaningturning the Internet system even more than it isnow into a home shopping service rather than

Learning aboutEconomyYou said the economic systemis a “grotesque catastrophe.”What kind of system wouldyou propose?

I would propose a system whichis democratic. It’s long beenunderstood that you don’t havedemocracy unless people are incontrol of the major decisions.And the major decisions, as hasalso long been understood, aref u n d a m e n t a l l y i n v e s t m e n tdecisions: What do you do withthe money? What happens inthe country? What’s produced?How is it produced? What areworking conditions like? Whered o e s i t g o ? H o w i s i tdistributed? Where is it sold?That whole range of decisions,that’s not everything in theworld, but unless that range ofdecisions is under democraticc o n t r o l , y o u h a v e o n e o ranother form of tyranny. Thatis as old as the hills and asAmerican as apple pie. You

don’t have to go to Marxism oranything else. It’s straight out ofmainstream American tradition.

The reason is simple commonsense. So that’s got to be thecore of it. That means totaldismantling of all the totalitariansystems. The corporations arejust as totalitarian as Bolshevismand fascism. They come out ofthe same intellectual roots, inthe early twentieth century. Soj u s t l i k e o t h e r f o r m s o ftotal i tar ianism have to go,private tyrannies have to go.And they have to be put underpublic control.

Then you look at the modalitiesof public control. Should it beworkers’ councils or communityorganizations or some integrationof them? What kind of federalstructure should there be? Atthis point you’re beginning tothink about how a free anddemocratic society might lookand operate. That’s worth a lotof thought. But we’re a longway from that. The first thingyou’ve got to do in any kind of

change is to recognize the formsof oppression that exist. If slavesdon’t recognize that slavery isoppression, it doesn’t makemuch sense to ask them whythey don’t live in a free society.They think they do. This is nota j o k e . T a k e w o m e n .Overwhelmingly, and for a longtime, they may have sensedoppression, but they didn’t seeit as oppression. They saw it aslife. The fact that you don’t seeit as oppression doesn’t meanthat you don’t know it at somelevel. At some level you knowit. The way in which you knowit can take very harmful formsfor yourself and everyone else.That’s true of every system ofoppression. But unless you senseit, identify it, understand it,understand furthermore that it’snot, as in that New Yorkerarticle, the genius of the marketand a mystery, but completelyunderstandable and not a geniusof anything, and easi ly putunder popular control—unlessall those things are understood,you cannot proceed to the nextstep, which is the one you

forEDucating Social Change

14

information and interaction.

The megamergers like AOL and Time Warner offertechnical possibilities to ensure that getting on theInternet will draw you into what they want you tosee , not what you want to see . That ’ s verydangerous. The Internet, is a tremendous tool forinformat ion, understanding, organiz ing, andcommunication. There is no doubt at all that thebusiness world, which has been given this public gift,intends to turn it into something else. If they’re ableto do it, that will be a very serious blow to freedomand democracy.

You described the Internet to me once as a “lethalweapon”. Someone once wrote an article and putyour name on it and circulated it on the Net.

That happened. The article was then picked off theNet and published. A lot of ugly things can happen.

Learning about LinguisticsTalk a little bit about linguistics. In layman’s terms,

could you explain your theory of language?

First of all, theories aren’t personal. Nobody ownsthem. So there is an approach to language of whichI’m one of the participants in studying it and thereare contributors from lots of sources and plenty ofinteraction. It starts from the fact, and it’s not avery controversial fact, that the capacity for languageis a species–specific property. That is, every normalhuman being has that capacity. As far as we knowit is biologically isolated.

A capacity isn’t one thing. It has many strands. Sofor example, the fact that I’m using my tongue whenI speak is not biologically isolated. Other organismshave tongues, like cats. And undoubtedly there aremany other aspects of it that are shared by primatesor mammals or maybe all of life.

But some particular crucial aspects of language doappear to be biologically quite isolated with propertiesthat we don’t find elsewhere in the biological world.There’s nothing homologous, meaning same origins,or analogous, meaning roughly the same structure,among other species. So it’s some kind of unique

raised: How can we change thesystem?

Let’s say you’re a CEO of amajor corporation. Isn’t it inyour economic interest to keepenough change in my pocket sothat I’ll buy your products?

That’s an interesting question,and nobody knows the answerto it. It was a question thathad an answer in a nationaleconomy. So if you go back tothe 1920s, at the time of thebig automobile manufacturingburst, that was the questionthat Henry Ford raised. Hedrew the conclusion that youjust drew. He said, I’d bettergive these guys a decent wageor nobody’s going to buy mycars. So he raised workers ’salaries beyond what he wasforced to by market pressures.And others went along. Thatwas on the reasoning that youjust outlined, and it made sortof sense in a national economy.

D o e s i t m a ke s e n s e i n a n

international economy? Does itmake sense in an internationaleconomy where you can shiftproduction to the poorest andm o s t d e p r i v e d a n d m o s tdepressed regions where youhave security forces keepingpeople under control and youdon’ t have to worry aboutenvironmental conditions andyou have p lenty o f womenpouring off the farms to workunder impossible conditions andget burnt to death in factoryfires and die from overwork andsomebody else replaces themand that production is thenintegrated through the globalsystem so that value is addedwhere you have skilled workersand maybe pay a little morebut you don’t have many ofthem?

Finally it ’s sold to the richpeople in all the societies. Eventhe poorest Third World countryhas a very rich elite. As youtake this kind of structuralThird World model and transferit over to the rich countries —

it’s a structural model, it’s notin absolute terms — they havea sector of consumers that’s nottrivial. Even if there’s plenty ofsuperfluous people and hugenumbers in jail and a lot ofpeople suffering or even starving.So the question is, Can thatwork? As a technical question,nobody really knows the answer.A n d i t d o e s n ’ t m a k e a n ydifference anyway. We shouldn’teven be allowing ourselves toa s k i t . T h e p o i n t i s t h a twhether it could work or not,it’s a total monstrosity. Fascismworks, too. In fact, it workedrather well from an economicpoint of view. It was quitesuccessful. That doesn’t meanit’s not a monstrosity. So thereis the technical question, Willit work? To that nobody knowsthe answer. But there’s also ahuman question of whether wes h o u l d e v e n a s k , a n d t h eanswer to that is, Of coursenot . That ’ s not the CEO’sques t ion , but i t should beeverybody else’s.

forEDucating Social Change

15

forEDucating Social Change

aspect of human intel l igence that may havedeveloped in many hominid lines, but only one hassurvived, namely us.The one that survived apparently came from a prettysmall breeding group, maybe tens of thousands ofpeople, may be a hundred or two hundred thousandyears ago, something in that range. Since that time,there has been essentially no time for evolutionaryeffects to have become detectable and, as far as isknown, there’s extremely little genetic variationamong existing humans as compared with otherspecies. So we’re a very homogenous species, andthe language faculty in particular seems to beessentially shared. What that means is that if yourkids grow up in East Africa they’ll learn Swahili asperfectly as anyone there. If their kids grow up inBoulder, Colorado, they’ll speak the Boulder dialectof English as well as anyone there.

These characteristics seem to be a shared andspecific part of our genetic endowment. We want tofind out what they are. What they are, whateverthey are, they allow an infant, maybe even pre–birth,there’s evidence for that, but certainly very early on,to do some pretty astonishing things. First the infanthas to pick out of the environment, which is a lotof undifferentiated noise and activity, the child hasto somehow select out of that massive confusion theparts that are language. Nobody knows how to dothat.

There are similar problems faced by other organisms.Insects, which seem to be more similar to humansin this respect than any other known organism – norelevant evolutionary relationship, obviously – a bee,for example, has to be able to pick out of all theactivity that it observes just the parts which arewhat are called the “waggle dance”, the dance ofthe bees that’s used to communicate distance andthe quality of the flower. Exactly how that’s done,nobody knows. When we look at bees dancingaround, we don’t see it. You have to be a bee tosee it. In fact to discover it is sophisticated enougha trick that you can get a Nobel Prize for it.

A human has a much more complicated task to pickout a language, and no other organism will do that.If you raise an ape in the same environment as achild without special training, and even with specialtraining, the ape won’t pick out the linguisticactivities as a category distinct from anything else.It’s just a mass of things happening. But somehowa human infant is designed to do exactly that.

The infant has some sort of mental faculty, somespecial component of the whole intellectual system,call it the language faculty, and that faculty pickso u t t h e s t u f f t h a t ’ s l i n g u i s t i c , a n d t h a t ’ slanguage–related, and then passes through varioustransitions and gets to the point where you and Iare, where you use this system of knowledge freelyand productively to talk about new circumstances inways that are not caused by the circumstances inwhich you are nor caused by your inner state butare somehow appropriate to the circumstances andcoherent. Those are the rough facts about language,which have been observed for hundreds of years.

The next question is, How is it done? What’s thenature of the initial state of the language faculty,the shared initial state, the genetically determinedinitial state? What are its properties? How do theseget refined and shaped and modified in one way oranother through interaction with the environment tolead to the mature state of what we call having alanguage? That’s the topic.

In order to investigate it, there are some upper andlower bounds that have to be satisfied by the theoryof the initial state. It has to be at least rich enoughto account for the fact that a child does – on thebasis of the scattered evidence around it – arrive ata state of knowledge which is highly specific, veryarticulated, extremely detailed, applies to newcircumstances, and does so in a very rich andcomplex way, as you can demonstrate.

So the initial state has to be at least rich enoughto account for that transition. But it can’t be so richas to exclude some of the options. So you can’t forexample, say, The initial state is my dialect ofEnglish, or somebody speaking Japanese. So the upperbound that you can’t go beyond is as muchcomplexity and richness as would rule out possiblelanguages, not just actual ones, but possible onesthat could be attained. The lower bound is that ithas to be at least rich enough to account for thefact that in every linguistic community a normalchild will acquire a rich, complex understanding andcapacity to use the language of that community.In between those bounds lies the truth about theinitial state. You study it by looking at those twoproblems. What principles must it have in order tobe able to be articulated as a particular complexsystem? The study of languages of widely differenttypology puts a constraint on whether you are goingtoo far in imposing internal structure. That’s wherethe subject is.

16

About David BarsamianDavid Barsamian is the founder and director of Alternative Radio - an award winning weekly radioprogram. Alternative Radio is broadcast to more than 125 public radio stations around the world andpresents information and perspectives that are either ignored or distorted in the corporate-controlledAmerican media. Barsamian is regarded as an "ace interviewer" and "an ingenious impresario of radicalb r o a d c a s t i n g " , a n d w a s p r e s e n t e d t h e a w a r d o f " To p Te n M e d i a H e r o e s o f 1 9 9 4 ” .

Noam ChomskyAn Interview for EDucate!

UR On...

When I wrote a tribute to Professor Noam Chomsky, for the first issueof EDucate!, I did not expect to meet the “indefatigable rebel” in person.But I was soon honored when he recently visited Pakistan on a whirlwindtrip. It would be unfair not to admit that the anticipation of being inthe same space with him did not unnerve me. But, upon greeting him,my apprehension gave way to a desire for taking as much of my shareof knowledge from him as possible. This interview comprises of a seriesof discussions we had in Pakistan and ensuing ones after he left.

BYMASHHOOD RIZVI

17

During your visit to Pakistan many whoapproached you were hoping to hearready–made solutions to all the problems

Pakistan is faced with. However, you seemed to bepressing them to think hard and think criticallyabout the problems as well as the possible solutions.You held yourself responsible for taking certainmeasures and actions regarding the role of yourcountry (US) and expected others to do the same.Is it true?

Chomsky: It is definitely true. It is perhapsthe most elementary of moral truisms, that we areresponsible for the anticipated consequences of ourown action, or inaction. It may be fine to study thecrimes of Genghis Khan, but there is no moral valueto condemning them; we can’t do anything aboutthem. There is not much I can do – in fact,virtually nothing – about the very serious problemsinternal to Pakistan. I’d like to learn about them,and to understand them as best as I can. And Id o n ’ t r e f r a i n f r o m s a y i n g w h a t I t h i n k .

(a) Why is a moral value not attached tocondemning the crimes of Genghis Khan? Don’t

you think that along with studying his crimes, it isequally important to continue to condemn them sothat anybody who commits similar atrocities doesnot get away with it.

(b) Also, as far as the existing imperial powers ofthe world are concerned, I think I am more thanjustified to condemn them, as their crimes aredirectly causing my people/country so much pain andsuffering. The rise and rule of corporations in theWest in so many ways is linked to Pakistan’seconomy vis–à–vis the poverty of our nation;therefore, I think that it must be condemned byPakistanis.

Chomsky: I am basing my remarks on what seemsto me a moral truism: the moral evaluation of whatwe do depends on the anticipated consequences –in the cases we are discussing, human consequences.If I publish a paper here reviewing and condemningt h e c r i m e s o f G e n g h i s K h a n , t h e h u m a nconsequences are approximately zero; I’m joining inuniversal condemnation, and adding another pea tothe mountain certainly doesn’t help his victims, oranyone else for that matter.

Suppose in some part of the world, say Mongolia,his crimes were being suppressed or praised or evenused as a model for current actions. Then it wouldbe of great moral value to condemning his crimesthere, because of the human consequences. Take yourother example: condemnation in Pakistan of theimpact of US corporate and state power in Pakistan.There is great moral value to condemn that in ways

that affect the exercise of that power, which meansmostly here, in the US. For Pakistanis, if thecondemnations have no effect on the exercise of thatpower, then in that respect the moral value is slight;i f they have an effect in raising the level ofunderstanding of Pakistanis, to enable them to actmore constructively, then the moral value could begreat. In all cases, we are back to anticipated humanconsequences.

Let’s take a concrete case. For intellectuals in Russiain the Communist days, condemnation of US crimeshad little if any moral value; in fact, it might havehad negative value, in serving to buttress theoppressive and brutal Soviet system. In contrast,when Eastern European dissidents condemned thecrimes of their own states and society, it had greatmoral value. That much everyone takes for granted:everyone, that is, outside the Soviet commissar class.Much the same holds in the West, point by point,except with much more force, because the costs ofhonest dissidence are so immeasurably less. Andexactly as we would expect, these utterly trivialpoints are almost incomprehensible to Westernintellectuals, when applied to them, though readilyunderstood when applied to off icial enemies.

That’s why, for example, I was critical of Pakistan’spolicies concerning Kashmir when speaking inPakistan, and of India’s policies there when speakingin India. But I cannot – and no one else should –have a great deal of confidence in what I say as aconcerned outsider. And there isn’t much that I cando about the very severe problems. In contrast, thereis a great deal I can do about problems within theUS, and about policy decisions of systems of powerthere. And for just that reason, that’s my primaryresponsibility.

Of course, it is not quite that simple. Outsiders cansometimes have useful advice and influence, andshould try to use such opportunities. Nonetheless,the moral truism remains just that: a truism.

Q:forEDucating Social Change

Q:

There is not much I cando – in fact, virtually

nothing – about the veryserious problems internal

to Pakistan. I’d like tolearn about them, and tounderstand them as best

as I can...In contrast,there is a great deal Ican do about problems

within the US, andabout policy decisions ofsystems of power there.

And for just that reason,that’s my primary

responsibility.

18

forEDucating Social Change

Quite apart from moral truisms,it is generally a mistake toe x p e c t o u t s i d e r s t o h a v evaluable advice as to how todeal with one’s problems. Thatrequires intimate knowledge andu n d e r s t a n d i n g . I t ’ s s h e e rarrogance for those who lackt h a t k n o w l e d g e a n dunderstanding to offer solutions.And it makes little sense towait for rescue from outside.That ’ s o f ten jus t a way toevade responsibility.

Again, one shouldn’t exaggerate.Sympathy and support from

friends is of enormous importance in personal life,and solidarity and mutual aid are of comparableimportance over a broader sphere, includinginternational affairs. Nonetheless, we ultimately haveto take our fate into our own hands, not wait forsalvation from somewhere else. It won’t come.

Are these the reasons that your lectures inPakistan (and to a great extent in India) were

in reference with the historical role of US in theworld rather than focusing on the issues andconcerns o f Pak i s tan v i s–à–vi s the war onAfghanistan, or for that matter role of Islam in aPakistani society?

Chomsky: These are exactly the reasons. Similarly,I would not expect a Pakistani visitor to the US tolecture us on US policy in Afghanistan, or on howto deal with quite severe problems internal to theUS. If the visitor has something to say, well andgood, but the strictures I already mentioned wouldhold nonetheless.

Very briefly, can you elucidate on the differences(audience’s intellectual level, academia, media’s

role etc.) you experienced between Pakistan andIndia?

Chomsky: I’m reluctant to comment on this. Ispent 3 weeks in India, traveling widely around thecountry. I have visited India several times in thepast, and have read quite a lot about India,including detailed studies of particular regions andmuch else. In contrast, I spent 3 days in Pakistan,and was able to see and experience very little. Thiswas my first trip, and I have not read about Pakistananywhere near as extensively. I have impressions, butam reluctant even to express them, and do notthink that you should take them seriously if I did.

How difficult do you believe it has nowbecome to educate people about critical issues

as anything and everything which challenges the

interest of the powerful is tagged as ‘terror’?

Chomsky: It has always been difficult. Just speakingpersonally, I have been writing and speakingextensively about “terrorism” for 20 years, ever sincethe Reagan administration proclaimed that the “waragainst terror” would be the core of its foreignpolicy; and of course about similar matters evenbefore the “war” was declared. Over time, slowly,there has been increasing willingness on the part ofmuch of the public to think seriously about thecritical issues that you probably have in mind. Ithink that has improved further since Sept. 11. I amspeaking about the general publ ic , not e l i teintellectuals, who typically serve as doctrinalmanagers, and have their own agendas. Nothingnovel about that.

Do you think that at times governments andnations strategically allow the existence of

dissent (may be to trivialize truth), just to ensuresome liberty of thought, for the masses to feel good,and not agitated. Or do you think that such spaceis a result of struggle?

Chomsky: The space that exists was, mostly, wonwith difficult struggle. Nonetheless, it is true thatwhen such space is opened, there will be efforts onthe part of concentrated power to adapt it to theirown purposes, and to try to constrain debate anddiscussion within narrow limits. If dictators weres m a r t e r, t h e y w o u l d a d o p t t h e s y s t e m s o findoctrination that are employed, often quiteconsciously, in more democratic societies: let debaterage, but within limits set by fixed presuppositions,which express the basic interests of power. Forexample, during the US wars in Indochina, themedia and journals of opinion were happy to sponsordebates between “hawks,” who argued that the USshould resort to greater violence and destruction, and“doves,” who argued that our effort to defend theVietnamese from terror and foreign attack wasbecoming too costly, and that we should seek othermeans to attain our noble objectives. The more thatdebate rages, the less likely people are to ask theobvious questions: for example, are we defendingVietnam by attacking it? Fortunately, great numberso f peop le b roke ou t o f thehawk–dove spectrum, though veryfew intellectuals. Much the sameholds on many other issues.

Do you think that simplyinforming the oppressed of

the main sources of oppressioncan result in liberation? Or, itmay, on the contrary result inmere decreasing or alleviatingtheir feelings of being oppressed.All this, while the magnitude of

Q:

Q:

Q:

...it is generallya mistake to

expect outsidersto have

valuable adviceas to how to

deal with one’sproblems...itmakes little

sense to waitfor rescue fromoutside. That’s

often just away to evaderesponsibility.

Over time,slowly, there

has beenincreasing

willingness onthe part of

much of thepublic to thinkseriously about

the criticalissues...

Q:

Q:

19

oppression and the oppressor becomes greaterand greater?

Chomsky: The oppressed typically understandtheir oppression far better than we do, andwe should try to learn from them, notinstruct them. Insofar as we have someunders tanding o f the sources o f the i roppression, we should do our best to conveyit to those who can use i t to l iberatethemselves – with our assistance, to whateverextent we can provide it, honestly andwithout seeking dominance and control. It isperfectly true that understanding may notresult in liberation, but absence of understanding iscertain to prevent liberation. Those are the actualchoices.

(a) I partially agree with you. But, we arein so many ways distinctively privileged as

compared to the oppressed we claim to be fightingfor. How important do you think it is for us to bein the exact social, economical and political state tojoin the struggle for social justice and a betterworld? What I mean is that, when you came toPakistan, the oppressed had little or no access toyou. You spoke English, which the oppressed do notunderstand. I go for fieldtrips in an air–conditionedcar carrying mineral water bottles and have troubleconvincing myself in front of the mirror, that I amfighting for social justice. Am I not required to letgo of the material and social privileges to becomea real part of the struggle?

(b) I have met with so many extremely poor peoplewho seem to think that it is their fate to be poorand oppressed. They have no clue whatsoever aboutthe sources of their poverty. I work with illiteratepeople. Almost all of them suffer from seriousself–deprivation to an extent that they considerthemselves worse than animals at times. Then Icome in the picture. I tell them that their povertyis not God’s act on them, it is human creation. Itell them that being illiterate does not equate youwith animals. I do not even instruct. I simplyinitiate a discourse. But I feel that so many ofthem, who seem to be feeling good, empowered andmotivated by knowing that they have been regardedas real and dignified humans for the first time intheir lives, immediately want solutions, answers, andexplanations about what they can do and what Ican do for them. I tell them that all I can do isto sit in that air conditioned car and go back homeand they have to l iberate themselves as myresponsibility was to make them aware of the sourcesof their oppression. But Noam, honestly these peoplewill be faced with such grave consequences if they

were to liberate themselves from the social oppressionthey are faced with. Is this all I can do for them?

Chomsky: I don’t see any grounds for disagreement.You are, correctly, not pretending that you can offeroppressed people magic answers to their problems.Their own immediate situation they comprehendmuch better than you can, and they have to struggleto overcome and remedy it, as people have donethrough the ages. You do come to them to try toparticipate in their struggle by contributing what youcan, as you describe. That’s exactly right. Thechoices are (1) not giving answers that we don’thave, (2) doing nothing. You describe some of theways in which privileged people can “come into thepicture” and join constructively in popular strugglesfor social justice and liberation. There are many suchpossibilities.

It’s also true that when I was in Pakistan I spokeonly to a narrow elite. That’s a shame, and I regretit, very much. In India that was partially true,though less so; and in Kerala, much less so. Similarproblems and choices arise right where I live. Wecan work where we are, not where we are not.There’s no general single answer as to where andhow it is right and proper to focus our energies andefforts, no single answer that applies to everyone. Wehave to find our own ways.

Any message, reflection or thoughts for ourreaders?

Chomsky: A philosopher friend once wrote acriticism of my work in which he said, with someannoyance, that the only “ism” I seem to believe inis truism. That’s rather accurate. I don’t feel that Ihave important messages to convey, beyond theobvious: in this case, think for yourselves and do notuncritically accept what you are told, and do whatyou can to make the wor ld a be t te r p l ace ,particularly for those who suffer and are oppressed.

forEDucating Social Change

Q:

Q:

...think foryourselves and

do notuncritically

accept whatyou are told,and do whatyou can to

make the worlda better place,particularly for

those whosuffer and are

oppressed.

20

P r o f e s s o r N o a mChomsky was inPakistan a few days

back. His lectures were very wellattended. It is possible that hewas listened to because he wascritical of American and Israelipolicies of aggression in the world.However the essence of his views– that the powerful manufacture‘consent’ and that ruling elites useforce – goes against the interestsof the elite everywhere. Why is itt h a t t h e y l i s t e n t o r a d i c a lintellectuals? What is dissent andwhat happens to it in a society?

Dissent in the modern world is,basically, a very rare combinationof knowledge, ideas, cognitiveab i l i t ie s , mora l courage andconscience. Most intellectuals, asChomsky himself pointed out inhis lecture of 26 November inIslamabad, serve the powers thatbe. They give excellent rationalesfor killing, maiming, raping andcheating people. They justify war,poverty and mismanagement. They

are on the side of the rich andthe powerful. It is not becausethey lack either knowledge orbrains. They do, sometimes atleast, lack moral courage. Aboveall, however, they lack conscienceand sympathy. What happensw h e n a d i s s i d e n t i s b o r n ?

I t d e p e n d s o n t h e p o w e rdistribution and the prevalentfashion in ideas. Take the case ofa hunter gatherer society. In sucha case he or she would hardly benoticed. The members of theitinerant society or group wouldbe so preoccupied with gatheringroots and hunting small animalsthat they would not have time tolisten to somebody with strangeideas. If the idea was so strangea s t o f o rb id the hunt ing o fanimals then two responses wouldbe in order. Fi r s t , a k ind ofbeatification. The individual isunderstood to be a saint, placedin a separate niche, and everyoneelse keeps doing what they weredoing be fore . The second i s

ostracization with or withoutcriminalization. The individual isconsidered a deviant, either anon–criminal one or criminal one,and people either boycott him,drive him away or even eliminatehim physically.

T h e s a m e r e s p o n s e s p e r s i s tthroughout history. If one belongsto the l e s s power fu l gender(women); less powerful class(peasants, laborers etc); lessp o w e r f u l s o c i a l g r o u p s(untouchables in India and theirequivalents elsewhere), then thechances of beatification decreaseand those of ostracization increase.However, an individual from suchgroups cannot be heard to beginwith. Society simply provides veryfew chances to such people tospeak out so that the ostracizationconsists of the immediate familysuppressing the dissident persone a r l y i n h e r o r h i s c a r e e r.

It is only individuals from slightlymore powerful groups who arerecorded in his tory as be ingdissidents. During the agrarian erah u m a n b e i n g s a s a s p e c i e sc o l o n i z e d t h e l a n d a n d t h eanimals. This event led to theproduct ion o f much surp lusw e a l t h . F u r t h e r, t h e m a l ecolonized the female. This createdthe stable male–dominated family.The surplus food was enough tosustain a militarycaste (the Rajasand Nawabs inSouth Asia anddukes and earlsin Europe) a swell as a priestlyca s t e ( a l l thepriests, clerks,s choo lmas te r sand so on). Int i m e , abureaucracy toow a s b o r n a n dfunct ioned tom a i n t a i n t h eru le r ’ s power.The d i s s identwho belonged tothis elite livingoff the surplusproduce of the

BYDR. TARIQ RAHMAN ?

WHATHAPPENS

TODISSENT

forEDucating Social Change

If one belongsto the less

powerful gender(women);less

powerful class(peasants,

laborers etc);less powerfulsocial groups

(untouchables inIndia and their

equivalentselsewhere) thenthe chances of

beatificationdecrease and

those ofostracization

increase.

21

peasants could in theory be heard,which the peasant himself couldnot. As the dominant discoursew a s r e l i g i o u s t h e d i s s i d e n taddressed the world in terms ofreligious ideas. The establishmenteither suppressed him – womenhad few chances to be heard aswe have seen – as a heretic ora c c e p t e d h i m a s a s a i n t , aprophet or reformer of religion.Martin Luther comes to mind asjust such a dissident intellectual.He was accepted because, as ithappened, European pr inceswanted to break away from thehold of the pope and Lutherprovided them with the perfectexcuse to do so. However, if oneexamines the history of religiousreformers, saints, prophets andreligious figures, one finds out thatthey were not always accepted.Indeed, they were resisted muchmore often than otherwise. Somewere killed while others wereimprisoned in order to suppresstheir views.

Those whom we do hear abouti n t h e h i s t o r y b o o k s a r ementioned either in reverentialterms or reviled. Those amongthe latter category are invariablycalled ‘heretics’ – this being theterm for dissidents in the parlanceof the established clergy. The‘heretics’ are eliminated and theirvoice vanishes forever. Whathappens to those who are reveredis even more interesting. They arec o n t a i n e d , t h e i r i d e a s a r edefanged, their words becomeclichés. To begin with, they areplaced in the saintly category. Thevalues they preach are given lipservice but whenever these valuesc lash with the exigencies o fp o w e r, t h e y a r e i g n o r e d o rtravestied beyond recognition.

Thus we find people and statesrevering the Buddha, while payingl i p s e r v i c e t o p e a c e a n dnon–violence, actually engaging inwar like other societies. We findMuslims, while preaching theequality of all Muslims, actuallypractice a kind of apartheid,which looks like the notoriouscaste system of Hinduism. We

find Christian societies talkingabout the Sermon on the Mounton Sundays in church but havingno qualms about blowing up their‘enemies’ to smithereens. Thereally humanitarian message of thegreat p rophet s , the genuinereformers, is taken over by thepriestly establishment and theruler’s bureaucracy and military soas to suppress the people evenfurther and extract obedience andtaxes out of them. It is, however,true that some values do pass bythe priest and the king and theydo produce some benevolenteffects upon society too. However,if one takes the overall moralstandards of medieval Europe(where Christianity was dominant)or those of the Muslim worldtoday (which pays lip service toIslam as the dominant worldview),t h e y a r e n o t v e r y h i g h . I nmedieval Europe they burnt oldwomen as witches and the pooroften froze to death or starved. Inthe Muslim world they are moreinterested in persecuting peoplefor their beliefs and killing womenfor honor than in educating orfeeding the children. In short, thenoble values were travestied andtwisted around to support thesystem and not to challenge it.

The modern world is better thant h e m e d i e v a l o n e f o r t h edissident. The dominant fashionnow is relativism whereas the agesof faith were completely sure ofeverything. However, whereas onecan be as relative as one likesabout the old beliefs and moralsystems, it is not equally easy tob e s k e p t i c a l a b o u t t h estate–sponsored philosophy ofnationalism. Indeed, nationalism is

the new religion of the modernworld.

A dissident who goes against theconcept of the nation, or thephilosophy of nationalism as suchis likely to be ignored. Nobodyreally pays any attention to him,except possibly a few starry–eyeds t u d e n t s a n d m a y b e a f e wbald–headed philosophers. Thee s tab l i shment , i f i t i s w i s e ,pretends that it is very tolerantand allows him to pass his daysin a corner of academia. However,when a d i s s i den t speak s upagainst the nation, especially intimes of war, then the level oftolerance is much less. BertrandRussell was, after all, locked updur ing the Fi r s t World War.Chomsky, Edward Said, RobertFisk and a few others are stillfree. Is it because the concept oftolerance is more deeply ingrainednow than it ever was before or isit because the modern state,especially the United States, is sopowerful that it can accept moredissident voices than ever before?I be l i eve i t i s a b i t o f boththough the exact ratio couldnever be known.

Another phenomenon worthpointing out is that dissidentt h o u g h t i s r e n d e r e d l e s sthreatening, less potent, lesspowerful by being patronized bythe rich and the powerful. Lookat the fate of the classical talesof lovers like the proverbial Heerand Ranjha, Sassi and Punnhun,Soni and Mahinwal and others inmedieval India. Here were theses tor ie s ce lebrat ing love andclaiming that true lovers caredneither for wealth nor society andits norms, nor for the family.Their aim is to obtain each other.And these stories were taught toboys who could be disinherited ifthey chose to marry anyone oftheir choice though they could, ofcourse, secretly disport themselveswith prostitutes if they liked. Thel i terary c lass ics were tamed,emasculated and as, i t were,defanged. Similarly, the ghazalpoetry, which also celebratedpassion and nonconformism, was

forEDucating Social Change

...we find people andstates revering the

Buddha, while payinglip service to peace andnon–violence, actuallyengaging in war like

other societies.

22

made a convent ion ; a mereartifice; a combination of beautifulsounds with substance. The poetsthemselves had to subsist ongrant s g iven by a r i s toc ra t i cpatrons. And, obviously, anyonesubsisting on grants – even if heis a genius like Ghalib – cannotrea l l y cha l lenge the sys tem.

The modern world too containsdissent in the same way. Thegreat American universities payChomsky and Edward Said. Thepress barons pay Robert Fisk. Bydoing so they render them lessp o t e n t . I t i s n o t t h a t t h edissidents do not say what theyfeel like. The greatest of them –like the people named above –always do. However, there isa l w a y s a f e e l i n g a m o n g t h ehearers, the readers, that this ise i ther not cons idered rea l l ydangerous or, if it is, then howfair and honest the managers ofthe system must be who allowthis to be said.

In short by allowing dissidentopinion to be expressed anywhereand anyhow, the managers of thesystem of power manage to hidethe i r t rue f ace . Even wor sedamage occurs to the cause ofthe dissident when the elite turnsout in large numbers to listen tohim and appropriates him as anobject of curiosity. This is whathappened to Faiz in Pakistan. Intime, even in his lifetime butmostly after his death, powerfulbureaucrats took to quoting himand reading him. It became anindex of a gentleman’s eruditionand good taste to refer to Faiz sothat the poet’s revolutionarymessage was lost in the process.T h i s i s w h a t h a p p e n e d t oChomsky also when he lectured

in Lahore on 24 and Islamabadon 26 November this year. Theelite turned up in large numbersbecause Chomsky conferred status.

The elite, as we all know, wantsgratification of all kinds. It wantsintellectual gratification and thegratification which comes of beingconfirmed as a member of anelitist group. So, for the elite, theChomsky lectures were acts ofappropriation at par with thep o s s e s s i o n o f a n e w c a r o rbranded shoes. This is also thefate of the mystic saints andGhalib and even great religiousthinkers. The elite wants the bestof everything whether they arehorses or cars; mansions or villas;d e g r e e s f r o m b r a n d n a m euniversities or acquaintance withinte l lectua l f i gures o f wor ldstanding. This, rather than thelove of learning, explains the longqueues of people when celebritiesl i ke Toynbee o r Wolpe r t o rChomsky vis i t countr ies l ikePakistan.

But when the elite listens tothese great names, what happensto the message they want to give?If it is not a radical message itdoes not matter much. I t i s

forgotten in a few moments. If itis a radical message it may ber e t a i n e d a s p r o o f o f o n e ’ sbroadmindedness. It may even betrotted out in conversations as ac h e s s p i e c e t o d e f e a t a nopponent. However, it is alwaysdomest i ca ted , de fanged andcontained. The whole of it is toodangerous to become a plan ofaction and steps are taken to putit in the realm of the impracticaland thus diffuse its socially andpolitically disruptive potential.Despite all these arrangements tocontain dissent, it is surprisingthat some of it still gets out andpervades minds. Had this nothappened the world would neverhave changed at all.

But the world has changed and,at least in some ways, for thebetter. Even those who dropbombs on others do it in thename of peace not of the right ofconquest. Even those who pay apittance to starving workers donot call them slaves nor can theykill them when they like – atleastn o t l e g a l l y . T h e s e a r ehumanitarian ideas, pro–peopleideas, humane ideas – and theywere propagated by the greatdissidents of humanity. They weresuppressed, ignored, travestied anddefanged but still they survivedand have changed the world. Onecan well imagine how powerfulthey must have been to surviveand spread. And it is preciselybecause they are so powerful thatthe first reaction of those inpower is to nip them in the bud.That, indeed, is the greatestreason why one should valueideas and the people who createt h e m e v e n i f t h e y s e e m t othreaten whatever we hold dear.

About Dr. Tariq Rahman

forEDucating Social Change

Tariq Rahman, Ph.D., is an acclaimed Pakistani scholar specializing in linguistics. He is currently Professor of Linguistics andSouth Asian Studies at Quaid–e–Azam University, Islamabad, and was full professor at the University of Sana’a, Yemen andFulbright research scholar at the University of Texas, Austin, USA. As head of the Department of English, he has the distinctionof introducing a Masters program in Linguistics and English Language Training at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.He writes with simplicity and clarity and increasingly draws on the two disciplines of history and politics. Among his manypublished books, A history of Pakistani Literature in English remains a landmark.

The elite, as we allknow, wants

gratification of allkinds. It wants

intellectualgratification and thegratification which

comes of beingconfirmed as a

member of an elitistgroup.

23

many, the rise of the global economy marksthe final fulfilment of the great dream of a‘Global Village’. Almost everywhere you go

in today’s version of that dream you will findmulti–lane highways, concrete cities and a culturallandscape featuring grey business suits, fast–foodchains, Hollywood films and cellular phones. In theremotest corners of the planet, Barbie, Madonna andthe Marlboro Man are familiar icons. From Clevelandto Cairo to Caracas, Baywatch is entertainment andCNN news.

The world, we are told, is being brought together byvirtue of the fact that everyone will soon be able toindulge their innate human desire for a Westernised,urbanised consumer lifestyle. West is best, and joiningthe bandwagon brings closer a harmonious union ofpeaceable, rational, democratic consumers ‘like us’.

This worldview assumes that it was the chaoticdiversity of cultures, values and beliefs that laybehind the chaos and conflicts of the past: that asthese differences are removed, so the differencesbetween us will be resolved.

As a result, all around the world, villages, ruralcommunities and their cultural traditions, are beingdestroyed on an unprecedented scale by the impactof globalizing market forces. Communities that havesustained themselves for hundreds of years are simplydisintegrating. The spread of the consumer cultureseems virtually unstoppable.

Consumers R Us:The Development of the Global Monoculture

Historically, the erosion of cultural integrity was aconscious goal of colonial developers. As appliedanthropologist Goodenough explained:

“The problem is one of creating in another asufficient dissatisfaction with his present condition ofself so that he wants to change it. This calls forsome kind of experience that leads him to reappraisehis self–image and re–evaluate his self–esteem.”(Quoted, ibid, pp.111–112)

Towards this end, colonial officers were advised thatthey should:

“1: Involve traditional leaders in their programmes.

2: Work through bilingual, acculturated individualswho have some knowledge of both the dominant andthe target culture.

3: Modify circumstances or deliberately tamper withthe equilibrium of the traditional culture so thatchange will become imperative.

4: Attempt to change underlying core values beforeattacking superficial customs.” (Bodley, p.112)

It is instructive to consider the actual effect of thesestrategies on the well–being of individual peoples inthe South. For example, the Toradja tribes of thePoso district in central Celebes (now Sulawesi,Indonesia) were initially deemed completely incapableof ‘development’ without drastic intervention. Writingin 1929, A.C. Kruyt (Bodley p.129) reported thatthe happiness and stability of Toradja society wassuch that “development and progress were impossible”and that they were “bound to remain at the samelevel”.

Toradja society was cashless and there was neithera desire for money nor the extra goods that mightb e p u r c h a s e d w i t h i t . I n t h e f a c e o f s u c hcontentment, mission work proved an abject failureas the Toradjas had no interest in converting to a

forEDucating Social Change

BY HELENA NORBERG–HODGE

RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT

THE MARCH OF THEMONOCULTURE

“Around the world, the pressure toconform to the expectations of the

spreading, Western consumermonoculture is destroying cultural

identity, eliminating local economiesand erasing regional differences. Asa consequence the global economy

is leading to uncertainty, ethnicfriction, and collapse, where

previously there had been relativesecurity and stability”.

For

24

new religion, sending their childrento school or growing cash crops. So,in 1905 the Dutch East Indiesgovernment decided to bring thePoso region under firm control,using armed force to crush al lresistance. As a result of relocationa n d c o n t i n u a l g o v e r n m e n tharassment, mortality rates soaredamong the Toradjas. Turning to themissionaries for help, they were“converted” and began sending theirchildren to school. Eventually theybegan cultivating coconut and coffee plantations andbegan to acquire new needs for oil lamps, sewingmachines, and ‘better’ clothes. The self–sufficienttribal economy had been superceded, as a result ofdeliberate government action.

In many countries, schooling was the prime coerciveinstrument for changing “underlying core values” andproved to be a highly effective means of destroyingse l f–esteem, fos ter ing new ‘needs ’ , c reat ingdissatisfactions, and generally disrupting traditionalcultures. An excerpt from a French reader designedin 1919 for use by French West African school –children gives a flavour of the kinds of pressure thatwere imposed on children:

“It is ... an advantage for a native to work for awhite man, because the Whites are better educated,more advanced in civilization than the natives ... Youwho are intelligent and industrious, my children,always help the Whites in their task. That is aduty.” (Quoted, ibid, p.114)

The Situation Today:Cultural Erosion

Today, as wealth is transferred away from nationstates into the rootless casino of the money markets,the destruction of cultural integrity is far subtler thanbefore. Corporate and government executives nolonger consciously plan the destruction they wreak– indeed they are often unaware of the consequencesof their decisions on real people on the other sideof the world. This lack of awareness is fostered bythe cult of specialization that pervades our society –the job of a public relations executive is confined toproducing business–friendly soundbites – it is part ofthe job not to question the consequences of his orher corporation’s activities. The tendency toundermine cultural diversity proceeds, as it were, on‘automatic pilot’ as an inevitable consequence of thespreading global economy.

But although the methods employed by the mastersof the ‘Global Village’‚ are less brutal than in colonialtimes, the scale and effects are often even moredevastating. The computer and telecommunications

revolutions have helped to speed upand strengthen the forces behindthe march of a global monoculture,w h i c h i s n o w a b l e t o d i s r u p ttraditional cultures with a shockingspeed and finality which, surpassesanything the world has witnessedbefore.

Preying on the Young

Today, the cult of Western consumerconformity is descending on the less industrializedparts of the world like an avalanche. ‘Development’brings tourism, Western films and products and, morerecently, satellite television to the remotest cornersof the Earth. All provide overwhelming impressionsof luxury and power. Adverts and action films givethe impression that everyone in the West is rich,beautiful and brave, and leads a life filled withexcitement and glamour.

In the commercial mass culture which fuels thisillusion, advertisers make it clear that Westernizedfashion accessories, equal sophistication and ‘cool’. Indiverse ‘developing’ nations around the world, peopleare induced to meet their needs not through theircommunity or local economy, but by trying to ‘buyin’ to the global market. People are made to believethat, in the words of one advertising executive inChina, “imported equals good, local equals crap”.

Even more damagingly, people are encouraged toreject their own ethnic and racial characteristics –to feel shame at being who they are. Around theworld, blonde–haired blue–eyed Barbie dolls andthin–as–a–rake ‘cover girls’ set the standard forwomen. It is not unusual now to find East Asianwomen with eyes surgically altered to look moreEuropean, dark–haired Southern European womendying their hair blonde, and Africans with blue – orgreen–coloured contact lenses aimed at ‘correcting’dark eyes.

The one–dimensional, fantasy view of modern lifepromoted by the Western media, television andbusiness becomes a slap in the face for young peoplein the ‘Third World.’ Teenagers, in particular, aremade to feel stupid and ashamed of their traditionsand their origins. The people they learn to admireand respect on television are all ‘sophisticated’ citydwellers with fast cars, designer clothes, spotlesslyclean hands and shiny white teeth. Yet they findtheir parents asking them to choose a way of lifethat involves working in the fields and getting theirhands dirty for little or no money, and certainly noglamour. It is hardly surprising, then, that manychoose to abandon the old ways of their parents forthe siren song of a Western material paradise.

forEDucating Social Change

In many countries,schooling was the primecoercive instrument for

changing “underlying corevalues” and proved to bea highly effective means of

destroying self–esteem,fostering new ‘needs’,

creating dissatisfactions, andgenerally disruptingtraditional cultures.

25

For millions of young people in rural areas of theworld, modern Western culture appears vastly superiorto their own. Every day, they see incoming touristsspending as much as $1,000 dollars – the equivalentof a visitor to the US spending about $50,000 a day.Besides promoting the illusion that all Westerners aremulti–millionaires, tourism and media images also givethe impression that we never work – since for manypeople in ‘developing’ countries, sitting at a desk orbehind the wheel of a car does not constitute work.People are not aware of the negative social orpsychological aspects of Western life so familiar tous: the stress, the loneliness and isolation, the fearof growing old alone, the rise in clinical depressionand other ‘industrial diseases’ like cancer, stroke,diabetes and heart problems. Nor do they see theenvi ronmenta l decay, r i s ing cr ime, pover ty,homelessness and unemployment. While they knowtheir own culture inside out, including all of itslimitations and imperfections, they only ever see aglossy, exaggerated s ide of l i fe in the West .

Ladakh:The Pressure to Conform

My own experience among the people of Ladakhor ‘Little Tibet’, in the trans–Himalayan region ofKashmir, is a good, if painful, example of thisdestruction of traditional cultures by a facelessconsumer monoculture. When I first arrived in thearea 23 years ago, the vast majority of Ladakhis wereself–supporting farmers, living in small scatteredsettlements in the high desert. Though naturalresources were scarce and hard to obtain, theLadakhis had a remarkably high standard of living –with beautiful art, architecture and jewellery. Theyworked at a gentle pace and enjoyed a degree ofleisure unknown to most people in the West. MostLadakhis only really worked for four months of theyear, and poverty was an alien concept. In 1975, Iremember being shown around the remote village ofHemis Shukpachan by a young Ladakhi calledTsewang. It seemed to me, a newcomer, that all thehouses I saw were especially large and beautiful, andI asked Tsewang to show me the houses where thepoor lived. He looked perplexed fora moment, then replied, “we don’th a v e a n y p o o r p e o p l e h e r e . ”

In recent years, though, externalforces have caused massive andrapid disruption in Ladakh. Contactw i t h t h e m o d e r n w o r l d h a sdebilitated and demoralized a once– proud and self–sufficient people,who today are suffering from whatcan best be described as a culturalinferiority complex. When tourismdescended on Ladakh some yearsago, I began to realize how, looked

at from a Ladakhi perspective, our modern, Westernculture looks much more successful, fulfilled andsophisticated than we find it to be from the inside.

In traditional Ladkhi culture, all basic needs – food,clothing and shelter, were provided without money.All labour needed and given was free of charge, partof an intricate and long–established web of humanrelationships. Because Ladakhis had no need formoney, they had little or none. So when they sawoutsiders – tourists and visitors – coming in, spendingwhat was to them vast amounts o f cash oninessential luxuries, they suddenly felt poor. Notrealizing that money was essential in the West – thatwithout it, people often go homeless or even starve– they didn’t realize it’s true value. They began tofeel inadequate and backward. Eight years after

artificial scarcity for consumers,w h i c h h e i g h t e n s c o m p e t i t i v epressures.

As they lose the sense of securityand identity that springs from deep,long–lasting connections to peopleand place, the Ladakhis are startingto develop doubts about who theyare. The images they get fromoutside tell them to be different, toown more, to buy more and to thusbe ‘better ’ than they are. Thepreviously strong, outgoing womenof Ladakh have been replaced by anew generat ion – unsure o f themselves anddesperately concerned with their appearance. And astheir desire to be ‘modern’ grows, Ladakhis areturning their backs on their traditional culture. Ihave seen Ladakhis wearing wristwatches they cannotread, and heard them apologizing for the lack ofelectric lighting in their homes – electric lightingwhich, in 1975, when it first appeared, most villagerslaughed at as an unnecessary gimmick. Eventraditional foods are no longer a source of pride;now, when I’m a guest in a Ladakhi village, peopleapologies if they serve the traditional roasted barley,ngamphe, instead of instant noodles.

Ironically, then, modernisation – so often associatedwith the triumph of individualism – has produced aloss of individuality and a growing sense of personalinsecurity. As people become self–conscious andinsecure, they feel pressured to conform, and to liveup to an idealised image. By contrast, in thetraditional village, where everyone wore essentiallythe same clothes and looked the same to the casualobserver, there was more freedom to relax. As partof a close–knit community, people felt secure enoughto be themselves.

In Ladakh, as elsewhere, the breaking of localcultural, economic and political ties isolates peoplefrom their locality and from each other. At the sametime, life speeds up and mobility increases – makingeven familiar relationships more superficial and brief.C o m p e t i t i o n f o r s c a r c e j o b s a n d p o l i t i c a lrepresentation within the new centralised structuresincreasingly divides people. Ethnic and religiousdifferences began to take on a political dimension,causing bitterness and enmity on a scale hithertounknown. With a desperate irony, the monoculturecreates divisions that previously did not exist.

As the fabric of local interdependence fragments, sodo traditional levels of tolerance and co–operation.In villages near the capital, Leh, disputes andacrimony within previously close–knit communities,and even within families, are increasing. I have evenseen heated arguments over the allocation ofirrigation water, a procedure that had previously been

m a n a g e d s m o o t h l y w i t h i n aco–operative framework. The rise inthis kind of new rivalry is one ofthe most painful divisions that Ihave seen in Ladakh. Within a fewyears, growing competition hasactually culminated in violence –a n d t h i s i n a p l a c e w h e r e ,previously, there had been no groupconflict in living memory.

Deadly Divisions

The rise of divisions, violence andcivil disorder around the world are signs of resistanceto attempts to incorporate all cultures and peoplesinto the global monoculture. These divisions oftendeepen enough to result in fundamentalist reactionand ethnic conflict. Ladakh is by no means anisolated example.

In Bhutan, dif ferent ethnic groups had l ivedpeaceably together for hundreds of years. In the lastfew decades, however, pressures of modernization haveresulted in the widespread destruction of decentralizedlivelihoods and communities – unemployment, oncecompletely unknown, has reached crisis levels. Justlike in Ladakh, these pressures have created intensecompetition between individuals and groups for placesin schools, jobs and resources. As a result, tensionsbetween Buddhists and Bhutanese Hindus of Nepaleseorigin have led to an eruption of violence and evena type of ‘ethnic cleansing’.

Elsewhere, Nicholas Hildyard has written of how,when confronted with the horrors of ethnic cleansingin Yugoslavia or Rwanda, it is often taken forgranted that the cause must lie in ingrained andancient antagonisms. The reality, however, as Hildyardnotes, is that:

“scratch below the surface of inter–ethnic civilconflict, and the shallowness and deceptiveness of‘blood’‚ or ‘culture’ explanations are soon revealed.

Chossudovsky (p.1) writes:“In Kosovo, the economic reforms were conducive tothe concurrent impoverishment of both the Albanianand Serbian populations contributing to fuellingethnic tensions. The deliberate manipulation ofmarket forces destroyed economic activity andpeople’s livelihood creating a situation of despair.”

It is sometimes assumed that ethnic and religiousstrife are increasing because modern democracyliberates people, allowing old, previously suppressed,prejudices and hatreds to be expressed. If there waspeace earlier, it is thought it was the result ofoppression. But after more than twenty years offirsthand experience on the Indian subcontinent, Iam convinced that economic ‘development’ not onlyexacerbates existing tensions but in many casesactually creates them. By breaking down human scalestructures it destroys bonds of reciprocity and mutualdependence, while encouraging people to substitutetheir own culture and values with those of themedia. In effect, this means rejecting one’s ownc u l t u r e a n d r o o t s – o n e ’ s o w n i d e n t i t y .

Ultimately, while the myth makers of the ‘GlobalVillage’ celebrate values of togetherness, the disparity

in wealth between the world’s upper income bracketsand the 90 percent of people in the poor countriesrepresents a polarisation far more extreme thanexisted in the 19th century. Use of the word ‘village’– intended to suggest relative equality, belonging andharmony – obscures a reality of high–tech islands ofprivilege and wealth towering above oceans ofimpoverished humanity struggling to survive. Theglobal monoculture is a dealer in illusions – while itdestroys traditions, local economies and sustainableways of living, it can never provide the majority withthe glittering, wealthy lifestyle it promised them. Forwhat it destroys, it provides no replacement but afractured, isolated, competitive and unhappy society.

References1. Bodley, John. Victims of Progress. Mayfield

Publishing, 1982. P.111–112.

2. Hildyard, N. Briefing 11–Blood and Culture:Ethnic Conflict and the Authoritarian Right.The Cornerhouse, 1999.

3. Chossudovsky, M. Dismantling Yugoslavia,C o l o n i s i n g B o s n i a . O t t a w a , 1 9 9 6 . P. 1

forEDucating Social Change

SH IKSHANTAR The People’s Institute for Rethinking Education andDevelopment

VIMUKTSHIKSHA

Vimukt Shiksha, a bulletin of Shikshantar was created toliberate the vision and understanding of learning–sharing–doingfrom the walls of factory–schooling; and to develop opportunities

that liberate the full potential of human beings.

Shikshantar is a non–profitmovement, founded to challenge the

monopoly of factory schooling.

We are committed to creating spaceswhere individuals and organizationscan together engage in meaningfuldialogues to transform existing models

of education and development.

To learn more or to find out how to join ourefforts, please contact:

SHIKSHANTAR ANDOLAN21 Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313004

IndiaTel: (91) 294451303;Fax: (91) 294451941

Email: Shikshantar@yahoo.com

About Helena Norberg–HodgeHelena Norberg–Hodge is a leading analyst of the impact of the global economy on cultures around the world. A linguistby training, she was educated in Sweden, Germany, England and the United States, and speaks seven languages. She haslectured and taught extensively around the world – from the Smithsonian Institution to Harvard and Oxford universities. Ms.Norberg–Hodge is founder and director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), which runs programson four continents aimed at strengthening ecological diversity and community, with a particular emphasis on local food andfarming. She also directs the Ladakh Project, renowned for its groundbreaking work in sustainable development on the Tibetanplateau. She is the author of numerous works, including the inspirational classic, Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh,which – together with an award–winning film of the same title–has been translated into more than 30 languages. She isco–founder of the International Forum on Globalization and the Global Eco–village Network, and a recipient of the RightLivelihood Award, or “Alternative Nobel Prize”.

SHIKSHANTARThe People’s Institute for Rethinking Education and Development

w w w. s w a r a j . o r g / s h i k s h a n t a r

emerging of what really is right,which must mean it reflects ourbuilt–in conception of what’s right.And that’s something that welearn more about over time, weget more ins ight into what ’ scoming out of our nature. Theimplications are very substantial,t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t w e c a nunderstand them. It’s better tohave a conscious understanding ofwhat’s guiding you, to the extenty o u c a n , t h a n j u s t t o r e a c tintuitively, without understanding.That’s true whether you’re acarpenter reacting to how to formwood artifacts or a moral humanbeing reacting to how to decidebetween behaviors toward others.

we just make the thoughtexper iment tha t a who l e

generation of children were giventhe opportunity to grow up in at ru l y l ov ing and r e s p e c t f u lenvironment, through liberatorychild–rearing, so that they wouldbe able to fully develop theirmoral capacity, would it then, doyou think, be impossible to upholda social order based on vastinequality and elite rule?

wouldn’t say it’s impossible, butI w o u l d t h i n k i t w o u l d

g e n e r a t e v e r y c o n s i d e r a b l eresistance. Actually, it alwaysgenerates resistance. And it wouldgenerate even more in that case.It’s a striking fact, if you look atthe notion of equality, take ourown history, from the Greeks tothe present, it’s very striking thatjust about every leading figure hasregarded equality as an obviousdesideratum.

Take the earliest serious work onpolitics, Aristotle’s Politics. Wellhe points out that he’s not agreat fan of democracy, it’s thebest of a bunch of bad systems.But he said a democracy cannotfunction if there are extremes ofw e a l t h . E v e r y o n e h a s t o b eroughly equal – everyone has tobe middle class, he said. And infact, he called for a super welfarestate. He said in any democratic

forEDucating Social Change

From ZNet, 1998

Tor Wennerberg: One idea that I find extremely interesting andfascinating is the notion that just as our language capabilities aregenetically determined, so is our capacity – as human beings – formoral judgment. What do you see as the implications of the idea thatour moral capacity is innate?

Noam Chomsky: Well, for one thing, I don’t think it can reallybe much of a question. (That’s not to say we understand anythingabout it.) But, the fact of the matter is that we’re constantly makingmoral judgments in new situations, and over a substantial range we doit in a convergent fashion – we don’t differ randomly and wildly fromone another. Furthermore, young children do it, very quickly, and theyalso converge.

Of course, there are cultural and social and historical effects, but evenfor those to operate, they must be operating on something. If you lookat this range of phenomena, there are only two possibilities: one is, it’sa miracle, and the other is, it’s rooted in our nature. It’s rooted in ournature in the same sense in which language is, or for that matter,having arms and legs is. And it takes different forms depending on thecircumstances, just as arms and legs depend on nutrition, and languagedepends on my not having heard Swedish when I was six months oldand so on. But basically, it must be something that flows out of ournature, or otherwise we’d never use it in any systematic way, exceptjust repeating what happened before. So, it’s got to be there.

What are the implications? One implication is, weought to be interested in finding out what it is. We’dlearn something important about ourselves. You can’thope at this stage that we’re beginning to learnanything from biology. Biology doesn’t begin to reachthat far. In principle it should, but right now it dealswith much tinier problems. It has a hard timefiguring out how bees function, let alone humans.

But I think we can learn things by history andexperience. Take, say, the debate over big issues likeslavery or women’s rights and so on. It wasn’t justpeople screaming at each other. There werearguments, in fact, interesting arguments on bothsides. The pro–slavery side had very substantialarguments that are not easy to answer. But there wasa kind of common moral ground in which a goodbit of the debate took place, and as it resolved,which it essentially did, you see a consciousness

THE CHOMSKY ARCHIVE

Morality,Human Behaviour &

EducationNOAM CHOMSKY INTERVIEWED BY TOR WENNERBERG

If

It’s better tohave a

consciousunderstanding

of what’sguiding you,to the extent

you can,than just to

reactintuitively,

withoutunderstanding.

I

29

society, public resources will have tobe used in ways that he outlines,like communal meals, to ensure thatthe poor are relatively well off andthat there are no big differences.Otherwise, it’s impossible to have aproperly functioning democracy…Ithink this is a deep sentiment, andan understandable one, and we allrecognize, at some core of ourbeing, that there’s something quitewrong with one person havingsuperfluities and another personstarving. You find that all the waythrough the tradition, in people’sactions, in literature.

nd now, just looking at thelatest Human Development

Report, the figures on the combinedwealth of the 250–something richest individuals inthe world...

ut you noticed that they criticized it. They don’tsay, isn’t this wonderful? They say it’s something

wrong. In fact everybody says there’s somethingwrong. The only arguments that support it are saying,really everybody benefits because it trickles down.The arguments are ludicrous, but it’s interesting thatthey have to give the arguments. The arguments ford e f e n s i v e w a r a r e o f t e n e q u a l l y l u d i c r o u s .

we consider the likelihood that we as humanshave an instinct for creativity and a moral

instinct, what is it in the way our system ofeducation is functioning, that perverts or inhibitsthese instincts from fully developing themselves?

good educational system ought to nurture andencourage these aspects of human life and allow

them to flourish. But of course that has problems.For one thing it means that you will encouragechallenge of authority and domination. It willencourage questioning of powerful institutions. Thefact of the matter is that honesty, integrity, creativity,all these things we’re supposed to value, all run updramatically against the hierarchic, authoritarianstructure of the institutional framework in which welive. And since that structure is what sets the basicframework in which things happen, it becomesvirtually contradictory to implement the values thatyou talk about in church on Sunday morning. Soyou put the values to the side, to the SundayService, and get on with existing the rest of thetime. So Sunday is when you say, yeah, love andkindness and charity and equality and all that stuffare the soul of life. But the other six days of theweek you’re working within institutions of authorityand domination and control and self–enrichment andso on and you must comply or suffer even graverconsequences for not complying.

And schools are like that. So theway schools actually function – ofcourse it’s not 100 percent, becausethere is a contradiction, so all sortso f a s p e c t s s h o w t h e m s e l v e sdepending on the teacher and so on– but, by and large, there’s a verystrong tendency which works its wayout in the long run and on average,for the schools to have a kind off i ltering effect. They f i lter outindependence of thought, creativity,imagination, and in their place fosterobedience and subordination. I thinkeveryone knows this from their ownhistory. Like, how did I get to agood college myself? I was alwaysvery critical and dissident. But I gott h e r e b y s h u t t i n g u p ! I w e n t

through high school, thinking it was all really stupidand authoritarian and boring, but I was obedient, Iwas quiet, I wasn’t a behavior problem, I didn’t tellthe teacher what I thought he was teaching wasludicrous when I thought it was. And I made it toa good college.

There are people who don’t accept, who aren’tobedient. They are weeded out, they’re driving taxicabs, they’re behavior problems. The long–term effectof this is to reward and foster subordination; itbegins in kindergarten and goes all the way throughyour professional or other career. If you challengeauthority, you get in one or another kind of trouble.Again, it’s not 100 percent the case, and there aresome areas of life were it’s dramatically not the case,but on average and overwhelmingly in the outcomes,it holds.

forEDucating Social Change

About Noam ChomskyNoam Chomsky is one of the leading intellectuals of our time.He is also regarded as one of America’s most prominentpolitical dissidents. A renowned professor of linguists at MIT,he has authored over 30 political books dissecting such issuesas US interventionism in the developing world, the politicaleconomy of human rights and the propaganda role ofcorporate media. Chomsky has most kindly allowed EDucate!to reproduce from the plethora of his internationally acclaimedworks. This section will therefore present from his writingsand opinions every quarter.

A

...how did I get to a goodcollege myself? I was

always very critical anddissident. But I got thereby shutting up! I went

through high school,thinking it was all reallystupid and authoritarianand boring, but I was

obedient, I was quiet, Iwasn’t a behavior problem,

I didn’t tell the teacherwhat I thought he wasteaching was ludicrouswhen I thought it was.

And I made it to a goodcollege.

B

If

A

30

"There is a campaign under way to essentially destroythe public education system along with every aspect of

human life and attitudes and thought that involvesocial solidarity. It's being done in all sorts of ways.One is simply by under-funding. So, if you can makethe public schools really rotten, people will look for analternative. Any service that's going to be privatized,the first thing you do is make it malfunction so peoplecan say, "We want to get rid of it. It's not running.

Let's give it to Lockheed." ”

Noam Chomsky, The Progressive Magazine,September 1999

If one were to reconstruct the form of Islam, which has been made to degenerate over thecourse of history, re–assemble it in such a way that its spirit could return to a completebody, and transform the present disorientated elements of Islam into that spirit, as if thetrumpet of Israfil were to blow in the 20th century over a dead society and awaken itsmovement, power, spirit, and meaning, it is then that exemplary Muslim personalities likeMuhammad Iqbal would be reconstructed and reborn.

Muhammad Iqbal is not just a Muslim mystic who is solely concerned with mysticism or gnosis as wereGhazzali, Muhyi Din ibn Arabi, and Rumi. They emphasized individual evolution, purification of the soul,and the inner illuminated ‘self’. They only developed and trained a few people like themselves but, for the

ICON OF LIBERATION

BYDR. ALI SHARIATI

Muhammad Iqbal

A MANIFESTATION OFSELF–RECONSTRUCTION AND REFORMATION

31

most part, remained oblivious to the outside world,having been almost unaware of the Mongol attackand the subsequent despotic rule and suppression ofthe people.

Iqbal is also not like Abu Muslim, Hasan Sabah orSaladin Ayyubi and personalities like them who, inthe history of Islam, are simply men of the sword,power, war, and struggle and who consider theexercise of power and the defeat of the enemyenough to effect reform and revolution in the mindsof the people and in their social relationships.

Nor is Iqbal similar to those learned individuals likethe Indian, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who imaginedthat no matter in what situation Islamic society is(even if it is under the domination of a Britishviceroy), it can be revived with modern scholarlyinterpretations or with 20th century scientific andlogical commentaries on Islamic tenets and Quranicverses, as well as through profound philosophical andscholarly research.

Iqbal is not among some Western people whoconsider science to be sufficient for human salvation,for evolution, and for curing anguish. He is not oneof those philosophers who thinks meeting economicneeds is tantamount to meeting all human needs.Nor is he like his fellow countrymen, that is, thegreat Hindu and Buddhist thinkers who considerpeace of mind and sp i r i tua l sa lvat ion to betransmigration, or who consider the cycle of kannato Nirvana to be the fulfillment of the mission ofhumanity, and who imagine that in a society wherethere is even one hungry person, where slavery,deprivation and disgrace exist, one can still developpure, elevated spirits and disciplined, educated peoplewho have attained well–being and even a sense ofmorality!

No. Iqbal demonstrates through his very being andthrough his School of Thought that thoughts whichare related to Islam are thoughts which, while payingcareful attention to this world and the material needsof humanity, also give the human being a heart. Ashe himself says, “I find the most beautiful states oflife during the yearnings and meditations betweendaybreak and dawn”.

The greatest advice of Iqbal to humanity is: Have aheart like Jesus, thought like Socrates, and a handlike the hand of a Caesar, but all in one humanbeing, in one creature of humanity, based upon onespirit in order to attain one goal. That is, to be likeIqbal himself: A man who attains the height ofpolitical awareness in his time to the extent thatsome people believe him to be solely a politicalfigure and a liberated, nationalist leader who is a20th century anti–colonialist. A man who, inphilosophical thought, rises to such a high level thathe is considered to be a contemporary thinker and

philosopher of the same rank asBergson in the West today or ofthe same level as Ghazzali inIslamic history.

At the same time, he is a manwe regard as being a reformer ofIslamic society, who thinks aboutthe conditions of human andIslamic society, a society in whichhe himself lives and for whichhe performs jihad (i.e. strugglesnobly in the way of God) forthe salvation, awareness, andliberation of Muslim people. Hisefforts are not just casual andscientific or of the kind thatS a r t r e c a l l e d “ i n t e l l e c t u a ldemonstrat ions o f pol i t ica l ,pseudo–leftists” but rather of thekind exhibited by responsible individuals. He strugglesand strives and, at the same time, he is also a loverof Rumi. He journeys with him in his spiritualascensions and burns from the lover’s flames,anguishes, and spiritual anxieties. This great man doesnot become one–dimensional, does not disintegrate,does not become a one–sided or one–dimensionalMuslim. He is a complete Muslim. Even though hel o v e s Ru m i , h e i s n o t o b l i t e r a t e d b y h i m .

Iqbal goes to Europe and becomes a philosopher. Hecomes to know the European Schools of Philosophyand makes them known to others. Everyone admitsthat he is a 20th–century philosopher, but he doesnot surrender to Western thinking. On the contrary,he conquers the West. He lives with a critical mindand the power of choice in the 20th century and inthe Western civilization. He is devoted to and adisciple of Rumi to an extent that does notcontradict and is not incompatible with the authenticdimensions of the Islamic spirit.

Sufism says “As our fate has been pre–determined inour absence, if it is not to your satisfaction, do notcomplain”. Or, “If the world does not agree with youor suit you, you should agree with the world”. ButIqbal, the mystic, says “If the world does not agreewith you, arise against it!” “The world” means thedestiny and life of human beings. The human beingis a wave, not a static shoreline. His or her beingand becoming is in motion. What do I mean? It isto be in motion. In the mysticism of Iqbal, which isneither Hindu mysticism nor religious fanaticism, butQuranic mysticism, the human being must changethe world. Quranic Islam has substituted “heavenlyfate” in which the human being is nothing, with“human fate” in which the human being plays animportant role. This is the greatest revolutionary, aswell as progressive and constructive principle whichIslam has created by its world view, philosophy oflife, and ethics.

forEDucating Social Change

The greatestadvice of Iqbalto humanity is:

Have a heartlike Jesus,

thought likeSocrates, and a

hand like thehand of a

Caesar, but allin one humanbeing, in one

creature ofhumanity, basedupon one spirit

in order toattain one goal.

32

The greatest criticism that humanism and liberalintellectuals have leveled and continue to levelagainst religion is that religious beliefs have beeninterpreted as being founded on absolute determinismor Divine Will, and thus the absolute subjugation ofhuman will, so the human being is logically reducedto being weak in terms of free–choice in relation tothe Absolute. If this were true, it would be adisgrace. It would be servitude and a means for thenegation of power, freedom, and responsibility. Itwould be to submit to the status quo, to ‘whateverwill be, will be’, to accept any fate which is imposedupon the human being in this world and to admitto the futility and uselessness of life. As past, present,and future events have been and will continue tobe dictated by fate, in this view, any criticism orobjection, then, or efforts to attain our hearts’ desiresor to change the situation, must be subjugated to“whatever has been pre–destined for us”. In this way,the human being’s attempts to change, convert, anda m e n d t h e s t a t u s q u o b e c o m e i m p o s s i b l e ,unreasonable, and ill–advised.

But in the philosophy of Islam, although the OneGod has Absolute Power and is Almighty andalthough for Him is the Creation, Guidance,Expediency, and Rule over the universe, “His is theCreation and the Command,” (7:54), at the sametime, the human being, in this extensive universe, isconsidered in such a way that while one cannotdissociate oneself from the rule of God and fromDivine Sovereignty, one can live freely. A Muslimhas free will and the power to rebel and surrender.Thus, he or she is responsible and the maker of hisor her own image. “Every soul is held in pledge forwhat he earns” (74:38) “And the human being shallhave nothing but what he strives for” (53:30).

In his mystic journey with the Quran, Iqbal describedthis principle, that is, the principle of authenticity ofdeed and responsibility towards human beings, thatwhich humanists, existentialists, or radicals endeavorto help humanity achieve by negating religion anddenying God. These people, quite rightly, see thereligion and the God conceived by the minds ofhuman beings to be incompatible with humanfreedom, esteem, authenticity, and responsibility,whereas Islam, without resorting to philosophicaljustification and interpretation, clearly declares “theday when the human being shall see what his twohands have sent before” (78:40).

With his outlook, his orientation to faith and hisIslamic mysticism, Iqbal passed through all thephilosophical and spiritual states of this age. It canbe said that he was a Muslim migrant who appearedin the depths of the Indian Ocean and rose to thehighest peaks of honor of the majestic Europeanmountains, but he did not remain there. He returnedto us to offer his nation – that is, to offer us –whatever he had learned on his wondrous journey.

Through his personality, I see that once again Islam

with the caravan of society and cannot choose a wayseparate from it.

This is why we wish to have a School of Thoughtand action which both responds to our philosophicalneeds, and at the same time develops a thinkingbeing who is accepted by the world, recognized bycivilization and the new culture of the world, andnot one alienated from us and our rich culturalresources. We wish for a School of Thought andaction which nurtures a human being who is closelyaware of our culture and all of our good spiritualand religious assets, who is not alienated from thetimes, and who does not live in the 4th or 5thcentury. We long for it to develop a human beingwho can think, who has a scientific mind, yet whodoes not remain negligent of the anguish, life,captivity, and hardships of his people. We desire thedevelopment of a human being who, even if hethinks about the real and material anguish ofhumanity and about the present confusions anddifficulties of human society or his own society, doesnot forget the ideal human being or the significanceof the human being or the eternal mission ofhumanity in history, and does not lower all humanideals to the level of mater ial consumption.

All that we seek in these various domains can befound in Iqbal, because the only thing that Iqbal did– and this is the greatest success of Iqbal as aMuslim in an Islamic society in the 20th century –was that, based upon the knowledge he had of therich new and old cultures, he was able to develophimself, based on the model which his ideologicalSchool – that is Islam – gave. This is the greatestsuccess of Iqbal in an Islamic society in the 20thcentury. We do not say that he is a perfect humanbeing. No. We do not say he is a symbolic person.No. He is a personality who, after his disintegration,had been reconstructed into a complete Muslimperson and a perfect Islamic personality in the 20thcentury. This reconstruction is the starting point fromwhich we Muslim intellectuals must ourselves begin.We must feel our greatest responsibility to be inreconstructing ourselves and our society. Sayyid Jamalwas the first who produced such a feeling ofre–awakening. Asking “Who are you? Who wereyou?”, Iqbal was the first fruit from the seed of themovement which Sayyid Jamal planted in this people.The first product is a great model, an example, andour very awakening. As Easterners, we are affiliatedto this part of the world. We are connected withthis history. We are human beings confronted bynature and by the West.

But what do we mean when we say Iqbal was areformer? Can reform really save a society from allof its misfortunes, anguish, and difficulties? Must nota sudden, severe, deep–rooted revolution take placein thought and in relation to society? When we sayIqbal was a reformer, those present who are familiar

with the expressions prevalent among the educatedclass think “reform” means something which is theopposite of “revolution” in a socio–political sense.Most often when we say “reform”, we mean gradualchange or change in the superstructure, and whenwe say “revolution”, we mean a sudden, abruptchange in the infrastructure, a total collapse andthen total reconstruction. But when in these changeswe say that Iqbal was a reformer, we are notreferring to slow and gradual change in society. Ourintention is not gradual change or external reform,but we use this word in its general sense, which alsoincludes the meaning of “revolution”.

When we say Iqbal was a reformer or that the greatthinkers after Sayyid Jamal are known for being thegreatest reformers of the century in the world, it isnot in the sense that they supported gradual andexternal change in society. No! They were supportersof a deep–seated revolution, a revolution in thought,in views, in feelings; an ideological and culturalrevolution. Iqbal, Sayyid Jamal, Kawakibi, MuhammadAbduh, Ibn Ibrahim and members of the MaqriblJlama Association are great men who shook the Eastin the last one hundred years. Their reforms or, stillbetter, “reforming revolutions”, stand upon thisprinciple, for they believe that individual reform isno longer an answer. It is an altogether differentmatter if reform affects society. A person can nolonger think and live in a way which he has chosenfor himself, nor accept any influence from his age orhis society, and still develop himself into a pure andreal human being in a corrupt age and in adegenerate society, for if this were to be possible,then “social responsibility and commitment” wouldmake no sense.

About Dr. Ali Shariati

Dr. Ali Shariati was born in Mazinan, a suburb of Mashhad,Iran. In his years at the Teacher’s Training College, he cameinto contact with youth who were from the lower economicstrata of the society and experienced poverty and hardshipon a daily basis. At the age of 18, he began teaching. Dr.Shariati, an honor student, received his doctorate in sociologyin 1964 from Sorbonne University. As a Muslim sociologist,he sought to explain the problems of Muslim societies in thelight of Islamic principles – explaining them and discussingthem with his students. For this reason, the regime feltobliged to discontinue his courses at the university. He wasneither a reactionary fanatic who opposed anything that wasnew without any knowledge nor was he of the so–calledwesternized intellectuals who imitated the west withoutindependent judgment. Dr. Shariati constantly fought to createhumanitarian values in the young generation, a generationwhose values have been defaced with the help of the mostscientific and technical methods. He vigorously tried tore–introduce the Quran and Islamic history to the youth sothat they may find their true selves in all their humandimensions and fight all the decadent societal forces. Dr.Shariati wrote many books. In all his writings, he tried topresent a clear and genuine picture of Islam. He stronglybelieved that if the intellectual and new generation realizedthe truth of this faith, attempts toward social change wouldbe successful.

34

forEDucating Social Change

e h a v e e n t e r e d ar e a l i t y – z o n e a l r e a d y

captured by its opposite: unreality.It is a world where nobody reallywanted to venture. It is a worldwhere order has given way todisorder, where reason has givenway to unreason, where reality iscompromised by truth, where theonce noble search for explanationshas been replaced by a dizzyingvortex of plastic flags, stars andstripes rhinestone belts, coffeeklatch war strategists, Sundaybarbecue patrioteering, militantdenunciations of war protestors, ageneralized fear of whatever liesahead, xenophobic hostility, andpoint–blank outrage.

It is world of pure intensity whereto seek refuge in the sanctuary ofreflection is to engage in an actof unpardonable treason. Wherepreviously silenced realities arenow guaranteed never to beheard. It is truly a world turned,in the words of Eduardo Galeano,“ u p s i d e d o w n ” . I t i s alooking–glass world that “rewardsin reverse: it scorns honesty,punishes work, prizes lack ofscruples, and feeds cannibalism. Itsprofessors slander nature: injustice,they say, is a law of nature”.Within this looking–glass world,t h a t w o r l d t h a t e x i s t supside–down, there exists the“ look ing–g l a s s s choo l ” tha t“teaches us to suffer reality, notto change it; to forget the past,not learn from it; to accept thefuture, not invent it. In its hallsof criminal learning, impotence,amnesia, and resignation arerequired courses”. It is the reversemirror image of the democracythat we thought we knew, ademocracy for which many hadf o u g h t a n d s o m e h a d d i e d .

It is a world where it is safer to

multipolar and muticivilizationdivisions with greater potential forconflict. Here Islamic culturesconveniently collide with Westernones with the force of tectonicplates.

I f t h e c o m f o r t o f e a s yexplanations feels familiar it isbecause it is part of the wilfulcompliance to the conservativestatus quo that we were taught sowell in schools? For those indanger o f d i s sent , watchdogo r g a n i z a t i o n s a b o u n d . T h eAmerican Council of Trustees andAlumni (founded by SenatorJoseph Lieberman and Lynne V.Cheney) recently issued a reportcondemning the response of manyun ive r s i t y p ro fe s so r s to theSeptember 11 attacks. Titled“Defending Civilization: How OurUniversities Are Failing America,and What Can Be Done AboutI t” , the repor t i t emizes 117incidents that allegedly reveal atreasonous refusal on the part ofrad ica l p ro fes sor s to de fendcivilization. In other words, someprofessors have the temerity to becritical of Bush’s war on terrorism.Manning Marable declares that“[w]e will inevitably see ‘dissidentprofiling’: the proliferation ofelectronic surveillance, rovingwiretapping, harassment at theworkplace, the infiltration anddisruption of anti–war groups, andthe stigmatization of any critics ofUS militarism as disloyal andsubversive”.

More than eve r, t oday i t i simperative that we understandwhy developing countries regardthe United States with increasingcynicism. While on the one handthe US seeks cooperation fromthe world in its war on terrorism,it often refuses to cooperate withother nations unless it is in thedirect interest of the UnitedStates to do so. As Dean Bakerasserts, more than 35 millionpeople in the developing worldare HIV positive. In order toaddress this problem, the UnitedStates pledged $200 million, whichamounts to s ix hours o f thePentagon budget. At the same

time, those countries who providelow–cost drugs by ignoring thepatents of US pharmaceuticalcompanies are threatened withsevere trade sanctions by the USgovernment. Most of what officiala i d d o e s g e t d i s t r i b u t e d(approximately 0.15 percent ofGDP) goes to reward politicalloyalty, with Israel and Egyptbeing the two largest recipients.Marable captures some of the rootcauses of this cynicism when heasserts:

“The United States governmentc a n n o t e n g a g e i n e f f e c t i v emultilateral actions to suppressterrorism, because its behaviorillustrates its complete contemptfor international cooperation. TheUnited States owed $582 millionin back dues to the Un i tedNations, and it paid up onlywhen the September 11 attacksjeopardized its national security.Republican conservatives demandthat the United States should beexempt from the jurisdiction of anInternational Criminal Court, apermanent tribunal now beinge s t a b l i s h e d a t T h e H a g u e ,Netherlands. For the 2001 WorldConference Against Racism, theUS government authorized theallocation of a paltry $250,000,compared to over $10 millionprovided to conference organizersby the Ford Foundation. For threedecades, the US refused to ratify

t h e 1 9 6 5 U n i t e d N a t i o n sConvention on the Elimination ofRacism. Is it any wonder thatm u c h o f t h e T h i r d Wo r l dquestions our motives?”

In the face of such a hawkishscenario, and in the midst ofwidespread apprehension about themotives behind the US war onterrorism among Third Worldpeoples, is a particularly difficulttime to call for rethinking therole that the United States playsin the global division of labor.T h e r e c e n t e v e n t s o fmind–shatter ing apoca lypt icdimensions, the sudden unfoldingnightmare that saw death anddes t ruc t ion un lea shed upont h o u s a n d s o f i n n o c e n t a n du n s u s p e c t i n g v i c t i m s i nWashington and New York City,s u c h t h a t t h e g a t e s o f h e l lappeared to have been blownopen, have made it difficult formany United States citizens tocomprehend why their familiarw o r l d h a s s u d d e n l y t u r n e dupside–down. Those of us whopractice critical or revolutionarypedagogy take a strong positionagainst terrorism. Even when youare careful to denounce terrorismas a crime against humanity, thesedays i t i s dangerous to be aradical educator. This is becausethe corporations and big business,who control the media, will notpermit a debate on the rootcauses of terrorism. They neverhave.

Many people reject the idea thatt h e U n i t e d S t a t e s e x p o r t sterrorism. Some no doubt find itdifficult to understand why apowerfu l nat ion such as theUnited States would need toe m p l o y w h a t a r e g e n e r a l l yconsidered to be the weapons ofthe weak . Klare asserts that“Throughout history, the weaponof those who see themselves asstrong in spirit but weak in powerhas been what we call terrorism.Terrorism is the warfare of theweak against the strong: if youhave an army you wage a war; ifyou lack an army you engage insuicide bombings and other acts

forEDucating

of terrorism. (Remember: this isex a c t l y w h a t t h e A m e r i c a nRevolution looked like to theBritish, the strong force in 1775.)”

Chomsky takes issue with thisview of terrorism. He explainsthat, far from being a weapon ofthe weak, terrorism is primarilyt h e w e a p o n o f t h e s t r o n g :That is the culture in which welive and it reveals several facts.One is the fact that terrorismworks. It doesn’t fail. It works.Violence usually works. That’sworld history. Secondly, it’s a veryserious analytic error to say, as iscommonly done, that terrorism isthe weapon of the weak. Likeother means of violence, it’sprimarily a weapon of the strong,overwhelmingly, in fact. It is heldto be a weapon on the weakbecause the strong also controlthe doctrinal systems and theirterror doesn’t count as terror.

Act s o f t e r ro r i sm can be a sbackward and horrific as acts ofcapitalist–driven imperialism andin no circumstances can they bejustified. At the same time, thecruelly – imposed carnage fromthe r epugnant and immora lterrorist attacks witnessed recentlyon the World Trade Center andthe Pentagon must not be usedby react ionary forces in theUnited States government andmedia to turn public sentimentagainst critics of social injustice orto curtain the civil liberties ofcitizens. Nor must critics of UScapitalism, and I count myself asone of them, simply list all thehor r ib le ac t s o f imper ia l i smengaged in historically by theUni ted S ta te s – a l ong andb loody l i s t , t o be su re – a sevidence of or a rationale for whythese terrorist acts occurred. Theyoccurred without demand, orproclamation.

These acts were demonic crimesaga ins t work ing peop le . Forinstance, hundreds of Latinos werekilled in the attack on the WorldTrade Center, more victims thanfrom any other nation outside ofthe United States. They worked

at Windows on the World, in theoffice cafeterias, cleaning services,and delivery companies and littlemedia attention has so far beenpaid to them. And while we cangain a deeper understanding ofthese events by recognizing howthe United States is implicated ina long history of crimes againstthe oppressed throughout theworld – including interventions inpost–cold war theaters – thishistory in no way justifies theterrorist attacks.

Such attacks have been propelledb y r e a c t i o n a r y r e l i g i o u sfundamental ist ideology thatrepresents only a small reactionarycadre of followers of Islam. AsEdward Said remarks: “No cause,no God, no abstract idea canjust i fy the mass s laughter ofinnocents, most particularly whenonly a small group of people arein charge of such actions and feelthemselves to represent the causewithout having a real mandate todo so”. At the same time wemust oppose in the United Statesthe senseless xenophobic statism,militarism, erosion of civil liberties,and quest for permanent andi n d i s c r i m i n a n t m i l i t a r yinterventions overseas within thefracture zones of geo–politicalinstability that have followed inthe wake of the attacks, all ofwhich can only have unsalutaryconsequences for world peace.Th i s i s pa r t i cu la r l y c ruc ia l ,especially in light of another ofSaid’s trenchant observations –that “bombing senseless civiliansw i t h F – 1 6 s a n d h e l i c o p t e rgunships has the same structureand effect as more conventionalnationalistic terror”.

It is surely the case that USinvolvement in the Third Worldin general and the Islamic worldin particular has created – andc o n t i n u e s t o c r e a t e – t h ebackground conditions which arelikely to lead to terrorism. Thetaproot of terrorism surely lies inthe fertile soil of imperialism –both military and economic. It isnourished by capitalist greed andfertilized by the defeated dreamsof the vanquished poor. Theterrorism of 9–11 was rhizogenic– i t s r o o t s a n d f i l a m e n t sinterlaced with US foreign policyand practices. To say this is notto take a “hate America” positionor a “chickens have come hometo roost” position as it is to takea “wake up America and don’t bemisled by your leaders” position.We cannot divorce the recentact s o f te r ror i sm f rom the i rhistorical context.

At a time when media punditsand high level government leadersare patrioteering for the cameras,cal l ing for more blood to bespilled in the name of democracyand freedom, and clamoring forthe killing of people who are noteven directly involved in theterrorist attacks, we need to joint o g e t h e r i n a r e n e w e dcommitment to global justice.

forEDucating Social Change

About Peter MclarenPeter Mclaren is Professor UrbanSchooling at Univers ity of LosAngeles. He began his teachingcareer in his hometown of Toronto,Canada, in an inner–city school.Mclaren completed his Ph.D at TheOntario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto, in1983. In 1985 Mclaren worked withHenry Giroux to create the Centerfor Education and Cultural Studies,at Miami University of Ohio, wherehe served as both Associate Directorand Director. While at Miami hewas awarded the title of RenownedScholar in Residence School ofEducation and Allied Professions. AFellow of the Royal Society of Artsand Commerce, and Associate ofMassey College, Professor Mclaren isthe author and editor of over 35books. He lectures world wide andhis work has been translated into 15languages.

Acts of terrorism canbe as backward andhorrific as acts ofcapitalist–driven

imperialism and inno circumstances can

they be justified.37

THE GLOBAL MEDIAThe New Missionaries of Corporate CapitalismEdward Herman & Robert McChesney

Globalization and privatization havetaken the world by storm. The globalmedia system, mainly supported bythe US, has branched in all countriesa n d l a i d t h e g r o u n d f o r U Sdominated and controlled globalmedia system. ‘The Global Media’,written by two prominent scholars oftoday, Edward S. Herman and RobertMcChesney, outlines the emergenceof the global media system anddocuments the political, social andtechnological events, which have ledto it’s expansion and progress. Thepowerful content highlights how global

media facilitates global expansion by tracing it to its veryroots of origin through a chronicle of events starting fromthe incept ion o f the g lobal era to i t s current r i se .

The main players in the global media systems are exposed;the 10 largest transnational corporations which took the worldby storm when they emerged after the Industrial Revolutionin the 20th century. They created linkages and alliances andmanaged to establish themselves as global enterprises.

These corporations helped US control the films, bookpublishing agencies, newspapers, and television programsthroughout the world. This global dominance of US andBritain made English the universal language of the world.These include: Hollywood’s expansion of its exports along withthe development of movie theatres around the world in the60s, the flourishing of the book publishing business in the1970s, emergence of television, the liberalization andprivatization of enterprises due to the cross–border expansionof the transnational corporations in the 1980s, the dominancyof three media industries; book publishing, film productionand recorded music in the 1990s, expansion of films andmulti–screen theatre complexes around the world, and thearrival of the Internet, digitalization of the global TV,establishment of the copyright protection laws and largecompany ventures in the mid 90s.

‘Global Media’ explains the establishment, working andholdings of the first and second tiers of global media firms,their joint ventures and their steps towards total dominationof the world’s media market. In the last chapters of the book,seven brief national and regional case studies have beenpresented. These studies are of four developed nations,Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and Italy and of threedeveloping nations Brazil, Caribbean and India. These casestudies depict how local media evolved in these countries andthe impact of US intervention and domination on their mediaindustry. It also sheds l ight on the arrogance of USdomination on Latin American media industry that has led

to the implantation of alien cultures and values in otherThird World countries.

This book will help the readers analyze the dynamics ofmedia, how it controls emotions like hatred, love andamusement with its tactics, programs and commercialization.It elaborates how the Western culture and the ‘Americanized’way of living have been ingrained in the minds of people allaround the world. It gives the reader a comprehensive insightof control – from media to mind.

TRANSFORMINGOURSELVES TRANSFORMINGTHE WORLDAn Open Conspiracy for Social ChangeBrian K. Murphy

Today, millions of social activistsaround the world, working for thebetterment of society, are showingsigns of despair and hopelessness.Many are expressing loss of hope anddirection. The author describes theatrocities and injustices of the world,which have shown us high tolls ofdeath rates, poverty, malnutrition andwidening gaps between the rich andthe poor. This huge disparity ofglobalization is highly prevalent allaround the world and is worsening

on a daily basis. The poorest are becoming poorer and thericher are gaining more and becoming stronger. The carnagebeing committed on humans by humans is gaining steadilyand violence has become the norm of human existence.Human freedom is being cruelly repressed.

‘Transforming Ourselves Transforming the World’ focuses onthe activists who are struggling to confront these injustices.It refers to values such as peace, dignity and justice andproposes a framework for action and learning. This frameworkcalled ‘political epistemology’ explains that a positive andprogressive social organization is not only possible but alsonatural whereby humans are inherently capable of resistingrepression and oppression. It directly deals with the inertia ineach individual that prevents him from taking a step towardschange. It explores human capacities and capabilities tochange the present situation and presents strategies that willhelp us initiate the transformation process. Individuals areguided to conspire together and each other in choosingfreedom and making it a reality. This book is a wake–up callfor the human spirit, which bestows upon us the liberation,to know, understand and change.

The book targets community organizers, potential activists,young adults and students, progressive educators, socialtheorists and scholars who have all their lives aimed towardsgaining insights into a social struggle and those who want tofight against the injustices of the world. It helps them bringthe i r thought s on s t rugg l e f o r f r eedom to r ea l i t y.

Murphy has worked as a social activist focusing on areas suchas literacy, poverty, gender, race and class issues, especiallythe rights of immigrants and refugees. This book emergedfrom his adamant resolve to engage with people as mutualsubjects of their own lives and history.

forEDucating Social Change

Books for a

worldBETTERBETTER

N a u r e e n M u s h t a q

Year of Publication: 1997Published by: Cassell

Year of Publication: 1999Published by: Zed Books Ltd.

38

The webs i te sc reams w i th manyaccusations in response to the severepolicies of World Bank and IMF forthe developing and poor countries. Itfeatures areas , which have beenaffected the most by the damaging

schemes of these controlling institutions: education, women, health,debt, privatization and structural adjustment. This site causticallyarticulates the harsh realities that stem from the voracious greed ofworld powers to accumulate wealth and resources. The slogan at thetop “Our dream is a world full of poverty” raises several questions inthe mind of the viewer, regarding how dark the other side of thepicture could possibly be. This question is soon answered. A sectionnamed “First Church of $$ Almighty Dollar” jovially informs the readerhow spiritual values have been toppled by financial interests in today’ssociety. “Online Banking” cautions poor countries that the intrusion of corporate giants such as Citibank, Coca–Cola,D o m i n o , S h e l l , M c D o n a l d ’ s , a n d E x x o n M o b i l w o u l d s i m p l y b r i n g p o v e r t y a n d m i s e r y t o t h e m .

Other sections of the website contain debates and discussions on diverse issues related to development and the environment.They present the misery and despair of human society brought on through brutal globalization and the centralizationof world resources. The site also provides startling facts and figures about the impairment of the ecosystem in India atthe cost of the “Green Revolution” since the 1960s and the debt which has trapped Chad and many other Africancountries due to the rigid policies of leading global financial institutions. Serious protestors are urged to forge a legalbattle against the inhumane and unjust attitude of the world powers which are interested more in protecting their vestedinterests rather than human and democratic values. The site also connects readers with several other articles discussingissues like education, women, health, debt, and the implications of policies in developing countries of the world.

This website will be very useful for critical readers who want to develop profound insights into the exploitation of resourcesand human rights by powerful institutions. One does not need to be an expert in financial matters or possess a degreein economics to understand the content of the website. The only thing required is ‘critical consciousness’.

Backed by government institutions, big businesses constitute a fabricof exploitation and oppression to benefit the few with access to theprofits and controls of decision–making. We all know the results –wage slavery, hunger, break up of independence and self–sufficiencyof local communities, abuse of resources, despoliation of theenvironment and the suppression of people’s genuine needs and desires.

This site entails the controversies faced by major corporations of theworld. Named “beyond McDonald’s”, this site not only containsinformation regarding the giant food chain McDonald’s, it also presentsthe real picture behind the facade of major corporations such as Shell,Body Shop, Nestle, Levers and Procter & Gamble to name a few.McDonald’s, according to the website, is not the only corporation inneed of public scrutiny and debate but due to its massive publicprominence and indisputable arrogance it has simply been used as asymbol of all corporations pursuing their profits at any price.

Carrying information regarding various companies in the Oil, Pharmaceutical, Baby milk, Chemicals, Food, Drink andTobacco sectors, it highlights how some of them have either supported oppressive regimes, conducted irresponsible marketing,forged links with the arm trades, initiated environmental destruction, caused animal suffering, exploited workers, and beenresponsible for land rights disputes or censoring critics. The debating rooms section is a global forum for discussion anddebate about McDonald’s and all that it stands for. It allows the participants to raise questions and issues which otherwiseare not welcome to the media or other powerful groups. The viewers can express opinions about issues that range froma general discussion on McDonald’s, its workers and policies to other multinationals, capitalism or anything else that aperson feels like stating.

Websites for a

worldBETTERBETTER

www.mcspotlight.org/beyond

www.whirledbank.org

By: Aziz Kabani & Somaiya Ayoob

39

forEDucating Social Change

forEDucating Social Change

Neoliberalism is thedefining politicaleconomic paradigmof our t ime – i tr e f e r s t o t h ep o l i c i e s a n dprocesses whereby

a relat ive handful of privateinterests are permitted to controlas much as possible of social lifei n o r d e r t o m a x i m i z e t h e i rpersonal profit. Associated initiallyw i t h R e a g a n a n d T h a t c h e r,neoliberalism has for the past twodecades been the dominant globalpolitical economic trend adoptedby political parties of the center,much of the traditional left, andthe right. These parties and thepolicies they enact represent theimmediate interests of extremelywealthy investors and less thanone thousand large corporations.

Aside from some academics andm e m b e r s o f t h e b u s i n e s scommunity, the term neoliberalismis largely unknown and unused bythe public at large, especially inthe United States. There, to thecontrary, neoliberal initiatives arecharacter ized as f ree marketpolicies that encourage privateenterprise and consumer choice,

reward personal responsibility andentrepreneurial initiative, andundermine the dead hand of theincompetent, bureaucratic, andparasitic government, which cannever do good (even when wellintentioned, which it rarely is). Ageneration of corporate–financedpublic relations efforts, has givent h e s e t e r m s a n d i d e a s anear–sacred aura. As a result,these phrases and the claims theyimply rarely require empiricaldefense , and are invoked torationalize anything from loweringt a x e s o n t h e w e a l t h y a n dscrapping environmental regulationsto dismantling public educationand social wel fare programs.Indeed, any activity that mighti n t e r f e r e w i t h c o r p o r a t ed o m i n a t i o n o f s o c i e t y i sautomatically suspect because itwould impede the workings of thefree market, which is advanced ast h e o n l y r a t i o n a l , f a i r, a n ddemocratic allocator of goods andservices. At their most eloquent,proponents of neoliberalism soundas if they are doing poor people,the environment, and everybodyelse a tremendous service as theyenact policies on behalf of thewealthy few.

The economic consequences ofthese policies have been the samejust about everywhere, and exactlywhat one would expect: a massiveincrease in social and economicinequality, a marked increase insevere deprivation for the poorestnations and peoples of the world,a disastrous global environment,an unstable global economy, andan unprecedented bonanza for thewealthy. Confronted with thesefacts, defenders of the neoliberalorder claim that the spoils of thegood life will invariably spread to

the broad mass of the population– a s l o n g a s t h e n e o l i b e r a lpolicies that exacerbated theseproblems are not interfered withby anyone!

I n t h e e n d , p r o p o n e n t s o fneoliberalism cannot and do notoffer an empirical defense for theworld they are making. To thecontrary, they offer – no demand– a r e l i g i o u s f a i t h i n t h einfallibility of the unregulatedmarket, drawing upon nineteenthcentury theories that have littleconnection to the actual world.The ultimate trump card for thed e f e n d e r s o f n e o l i b e r a l i s m ,however, i s that there i s noalternative. Communist societies,social democracies, and evenmodest social welfare states likethe United States have all failed,the neoliberals proclaim, and theirc i t i z e n s h a v e a c c e p t e dneoliberalism as the only feasiblecourse. It may well be imperfect,but i t i s the on ly economicsystem possible.

In sum, neol ibera l i sm i s theimmediate and foremost enemy ofgenuine participatory democracy,not just in the United States butacross the planet, and will be forthe foreseeable future.

It is fitting that Noam Chomskyis the leading intellectual figure inthe world today in the battle ford e m o c r a c y a n d a g a i n s tneol ibera l i sm. In the 1960s ,Chomsky was a prominent UScritic of the Vietnam war and,more broadly, became perhaps themost trenchant analyst of theways US foreign policy underminesdemocracy, quashes human rights,and promotes the interests of thew e a l t h y f e w. I n t h e 1 9 7 0 s ,

NOAM CHOMSKY& THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

NEOLIBERALISMBY

ROBERT. W. McCHESNEY

In the 1960s, Chomskywas a prominent US

critic of the Vietnam warand, more broadly,

became perhaps the mosttrenchant analyst of theways US foreign policy

undermines democracy,quashes human rights,

and promotes the interestsof the wealthy few.

40

C h o m s k y ( a l o n g w i t h h i sco–author Edward S. Herman)began researching the ways theU S n e w s m e d i a s e r v e e l i t einterests and undermine thecapac i t y o f the c i t i z enry toactual ly rule their l ives in ademocratic fashion. Their 1988book, Manufacturing Consent,remains the starting point for anyserious inquiry into news mediaperformance.

Throughout these years Chomsky,who could be characterized as ana n a r c h i s t o r, p e r h a p s m o r eaccurately, a libertarian socialist,was a vocal , pr incipled, andconsistent democratic opponentand critic of Communist andLeninist political states and parties.He educated countless people,including myself, that democracywas a non–negotiable cornerstoneof any post–capitalist society worthliving in or fighting for. At thesame time, he has demonstratedt h e a b s u r d i t y o f e q u a t i n gcapitalism with democracy, orthinking that capitalist societies,e v e n u n d e r t h e b e s t o fcircumstances, will ever opena c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n o rdecision–making beyond the mostnarrow and controlled possibilities.I doubt any author, aside fromperhaps George Orwe l l , hasa p p r o a c h e d C h o m s k y i nsystemat ica l ly skewer ing thehypocrisy of rulers and ideologuesin both Communist and capitalistsocieties as they claim that theirsi s t h e o n l y f o r m o f t r u edemocracy available to humanity.

In the 1990s, all these strands ofChomsky’s political work – fromanti–imperialism and critical mediaanalysis to writings on democracyand the labor movement – havecome together, culminating inwork like Profit Over People,a b o u t d e m o c r a c y a n d t h eneoliberal threat. Chomsky hasdone much to reinvigorate anunder s tand ing o f the soc i a lrequirements for democracy,drawing upon the ancient Greeksas well as the leading thinkers ofdemocratic revolutions in theseventeenth and e ighteenth

centuries. As he makes clear, it isimpossible to be a proponent ofparticipatory democracy and at thes a m e t i m e a c h a m p i o n o fc a p i t a l i s m o r a n y o t h e rclass–divided society. In assessingthe real historical struggles fordemocracy, Chomsky also revealsthat neoliberalism is hardly a newthing; it is merely the currentversion of the batt le for thewealthy few to circumscribe thepolitical rights and civic powers ofthe many.

Chomsky may also be the leadingcritic of the mythology of thenatural “free” market, that cheeryhymn that is pounded into ourheads about how the economy iscompetitive, rational, efficient, andfair. As Chomsky points out,m a r k e t s a r e a l m o s t n e v e rcompetitive. Most of the economyi s d o m i n a t e d b y m a s s i v ecorporations with tremendouscontrol over their markets andwhich therefore face precious littlecompetition of the sort describedin economics textbooks andpoliticians’ speeches. Moreover,corporat ions themse lves a reeffectively totalitarian organizations,operating along non–democraticl i n e s . T h a t o u r e c o n o m y i scentered around such institutionsseverely compromises our ability toh a v e a d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y.

The mythology of the free marketalso submits that governments areinefficient institutions that shouldbe limited, so as not to hurt themagic of the natural laissez fairemarket. In fact , as Chomskyemphasizes, governments arecentral to the modern capitalistsystem. They lavishly subsidizecorporations and work to advancecorporate interests on numerousfronts. The same corporations thatexult in neoliberal ideology are infact often hypocritical: they wantand expect governments to funneltax do l l a r s to them, and top r o t e c t t h e i r m a r ke t s f r o mcompetition for them, but theyw a n t t o b e a s s u r e d t h a tgovernments will not tax them orwork supportively on behalf ofnon–business interests, especially

the poor and work ing c las s .Governments are bigger than ever,but under neoliberalism they havefar less pretense to addressingnon–corporate interests.

Nowhere is the central i ty ofgovernments and policymakingm o r e a p p a r e n t t h a n i n t h eemergence of the global marketeconomy. What is presented bypro–business ideologues as thenatural expansion of free marketsacross borders is, in fact, quitethe opposite. Globalization is theresult of powerful governments,especially that of the UnitedStates, pushing trade deals andother accords down the throats ofthe world’s people to make iteasier for corporations and thew e a l t h y t o d o m i n a t e t h eeconomies of nations around theworld without having obligationsto the peoples of those nations.Nowhere is the process moreapparent than in the creation ofthe World Trade Organization inthe early 1990s and, now, in thesecret deliberations on behalf ofthe Multilateral Agreement onInvestment (MAI).

Indeed, it is the inability to havehonest and candid discussions anddebates about neoliberalism in theUnited States and elsewhere thati s o n e o f i t s m o s t s t r i k i n gfeatures. Chomsky’s critique of theneoliberal order is effectivelyoff–limits to mainstream analysisdespite its empirical strength andbecause of its commitment tod e m o c r a t i c v a l u e s . H e r e ,Chomsky’s analysis of the doctrinalsystem in capitalist democracies isuseful. The corporate news media,the PR industry, the academicideologues, and the intellectual

forEDucating Social Change

Chomsky’s critique ofthe neoliberal order iseffectively off–limits to

mainstream analysisdespite its empirical

strength and becauseof its commitment to

democratic values.

41

culture writ large, play the centralrole of providing the “necessaryillusions” to make this unpalatables i t u a t i o n a p p e a r r a t i o n a l ,benevolent, and necessary (if notnecessarily desirable). As Chomskyhastens to point out, this is noformal conspiracy by powerfulinterests; it doesn’t have to be.Through a variety of institutionalmechanisms, signals are sent toi n t e l l e c t u a l s , p u n d i t s , a n djournalists, pushing toward seeingthe status quo as the best of allpossible worlds, and away fromchallenging those who benefitfrom that status quo.

Chomsky’s work is a direct callfor democratic activists to remakeour media system so it can beopened up to anti–corporate,anti–neoliberal perspectives andinquiry. It is also a challenge toall intellectuals, or at least thosewho express a commitment todemocracy, to take a long, hardlook in the mirror and to askthemselves in whose interests, andfor what values, do they do theirwork.

Chomsky’s description of theneoliberal/corporate hold over oureconomy, polity, journalism, andc u l t u r e i s s o p o w e r f u l a n doverwhelming that for somereaders it can produce a sense ofresignation. In our demoralizedpolitical times, a few may go astep further and conclude that weare enmeshed in this regressivesystem because, alas, humanity issimply incapable of creating amore humane, egalitarian, anddemocratic social order.

In f ac t , Chomsky ’ s g r ea te s tcontribution may well be hisinsistence upon the fundamentaldemocratic inclinations of thew o r l d ’ s p e o p l e s , a n d t h erevolutionary potential implicit inthose impulses. The best evidenceof this possibility is the extent towhich corporate forces go top r e v e n t g e n u i n e p o l i t i c a ldemocracy from being established.The world’s rulers understandimplicitly that theirs is a systemestablished to suit the needs of

the few, not the many, and thatthe many therefore cannot everbe permitted to question and altercorporate rule.

Neoliberalism’s loudest message isthat there is no alternative to thestatus quo, and that humanity hasreached its highest level. Chomskypoints out that there have beenseveral other periods designated asthe “end of history” in the past.In the 1920s and 1950s , forexample, US elites claimed thatthe system was working and thatm a s s q u i e s c e n c e r e f l e c t e dwidespread satisfaction with thes t a t u s q u o . E v e n t s s h o r t l ythereafter highlighted the sillinessof those beliefs. I suspect that as

soon as democratic forces recorda few tangible victories the bloodwill return to their veins, and talkof no possible hope for changewill go the same route as allprevious elite fantasies about theirglorious rule being enshrined fora millennium.

The notion that no superioralternative to the status quo existsis more farfetched today thanever, in this era when there aremind–boggling technologies forbettering the human condition. Itis true that it remains unclearhow we might establish a viable,free, and humane post–capitalistorder; the very notion has autopian air about it. But everyadvance in history, from endingslavery and establishing democracyto ending formal colonialism, hasat some point had to conquer thenotion that it was impossible todo because it had never beendone before. As Chomsky points

out, organized political activism isresponsible for the degree ofdemocracy we have today, foruniversa l adul t su f f rage , forwomen’s rights, for trade unions,for civil rights, for the freedomswe do enjoy. Even if the notionof a post–capitalist society seemsunat ta inab le , we know thathuman political activity can makethe world we live in vastly morehumane. As we get to that point,perhaps we will again be able tothink in terms of bui lding apo l i t i c a l e conomy ba sed onprinciples of cooperation, equality,self–government, and individualfreedom.

Until then, the struggle for socialchange is not a hypothetical issue.The current neoliberal order hasgenerated massive political andeconomic crises from east Asia toe a s t e r n E u r o p e a n d L a t i nAmerica. The quality of life inthe developed nations of Europe,Japan, and North America isfragile and the societies are inconsiderable turmoil. Tremendousupheaval is in the cards for thecoming years and decades. Thereis considerable doubt about theo u t c o m e o f t h a t u p h e a v a l ,however, and little reason tothink it will lead automatically toa d e m o c r a t i c a n d h u m a n er e s o l u t i o n . T h a t w i l l b ede te rmined by how we , thepeople, organize, respond, and act.As Chomsky says, if you act likethere is no possibility of changefor the better, you guarantee thatthere will be no change for thebetter. The choice is ours, thechoice is yours.

forEDucating Social Change

About Robert McChesneyRobert McChesney is Research Professorat the Institute of CommunicationsResearch and the Graduate School ofLibrary and Information Science at theU n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a tU r b a n a – C h a m p a i g n . H i s w o r kconcentrates on the history and politicaleconomy of communication, emphasizingthe role media play in democratic andcapitalist societies. McChesney haswritten and edited several books andarticles, including the award–winning“Telecommunications, Mass Media, andDemocracy: The Battle for the Controlof US Broadcast ing, 1928–1935”.

...Chomsky says, ifyou act like there is

no possibility ofchange for the better,you guarantee that

there will be nochange for the better.The choice is ours,the choice is yours.

42

forEDucating Social Change

WAKE UP CALLSNearly half of all Africans live on less thanwhat we pay for cable television.

For just $4 per year, spread over the next 20years, each citizen of the industrialized nationscan contribute to saving the lives of 1.3 millionchildren in Ethiopia, nearly 600,000 children inMozambique, another 475,000 children in Niger.

10,194,175: The number of years a personwould need to work at minimum wage to earnas much money as Bill Gates.

In 1999, the richest 2.7 million Americans wereexpected to receive as much after–tax incomeas the 100 million people with the lowestincomes.

Less than one per cent of what the worldspent every year on weapons was needed toput every child into school by the year 2000and yet it didn’t happen.

Approximately 790 million people in thed e v e l o p i n g w o r l d a r e s t i l l c h r o n i c a l l yundernourished, almost two–thirds of whomreside in Asia and the Pacific.

7 Million children die each year as a result ofthe debt crisis. 8,525,038 children have diedsince the start of the year 2000 [as of March24, 2001].

Despite all our technological breakthroughs, westill live in a world where:

a fifth of the developing world’s populationgoes hungry every night;a quarter lacks access to even a basicnece s s i t y l i ke s a f e d r ink ing wa te r ;and a third lives in a state of abjectpoverty – at such a margin of humanexistence that words simply fail to describeit.

T h e s e v e n l a r g e s t e c o n o m i e s o f t h eindustrialized North – the US, Japan, Germany,Canada, France, Italy and the UK – whichmake up less than 12 % of the wor ld ’ spopulation, consume 43% of the world’s fossilfuel production, 64 % of the world’s paper, andfrom 55 to 60 % of all the aluminum, copper,lead, nickel and tin.

Globally, 15.7 million adults with AIDS arewomen and 1.3 million are children below theage of 15.

Strike against war, for without you no battlescan be fought! Strike against manufacturingshrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools ofmurder! Strike against preparedness that meansdeath and misery to millions of human beings!Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army ofd e s t r u c t i o n ! B e h e r o e s i n a n a r m y o fconstruction!

Helen Keller

Power l ie s in the growth o f awareness .Herbert de Souza

If those in charge of our society - politicians,corporate executives, and owners of press andtelevision - can dominate our ideas, they willbe secure in their power. They will not needsoldiers patrolling the streets. We will controlourselves.

Howard Zinn

Resistance to tyranny is man's highest ideal.Emma Goldman

Humans are complex creatures. We have ademonstrated capacity for hatred, violence,competition and greed. We have as well ademonstrated capacity for love, tenderness,cooperation and compassion. Healthy societiesnurture the latter and in doing so create anabundance of those things that are mostimportant to the qua l i ty o f our l iv ing.Dysfunctional societies nurture the former andin so doing create scarcity and deprivation. Ahealthy society makes it easy to live in balancewith the environment, whereas a dysfunctionalsociety makes it nearly impossible. Whether weo r g a n i z e o u r s o c i e t i e s f o r s o c i a l a n denvironmental health or for dysfunction is achoice that is ours to make.

David C. Korten

Law and order exis t for the purpose ofestablishing justice… when they fail in thispurpose they become the dangerously structureddams that block the flow of social progress.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The most effective way to restrict democracyis to transfer decision-making from the publicarena to unaccountable institutions: kings andprinces, priestly castes, military juntas, party

43

& Reflections...

Source: The Internet

Inspirations

forEDucating Social Change

"The artist is not a special kind of man but everyman is a special kind of artist."

Ananda Coomaraswamy, 1956

As we clear away all the celebratory hype of the21st century, and sit down to figure out what it allmeans to be Here, we find ourselves in a verypeculiar and paralyzing world. The processes of massindus t r i a l i z a t ion , t echno log ica l i z a t ion , andconsumerization, while making life more ‘efficient’and ‘easier’ (at least for some), have colonized ourhumanity and induced in us a psychologicalimpotence which numbs our natural instincts forresistance and liberation. Today, Big Brother, BigMarket and Big Religion supply us with ready–madeclothes, ready–made food, ready–made homes,ready–made jobs, ready–made entertainment,ready–made transportation, ready–made spirituality,ready–made health, ready–made Nature, ready–madeEducation for All, etc. Soon, with the latestdevelopments in genetic testing, we will haveready–made humanoids. There are ready–madesolutions for practically all aspects of our lives. Evenour ‘problems’ and ‘needs’ are pre–packaged, marketedand sold to us. We are so overwhelmed with theseglamorous and superfluous needs (and a continualsense of scarcity in relation to them) that we havestarted to forget our real necessities (and thenecessities of those inter–connected to us). Our roleis only to mindlessly follow orders, to participate inconsuming these ready–made needs and commodities– and to be open to being consumed by them.

Some may ask what’s wrong with this kind of‘Progress ’ . Two po ints for deeper re f lect ionimmediately come to mind. First, we must try tounderstand what is required to feed and maintainthis ready–made world – who wins and who loses,who is in control, and what exactly is destroyed orlost in the process? Second, we must peel away theskin of the proverbial Progress Onion to see whatthis ready–made lifestyle is doing to us as humanb e i n g s . S e r i o u s l y e x p l o r i n g b o t h o f t h e s einterconnected questions requires that we be willing

to break away from the compartmentalized, linearand short–term ‘rational’ planning frameworks thatdominate most of our modern decision–makingprocesses and development efforts.

For this ready–made world to flourish today, we haveto rationalize away, in the name of Progress, all ofthe massive levels of violence against and exploitationof Nature, cultures/languages, and human relationshipsthat have taken place throughout the world in thelast 500 years. We have to flip the off switch of ourmoral consciences and pretend that selfishness, greed,d o m i n a t i o n ,corruption, hatredand a ‘survival oft h e f i t t e s t ’mentality are thep r e d o m i n a n tcharacteristics ofhuman nature. Weh a v e t o k e e pcoming up withn e w s l o g a n s t oconvince ourselves that having increased purchasingpower (albeit coupled with cancerous self–discontent)is a symbol of human advancement that someday will‘trickle–down’ to everyone through the globalmarketplace, Western–style democracy, and/or thescientific establishment. Lastly, we have to discourageeveryone else around us (particularly our youth) frombelieving that there are other options for meaningfulliving available. All loyal citizen–consumers mustobediently adhere to the TINA principle . That is,what exists today is the ‘only’ and ‘best’ way. Toresist it, to even question its totalitarian strangleholdover us, i s to r isk be labeled ‘anti–modern’ ,‘impractical, ‘anti–national’, ‘romantic’, ‘crazy’, etc.The recent events related to before and afterSeptember 11, serve to dramatically highlight howour spaces for expressing our dissent againstillegitimate forms of power are shrinking day by day.

In South Asia today, it is very difficult for us tocomprehend the k inds o f damage tha t th i sready–made progress has done to our whole beings;

RECLAIMING OURCREATIVITIES FROM AREADY–MADE WORLD

BYMANISH JAIN

RETHINKING EDUCATION

The recent events related tobefore and after September11, serve to dramaticallyhighlight how our spaces forexpressing our dissentagainst illegitimate forms ofpower are shrinking day byday.

44

our intrinsic motivations to struggle and search forour own truths, justices and meanings; and ourabilities to be part of and contribute to the beautifulunfolding of the universe. James Scott (1998)describes that our "accomodation to deprived, bland,monotonous, controlled environments that areultimately stupefying" has led to "a characteristicinstitutional neurosis marked by apathy, withdrawal,l a c k o f i n i t i a t i v e a n d s p o n t a n e i t y ,uncommunicativeness, and intractability." Furthermore,all of our historical and cultural memories have beenfiltered through the colander of Western modernity– which simultaneously serves to portray all wisdomtraditions as ‘social evils’ and to cut these from theirnourishing roots (thereby effectively removing allpossibilities for self–discipline and self–correction). Asa result of this colonization of history, we arerendered total ly dependent on el ite externalinstitutions and their experts to tell us how to takecare of ourselves, what to value and how to live asuccess life.

The possibility of this civilizational decontextualizationspiraling into planetary self–destruction has becomeparticularly heightened in the virtual age oftime–saving devices, where we have no time toreflect deeply or dialogue meaningfully on who weare or where we are going, individual ly and

col lect ive ly. AsEduardo Galleano(1997) describes," T h e c a r , t h etelevision set, thevideo, the personalc o m p u t e r , t h eportable telephonea n d o t h e rp a s s – c a r d s t ohappiness, which

were developed to ‘save time’ or to ‘pass the time’,have actually taken time over." Indeed, hightechnologies have begun to maim/reshape how weform our social relationships, how we communicate,how we even think, feel and sense. Today, it is naiveto argue that all technologies are neutral, that theiruse only depends on the human beings who controlthem. Rather, we must seek to understand how eachof the technologies have developed their owninstitutional logic, underlying economics andself–perpetuating momentum – how they not onlycontrol but re–define the meaning of humanity.

Is there a way out of this ready–made globaldeath–trap? John Guare (in Zohar, 2000) suggestsanother possible path, "To face ourselves. That’s thehard thing. The imagination [is] God’s gift to makethe act of self–examination bearable. [It] teaches usour limits and how to grow beyond our limits..."Expanding our spaces and capacities for creativity isessential to liberating ourselves from this ready–madeworld and its inherent violence, s lavery and

perversion. Creativity enhances our ability to searchwith courage in the dense forest of the unknownand unpredictable, to co–create meaning and love inour everyday experiences (and prevents us frombecoming bored of ourselves). It helps us to makevaluable reconnections to Nature and to heal ourwhole selves. It creates the commitment forself–correction to help keep our traditions vibrantand flowing. It nourishes our moral instincts andgives us the strength and honesty to challengeinjustices and exploitative relationships. Creativitygenerates new liberating avenues of power fromwhich we can express our dissent, create newoptions, make ethical choices and undertake dynamicactions – to break away from the TINA principle.In short, critique, when coupled with creativity, opensup generative spaces for personal and systemictransformation. Critique without creativity leads usto nihilism and abject paralysis.

Unfortunately, by either co–opting, killing–off orcommodifying many of our natural spaces andpractices for authentic questioning, experimentation,and struggle, the ready–made world prevents us fromengaging in activities which serve to replenish ourcollective creative energies. This is done by devaluingthe diverse practical insights that emerge from eachhuman being’s personal, hands–on experiences infavor of abstract theories and elite intellectual jargon.Furthermore, because of the total–izing influence ofthe ready–made world, we are taught to wait forsome one to hand us some bite–size pakoras ofcreativity on a silver thali. Today, these usually takethe form of expensive formal creativity courses andcreativity kits. However, reclaiming and regeneratingour creativities is not about playing various mindgames marketed by creativity gurus like EdwardDeBono. At a certain point, these all becomemeaningless dead–end gimmicks, which tend to serveonly narrow selfish interests while intensifying thecontrol of the ready–made world. The liberatingpower of creativity ultimately rests in each of usseeing ourselves as creative beings and seeing howour creativity is interdependent with others’ creativity.What is required for this to emerge is: 1) a criticalunderstanding of what myths drain our creativeenergies and 2) a deeper understanding of how theseforms of self–deceit are manifested in our institutionaland personal spaces. The remainder of this essay willseek to explore these two questions.

EXPOSING THE MYTHS

Several myths exist today which serve to deepeninstitutional control over our lives and to prevent usfrom struggling to reclaim our creativity. As EdwardBernays (in Rampton and Stauber 2001) describes,"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of theorganized habits and opinions of the masses is ani m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t i n d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y. "

forEDucating Social Change

Creativity enhances ourability to search with courage

in the dense forest of theunknown and unpredictable,

to co–create meaning andlove in our everyday

experiences...

45

MYTH 1: One must be super–gifted or a geniusin order to be creative. Many people falsely believethat creativity is a gift from God. This myth isreinforced by repeated references to individuals suchas Michaelangelo, Rabindranath Tagore and AlbertEinstein as creative souls. This myth has led to atiny percentage of people being supported in theircreative quests, while the vast majority are told thatthey are not and cannot be creative. Underlying thismyth are archaic notions of the human brain thatview intelligence as genetically predetermined andstagnant and condemn it to narrow quantitativemeasurements such as I.Q. New research , however,indicates that we all possess a dynamic range ofmultiple intelligences by which we make sense of theworld and that these intelligences can increasethroughout our lives. Adults as well as children candevelop their creativity. Furthermore, this researchsuggests that learning is a social, collaborative processrather than an individualistic and isolated one. Thismeans that our own creativity is deeply linked toothers’ creativity.

MYTH 2: Creativity only occurs in the fine artssuch as music, painting, dance. The Industrial Agehas artificially separated work and leisure. All workactivities, whether in the job or home or in school,have converted into tedious, routinized, andfragmented tasks. Activities that are imaginative,inspiring, and fun are relegated to the domain ofleisure. This myth has meant that many people havestopped trying to be creative in their daily activitiesand interactions. Playful expressions of creative livingwere closely integrated into and emerged from thepeople’s daily work i.e., performing household chores,farming, hunting, cooking, weaving, taking care ofthe animals, housebuilding, celebrating festivals,praying, etc. For creativity to be a transformativeforce, it needs to be re–integrated into all aspects ofour life. This means that in addition to breakingdown artificial categories of work vs. leisure, we mustalso challenge the socially constructed notion ofchildhood vs. adulthood which separates the worldof children from that of adults.

MYTH 3: Creative living is something that onlythe idle rich can afford to indulge in. Because of theprevious myth, creativity has become associated withthe elite category of ‘high culture’. This has createda misperception in the public eye that creativity isnon–practical, frivolous and expensive pursuit. It hasa l so led to the deva luat ion o f very organicexpressions of creativity by subaltern groups. Weshould understand that certain elite groups have triedto manipulate the idea of creativity to legitimize theirpower and privilege, and also to deny the massesfrom articulating their creative energies so that theycould not resist or challenge the status quo. Theability to develop and articulate one’s creative

energies is not dependent on one’s economic classor caste background. There is no hierarchy ofcreativity between ‘high culture’ and ‘popular culture.’Also, as discussed above, real creativity is not only‘practical’, it is essential to our being human.

MYTH 4: One’s creativity is measured by the‘products’ they produce and the more creative arethose who are able to sell their products for greaterprofit. This myth places a mistaken emphasis on theoutput that emerges from the creative process ratherthan on the lifestyle process itself. Success, which isoften based on luck and one’s position of privilege,i s g i v e n m o r eimportance thaneffort. This mythdiscourages peoplefrom taking risksa n d f r o mcollaborating withothers due to fearof failure. It alsocreates deforminga n d d i s t o r t i n gdependencies between our creativity and the vagariesof what the market economy and State nationalismdeem as valuable. We should therefore understandthat creativity is not about our output but ratherabout our l i festyle – our ways and means ofexp lo r ing new p lace s , peop le and ideas ; o funderstanding ourselves and developing our infinitetalents; of nurturing our sensitivity to others andNature. It is about making ourselves vulnerable tothe mysteries and struggles of life.

These four myths are perpetuated in both ourinstitutional spaces as well as our understandings ofour Self. Challenging these myths requires that wedismantle dehumanizing institutions, regeneratenurturing learning communities and personally engagei n p r o c e s s e s o f u n l e a r n i n g a n d r e l e a r n i n g.

RE–ASSESSING OUR INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORKS

The Industrial Age has witnessed the overwhelminggrowth of institutions which are grounded in thelogic of standardization/universalism, individualism,efficiency and profit. These ‘modern’ institutions rangefrom factories to governments/UN bodies to armiesto hospitals/mental institutions to schools to jails toNGOs to the large corporate media. The inherentform of these institutions serves to undermine ourcreativities by: enforcing rigid and sterile routines andprocedures; demanding quick production of resultsand providing little room to make mistakes; dividingpeople and making them compete against each otherby using extrinsic forms of motivation (rewards andpunishments); and, labelling, sorting and ranking of

Creative living is somethingthat only the idle rich canafford to indulge in. Becauseof the previous myth,creativity has becomeassociated with the elitecategory of ‘high culture’.

46

forEDucating Social Change

human beings. They are driven by a worldview whichprojects technological innovation as the highest formof human achievement – the ends by which toevaluate a civilization (Adas, 1989). Simultaneously,Nature is seen as separate from man and is thereforea resource to be violently manipulated and exploited.These modern institutions do not trust the judgementand common sense of human beings and seek to putin place ‘rational’ and ‘unemotional’ systems ofmanagement and planning that do all of our thinkingfor us. They call for us to enter into a state of‘technological somnabulism’ in which we must putour absolute faith in science and technology to directand protect us.

Factory–schoolingi s o n e o f t h eclearest examplesof these kinds ofd e h u m a n i z i n ginstitutions. Most‘ s c h o o l e dgraduates ’ haveg o n e t h r o u g hschools learning

only about competition, rules, and control. They havenever been given the opportunity to think abouttheir own potentials for self–learning, much less tothink about new kinds of educational, political,economic , o r soc io–cu l tura l s t ruc ture s andrelationships. They are told over and over again thatthey must passively fit into the ready–made system–their only purpose in life is to serve as humancapital (or to be more politically correct ‘humanresources ’) to increase/protect GNP. Thoughfactory–schooling has played a major role insuppressing our individual and collective creativitiesand perpetuating a colonized mind, it remainsunquestioned in our societies and continues to spreaditself under the seemingly innocuous façade of a‘fundamental human right’.

The global media, such as the television andnewspapers, has also emerged as a major force whichstunts our creative growth. Neil Postman (1993)describes that, "We are driven to fill our lives withthe quest to ‘access’ information. For what purpose,or with what limitations, it is not for us to ask; andwe are not accustomed to asking, since the problemis unprecedented." Rote memorization for exams, thecourses on G.K. in schools, and the emergence ofTV shows such as Kaun Banega Crorepati? powerfullyillustrate how info–glut monopolizes our attentionwhile distracting us from regenerative processes ofmeaningful self–reflection. Factory–schooling and theglobal media turns us into voyeurs who prefer towatch others live life – to have reality shaped forus rather than be the shapers of our own realities.

While challenging these dehumanizing institutions,we need to regenerate learning communities of

reflective–action that have a different logic and form.Such learning communities are as socio–spiritualspaces in the sense that they nurture and connecteach human being’s innate yet diverse search fortruth and meaning. To do so, they should provideus with continuous opportunities for raising andexploring foundational questions around our notionsof progress, freedom, equality, peace and justice.

These spaces must also:– respect the diversity of each human being,

particularly their different ways of learning, relatingand growing;

– understand the ‘right scale’ of all activities, witha n a e s t h e t i c p r e f e r e n c e f o r s i m p l i c i t y ;

– encourage people to take risks and experimentwhile valuing their mistakes ;

– nurture intrinsic forms of motivation and caring;– facilitate collaboration and sharing within a

generat ive framework of ( inf inite) power;– emphasize the discovery of and co–creation

meaning around principles of self–discipline, trustand love.

Such learning communities have traditionally grownaround work that features the use of the hands andthe heart, community media, local knowledge andwisdom frameworks, oral and visual traditions ofliteracy, and various familial bonds. However, withoutthe time, processes of meaningful questioning,intergenerational learning commitment, natural livingenvironment, and resources to provide themnourishment, these reflective spaces are eitherstagnating or rapidly becoming ext inct . Theready–made world has made very few attempts togenerate new learning communities based on theabove principles. Nor has the ready–made worldmade a serious commitment to dismantling thoseinstitutions which violate and mock the aboveprinciples.

RE–ESTABLISHING OUR AGENCY:UNLEARNING AND RELEARNING

Reclaiming creativity and regenerating various learningcommunities is not the exclusive responsibility ofprofessional artists, industrial psychologists, artteachers, ministers of culture, etc. Each of us mustactively participate in co–creating – not just observingor passively fitting into – these learning communities.We risk falling into another trap of the ready–madeworld if we expect others to make these learningcommunities for us.

Taking control over our processes of unlearning andre–learning away from factory–schooling and theglobal media and re–establishing our faith in processesof self–learning is one essential step in this largerprocess. In terms of our unlearning, we will have tounderstand that many of the obstacles to creativity

forEDucating Social Change

While challenging thesedehumanizing institutions, weneed to regenerate learning

communities ofreflective–action that have a

different logic and form.

47

forEDucating Social Change

can be found within us. Such obstacles include: fearof criticism, lack of confidence, competitiveness, highstress, and big egos. Other obstacles stem from our‘schooled’ inability to tolerate ambiguity, ourreductionist forms of modern knowledge, and our‘manufactured’ confusion between happiness and theacquisition of material goods. Our creativities alsoare burdened by certain labels that we attach toourselves and others. These colonizing identity labels– most often based on professions, caste, gender,class, schooling level, nationality, etc. – createartificial barriers which cement certain powerstructures and limit our exploration and growth. Webecome afraid to interact with certain people becauseof whom we think they are (or we think we are).Unlearning will involve confronting these obstaclesand barriers, and trying to liberate ourselves fromthem. Unlearning is essential if we wish to regainour faith in the goodness of others and in the beliefthat many new options are available.

In t e rms o f r e– l ea rn ing, we need to t r y tounderstand our own individual learning styles, pace(learning things faster is not always better for ourcreativity), multiple intelligences, emotional states,experiences, etc. We must re–learn to see poweroutside the institutions of the State and the market.This calls for us to be able to recognize creativespaces and opportunities that are in front of our eyesbut that we have never apprec iated before .Simultaneously, we must understand how everydayacts of resistance to the ready–made world open upnew possibilities and power. We also must re–learnhow to see life holistically and relationally beyondthe abstractions of isolated academic disciplines. Mostimportantly, we must re–learn how to connectknowledge and technology with wisdom and ethics.This will provide us with the humility to know ourlimits and with the common sense to understandthat we should not do things just because we can(i.e., not all ‘creative’ scientific and commercialinitiatives should be pursued). Re–learning is essentialto fuel us with the inspiration to start dreaming ourown dreams aga in (and not someone e l se ’ sready–made dreams) and with the self–confidence toput them into action.

Here, one may raise the ever–troubling ‘chicken andthe egg’ dilemma. In other words, which must comefirst – the processes of regenerating learningcommunities or individual self–regeneration? Withoutregenerating learning communities how can wesupport individual self–regeneration? And withoutindividual self–regeneration how can we support theprocess of regenerating learning communities? This isa di lemma which has plagued many spir itualmovements in the world which have erred byfocusing only on the individual as well as manyactivist movements which have erred on the side offocusing only on institutions. Addressing this dilemmarequires that we reject the institutional schizophrenia,

alienation and babu–hypocrisy created by so–calledmodern institutions , and stop seeing the learningcommunities and individuals as separate from eachother. We must see ourselves as part of theselearning communities and they a part of us. Throughsuch a relationship, there will be a dialectic processof mutual regeneration between the learningcommunities and us.

Facing this dilemma will also demand that we makeconscious choices to try to dis–engage from thetechno–economic system, or what I term as the‘dictatorship of convenience’. This will give the timeand space to ‘listen’, ‘share’ and ‘dream’ again. Todo this, involves trying to do things withoutmoney/market economy and without the interferenceof the State. This also involves consciously thinkingabout slowing down the pace of life around us –overcoming our modern infatuation with speed. Theseactivities should not be reduced to mechanized ritualsbut rather be taken in the spirit of pursuing a patho f m e a n i n g f u l s t r u g g l e ( a n d c o n s t r u c t i v econfrontation). Implicitly, this means that we mustlearn how to use our hands (and feet) again. In thiscontext, I am reminded of a recent episode with oneof my colleagues in Shikshantar. He had to take agift for a birthday celebration and wanted to buy itfrom a gift shop. I suggested that rather than buyinga gift, he should try to make something with hisown hands. He was reluctant to do so because ofthe ‘imperfections of his own work’. Learning toappreciate the beauty of our own imperfections andmessiness – while avoiding ready–made blueprints thattell us how to live our lives or fight for justice –represent the central challenges to reclaiming ourcreativity and challenging global exploitation anddevastation.

References1. Adas, M. 1989. Machines as the Measure of Men:

Science, Technology and Ideologies of WesternDominance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

2. Galleano, E. "To Be Like Them" in M. Rahnema.1997. The Post–Development Reader. London: ZedBooks.

3. Postman, N. 1993. Technopoly: The Surrender ofCulture to Technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

4. Prasad, D. 1998. Art: The Basis of Education.Delhi: National Book Trust.

5. Rampton, S. and Stauber, J. 2001. Trust Us, We’reExperts!: How Industry Manipulates Science andGambles with Your Future. New York: Putnam.

6. Scott, J. 1998. Seeing Like a State. New Haven:Yale University Press.

7. Zohar, D. and I. Marshall. 2000. Connecting withour Spiritual Intelligence. New York: Bloomsbury.

About Manish JainManish Jain is the coordinator and a co–founder ofShikshantar – an institute engaged in ‘rethinking’ educationa n d d e v e l o p m e n t , I n d i a . H e c a n b e r e a c h e d a t :manish@swaraj.org

48

45. It is wrong to think that learning is a feature only ofhuman life. Nature itself is full of learning processes.Your fear that learning is absent or non–functionalwithout schools is totally misplaced.

46. For the billions of years, Nature itself is undergoing alearning process. It is also engaged in continuallyeducat ing i t s l iv ing and non–l iv ing creat ions .

47. Had Nature not been educated, it would not stick toany law of self–discipline. There would not be a dayin the dayt ime and a n ight in the n ight t ime .

48. Tell me: where did the moonlight learn to raise thetides in the ocean? Who shows the meeting point withthe sea to the flowing rivers?

49. Tell me: where do the twigs of a plant learn to expresstheir joy through flowers? Who teaches the wasp tosing a hymn when it greets the flowers?

50. Tell me: where did the peacock learn to dance and thecuckoo learn its sweet musical song?

51. And tell me: who teaches a mother to lovingly nourishand raise her infant, which was once a burden in herwomb and painful delivery! What sort of educationconverts the blood of the mother’s body into the milkof her breasts!

52. You are wrong in thinking that the gardens areeducated and the forests are devoid of learning. You donot know how we l l educated the fo re s t s a re .

53. But prompted by misunderstanding, so moved by pity,you have undertaken the monumenta l task o f‘gardenizing’ all the forests.

54. O’ preacher of school education and literacy! Let meask which schools taught Prince Siddhartha to abandonhis legitimate right to the throne. And also let meknow which university conferred on him the title of‘Buddha’!

55. What would have happened if the great poets had beeneducated in the modern, English medium conventschools? What if they had accepted the Englishl a n g u a g e t o b e p r e f e r a b l e o v e r t h e i r o w n ?

56. The result? They would not have produced such greatliterature because they would not be able to attain therequired mastery and self–confidence in English. Andthey would have considered it below their educationaldignity to produce literature in their own language.

57. Spontaneous self–confidence can never be attained inan alien language.

58. The basic purpose of education is to allow the uniquepersonality of each student to open up, to help theflower of his special genius bloom. But the school oftoday does not in any way fulfill this primary purposeof education.

59. The pillars of education lie in the local folk cultureand the local language. But alas O’ Preacher ofEducation, Missionary of Literacy, you have ignored andnegated this basic principle of education.

60. In the older times there were crusades for religiousconversions. Today’s schools are also engaged in avicious crusade against the people’s own local cultureand their own traditional and spontaneous forms ofcommunication.

61. But, the local folk culture and the locally spokenlanguage constitute the vital blood on whose powerthese illiterate and unschooled people thrive. This bloodempowers them with hope and dignity to struggleagainst harsh physical conditions and deprivedatmospheres.

62. The content of your school education sucks away thevital blood power of these deprived people. It also killstheir self–confidence.

63. In my local dialect lie the sacred herbs that protectand nourish my life. But you, O’ Literacy Missionary,try to rob me of those very herbs that sustain me asa price to be paid for the few alphabetical symbols youteach me.

64. I know that ultimately you will desert me and join theEnglish speaking team. You shall never keep companywith me.

65. So, where is the common ground to come together?We belong to different classes and this class differenceis not going to end. So, please enjoy the cool shadesto which you can escape and leave me to suffer myown fate, to bear the heat of the shining sun.

forEDucating Social Change

BY SHRI DAYAL CHANDRA SONI

CHAPTER 4: Learning is a Characteristic Not Only inHumans But it Also Pervades Nature

AN ILLITERATE’SDECLARATION TO

THE LITERACY PREACHER

CHAPTER 5: Your Schools are Concealed Enemies ofMy Local Language and My Folk Culture; There is No

Common Ground for Our Coming Together

49

An important starting point in anydiscussion of sustainable developmentis to clarify the basic assumptions weeach bring to the table. While theviews on sustainable development

cover a broad spectrum, the following contrast ofthe convent ional wi sdom and the emergentalternative wisdom on this subject helps to definethe range. Most of the economists, governments andofficial agencies (including the World Bank, IMF, andthe GATT) that define national and global policiesprofess the conventional wisdom. A growing numberof alternative economists, independent thinkers, andcitizen organizations concerned with economic justiceand environmental issues are engaged in articulatingand elaborating the alternative wisdom as thefoundation for policies they hope will prove to bemore people and environment friendly. Which bestcaptures your view of sustainable development?

Sustainable Development

onventional: Sustainable development is aboutachieving the sustained economic growth needed

to meet human needs, improve living standards, andp r o v i d e t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t h a t m a keenvironmental protection possible.

lternative: Little of the growth of the past twentyyears has improved the quality of human life.

Most of the benefit has gone to the very wealthyand the remainder has been offset by the costs ofresource depletion, social stress, and environmentalhealth and other problems caused by growth.Sus ta inab le deve lopment i s about c reat ing :

I) sustainable economies that equitably meet humanneeds without extracting resource inputs or expellingwastes in excess of the environment’s regenerativecapacity, and

II) sustainable human institutions that assure bothsecurity and opportunity for social, intellectual, andspiritual growth.

Sustainable Lifestyle

onventional: Adopting less resource intensivelifestyles means going backwards, accepting a

lowered standard of living. Given the current trendtowards declining rates of population growth, anyapparent limits to growth will be eliminated bycontinuing technological advance and the operationof market mechanisms. Responding to ill–advised callsto end growth is not necessary and would be atragic error condemning bill ions of people toperpetual poverty.

lternative: Consumption of environmentalresources already exceeds sustainable limits. The

central task of development must be to reallocatethe use of sustainable resource flows. This will requirethat current high consumers significantly reduce theirper capita resource consumption. This may reducetheir standard of living as defined purely by physicalconsumption, but it also offers opportunities for animproved quality of personal family and communitylife. Necessary reductions can be accomplished in partby reforming production systems to maximize recyclingand minimize dependence on inputs from and wastedisposal to the environment. Some nonessential formsof consumption may need to be e l iminated.

Helping Poor Countries Become Sustainable

onventional: Once poor countries are on the pathto sustainable growth, an expanding economic pie

will allow them to address a wide range of needs,including environmental protect ion and theelimination of poverty. Achieving sustainable growthin the South depends on accelerating economicgrowth in the North to spur demand for Southernexports and thus stimulate Southern economies. Ofcourse, if it is to fully benefit the South, acceleratedgrowth in the North must be combined with theremoval of trade barriers and increases in foreigninvestment and foreign aid including environmentallending.

BYDAVID C. KORTEN

PEOPLE–CENTEREDD E V E L P M E N T

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTConventional versus Emergent Alternative

Wisdom

forEDucating Social Change

C

A

C

A

C

50

l t e rna t ive : Env i ronmenta lproblems are in large part a

consequence of Northern countriesexporting their ecological deficits tot h e S o u t h t h r o u g h t r a d e a n dinvestment. The appropriation ofenvironmental resources and sinkst o s e r v i c e N o r t h e r n o v e rconsumption, limits the per capitashares of these resources availablein Southern countries to meetdomestic needs and pushes theeconomically weak to marginalecological areas. Much of existingforeign aid, loans and investment, create Southerneconomies that are deeply in debt to the North anddependent on the continuing import of Northerntechnology and products. This creates demands forever greater foreign exchange earnings for imports,debt service and repatriation of profits by foreigninvestors that can be obtained only through furtherdepletion and export of environmental resources.Sustainable development in poor countries dependson:

1) increasing the availability, accessibility, and qualityof sustainable natural resource flows to meet thebas i c human needs o f the i r own peop le ,

2) and the political, institutional, and technicalcapacity to use their resources efficiently and todistribute the benefits equitably among allmembers of current and future generations.

Northern countries best contribute to achieving thisoutcome in Southern countries by:

1) l imiting their own consumption to reduceNorthern dependence on environmental subsidiesextracted from the South and release resourcesfor use by the poor to meet their basic needs,

2) and facilitating unrestricted Southern access tosocially and environmentally beneficial technologies.

Responsibility for Environmental Problems

onventional: Poverty is the primary cause ofenvironmental problems. Because of lack of

education and economic opportunities the poor havetoo many children and lack the sensitivity andresources to provide the care for their environmentthat wealthier people and countries do. Environmentalquality is a low priority for people whose survival isin question. They will become concerned about andinvest in environmental conservation only once acertain level of income is attained. Stimulatinge c o n o m i c g r o w t h t o i n c r e a s e e m p l o y m e n topportunities and incomes must be the foundationof environmental protection.

[There i s not a c lear a l ternat ive consensus.

Alternative I is the more prevalenta m o n g a l t e r n a t i v e t h i n k e r s ,particularly in the South.]

l t e r n a t i v e I : T h e o v e rc o n s u m p t i o n o f N o r t h e r n

countries is the problem. ThereforeNorthern population growth is anissue because of the substantialc o n s u m p t i o n e a c h a d d i t i o n a lNortherner adds. The poor consumevery little so their numbers are notenvironmentally important andSouthern population growth is not

a consequential issue.

lternative II: Inequality is the fundamental causeof environmental problems. Because of their

much greater relative power in a market economy,the wealthy are able to pass on the social andecological costs of their over consumption to thepoor. Since the poor are the first to suffer fromenvironmental degradation, they are in many localitiesbecoming leading advocates of more environmentallyresponsible resource management practices. Wherepoverty appears to be the cause of environmentaldestruction it is usually because the poor have beendeprived of other means of livelihood and thus havebeen pushed in desperat ion to over exp lo i tenvironmentally fragile lands. Often their lack of anyother source of security creates an incentive to havemany children. Eliminating inequality by distributingresource control more equitably is a fundamentalcondition for sustainability.

Population

onventional: Population will stabilize naturallyat somewhere between 12 and 15 billion people.

While this will create some strains, with adequateeconomic growth it should not be a consequentialproblem.

lternative: In the absence of radical economicreforms intended to rapidly accelerate reductions

in fertility by increasing equity, social security, andinvestment in female education, female livelihoodopportunities, health, and family planning services,the global population will be naturally stabilized wellbelow 12 billion by catastrophic events as social andecological stress result in mass starvation andviolence. Given currentd e p e n d e n c e o n t h edepletion of nonrenewableecological reserves, it isdoubt fu l that even theworld’s current population istruly sustainable if minimuma c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s o fconsumpt ion a r e to bemaintained.

forEDucating Social Change

Environmentalproblems are in

large part aconsequence of

Northern countriesexporting their

ecological deficits tothe South through

trade andinvestment.

A

C

A

A

A

C

Inequality is thefundamental

cause ofenvironmental

problems.51

forEDucating Social Change

Economic Management Goals

onventional: The primary goal of economic policyis the efficient allocation of resources. The

internalization of production costs is a preconditionto efficient allocation by markets and therefore mustalso be a goal of policy. Equity is a secondaryby–product of economically efficient markets.

lternative: There are three basic goals thateconomic policy must seek to optimize. In order

of relative importance these are: a scale of resourceuse, consistent with ecological regenerative capacities,a fair distribution of resources, and the economicallyefficient allocation of resources. Efficient marketallocation requires the internalization of all costs ofproduction, including the social and environmentalcosts.

Jobs

onventional: Jobs are created through economicgrowth

lternative: We have entered an era of joblessgrowth in which technology and reorganizations

are eliminating good jobs faster than growth iscreating them. The new jobs being created are oftenlow paying, temporary, and without benefits, creatingan underlying sense of insecurity throughout societythat deeply stresses the social fabric. Furthermore,many of the jobs provided by the conventionaleconomy are based on unsustainable rates of resourceextraction and are therefore temporary in nature. Wemust begin to think in terms of providing peoplewith sustainable livelihoods based on sustainableproduction for sustainable markets to supportsustainable lifestyles. There is a great deal of useful,environmentally dirty work that needs to be donethat could readily eliminate involuntary unemploymentif we chose to do so. Furthermore, in most instancessustainable production methods and technologiesprovide more livelihood opportunities than do theiralternatives.

Trade and the Environment

onventional: Free (unregulated)trade increases economic efficiency

through comparative advantage.Economic efficiency means better useof resources, which is environmentallyadvantageous. Increased trade alsoincreases overall economic growth,thereby producing the resourcesneeded for environmental protection.The greater the volume of trade theg r e a t e r t h e b e n e f i t t o t h eenvironment.

lternative: Trade is useful where gains fromcomparative advantage are real. More than half

of all international trade involves exchanges of thesame goods, which suggests there is little or nocomparative advantage involved. To be fair andeconomically efficient, trade must be carried outwithin a clear framework of rules: 1) internalize totalcosts (production, social and environmental costs,including the full costs of transport); and 2) maintainbalanced trade relations. Free (unregulated) tradeleads to competition between localities in need ofjobs to reduce cost s o f loca l product ion bys u p p r e s s i n g w a g e s a n d a l l o w i n g m a x i m u mexternalization of environmental, social, and evenproduction costs which is both inefficient and highlydamaging to the environment and to social standards.

Markets and Governments

onventional: Markets allocate resources mostefficiently when there is the least government

interference. Consumers express their preferencesthrough their purchasing decis ions, with theconsequence that in the aggregate the market reflectsthe value preferences of the society as to how scarceresources are best allocated. When governmentsintervene they distort the price signals and efficiencyis reduced. In performing any given function marketstend to be more eff icient than governments.Therefore it is desirable to privatize functionswherever possible, while providing incentives toprivate investors to create jobs and increase foreignexchange earnings.

lternative: The market is an essential institutionin any workable economic allocation system.

However, by its nature, the market reflects only thepreferences for private goods of those who havemoney. Without the intervention of government anda vigilant civil society, a free (unregulated) markettakes no account of optimal scale or of the needsof those without money, neglects essential needs forpublic goods, externalizes a significant portion of realproduction costs, and tends toward monopoly controlof allocation decisions by the market’s winners. Whenconventional wisdom calls for incentives for privateinvestors, it is in fact calling for subsidies thatcommonly take the form of agreeing to let firms

increase their private gain bytransferring a larger portion of theirproduction costs to the public. Toa c h i e v e s o c i a l j u s t i c e a n denv i ronmenta l sus ta inab i l i t y,government must intervene tosetup a framework that assures fullcosts are internalized, competitionis maintained, benefits are justlydistributed, and necessary publicgoods are provided. A vigilant andvigorous civil society is required toassure the accountability of both

We have enteredan era of joblessgrowth in whichtechnology and

reorganizations areeliminating goodjobs faster than

growth is creatingthem.

C

A

C

A

A

C

C

A

52

forEDucating Social Change

government and market to the public interest andto provide leadership in advancing social innovationprocesses.

Scientific Foundation

onventional: The conventional wisdom isgrounded in accepted theory that has stood the

test of t ime and been validated by extensiveh i s t o r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t .

lternative: The conventional wisdom representsan ideology, not a science, and largely contradicts

both the theoretical foundations of market economicsand empirical experience which contrary to theclaims of the conventional wisdom strongly favor thealternative wisdom. Indeed, the conventional wisdommay itself be the single greatest barrier we face toprogress toward sustainability.

C

A

About David C. Korten

David C. Korten is Cofounder and Board Chair, PositiveFutures Network, publishers of YES! A Journal of PositiveFutures and Founder and President of The People–CenteredDevelopment Forum. He has over thirty–five years ofexperience in preeminent business, academic, and internationaldevelopment institutions as well as in contemporary citizenaction organizations. His work in South East Asia won himinternational recognition for his contributions to pioneeringthe development of powerful strategies for transforming publicbureaucracies into responsive support systems dedicated tostrengthening community control and management of land,water, and forestry resources. Korten came to realize that thecrisis of deepening poverty, growing inequality, environmentaldevastation, and social disintegration he was observing in Asiawas also being experienced in nearly every country in theworld — including the United States and other “developed”countries. Furthermore he came to the conclusion that theUnited States was actively promoting — both at home andabroad — the very policies that were deepening the resultingglobal crisis. He is the author of “When Corporations Rulethe World” and “The Post–Corporate World: Life AfterCapitalism”. His publications are required reading in universitycourses around the world.

Revised September 11, 1996. Originally prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, United States

Congress, Washington, DC

SUPPORT THE PROGRESSIVE

We rely on you for your activism,and we also rely on you for yourfinancial support. Your contributionsenable us to play our part in themovement for peace and socialjustice.

J o i n O u r M e m b e r s h i p P r o g r a m(tax–deductible contributions)Become a Sustainer (monthly, quarterly,or semi–annual donations via your chargecard or automatic transfer)Donate Stock (and reduce the amountthe Pentagon gets from your estate!)Include The Progressive in Your Will

The Progressive survives on donationsf r o m r e a d e r s . C o n t r i b u t i o n s a r etax–exempt when you itemize. Mailchecks to:

The Progressive,409 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703

$3.50 US and $5.50 CanadaWeb address:

www.progressive.org

By highlighting injustice, and byunderscoring the need for activism,we try to give you the means andmot i va t i on t o p r e s s f o rward .

That’s how social change happens.It’s by agitating with our friends,neighbors, and colleagues to buildmass movements for social change.Howard Zinn writes a lot aboutt h i s f o r u s , a n d w e t a k e i tseriously.

We believe we’re beginning to win.

TheProgressivesince 1909

Journalism with a Purpose!

53

aksulamal@yahoo.com - idsp@qta.paknet.com.pk - www.idsp.sdnpk.org

IDSP

Institute for D e v e l o p m e n t S t u d i e s & P r a c t i c e s Q u e t t a , P a k i s t a n

forEDucating Social Change

Muhammad Khan is an integral member of ourteam. Although not ‘literate’ in the conventionalsense of the word or ‘educated’ by the standards ofthe privileged few, he has the bril l iance andmotivation to handle perhaps the most radical sectionof our magazine: ‘Opinions of the Oppressed’.

What is the root cause of poverty in oursociety?

Results . . .

“The reasons for poverty in our society are firstlylack of education, secondly increasing population andfinally education without skills. Education gives usconsciousness and when education will be coupledwith skills, only then students will be able to earntheir bread.”

Parveen Ghuryani, Social Organizer

“Lack of education is the biggest cause of povertyin our society. The second reason is absence of peacebecause due to the weak grip of law, terrorism(dehshat gardi) and destruction (takhrib kari)flourishes and investors avoid investing in thecountry. This is how unemployment rises and povertyincreases.”

Naheed Khan, Accountant

“One of the important causes is the tyrannical powerof the feudal system. Similarly, in the tribal context,the chieftain system (sardarana nizam) is dominant.The despotic rulers in villages and tribes do notwant to decrease the level of poverty in theirdomains to keep their control forever. Also, they areagainst the promotion of education amongst themasses.”

Salma Khan, Social Organizer

“Another cause of poverty is the deficient (naqis)political system of our country. The majority ofpoliticians do not want to eliminate poverty and,therefore, no government has given serious attentionto this issue. Similarly, the bureaucracy also wantspoverty to thrive. I would also like to say that oneparticular segment of our society wants to limiteducation to itself and does not want the eliminationof poverty in order to maintain its influence.”

Sumbul Khan, Housewife

“The deficient policies of the government are the

root cause of poverty in our country due to whichwealth has been limited to a few families only. Asa result, the rich are becoming richer while the poorare getting poorer. Also, the environment is notconducive to investment. Even those who hadinvested previously in the country are now shuttingdown their businesses and unemployment is on therise. In my view, this is the root cause of poverty inour country.”

Ghafar Khan, Semi–government employee

“I think the following are the reasons of poverty inour country:1. Lack of education — even if education is

accessible the fee in private schools is so highthat it is beyond the reach of common people.

2. Refugees entering the country are far beyond ourcapacity to accommodate.

3. Particularly, in the case of Karachi, poverty ist h e r e s u l t o f t h e w r o n g p o l i c i e s o f t h egovernment; for example the abolition of the millarea, the development of Port Qasim instead ofa seaport, development of Gowadar and levyingheavy taxes on industries incapable of payingthem. For all these reasons poverty is increasingday by day.”

Irshad Ali Khan, Clerk

“People do not get their rights, salaries are low andexpenses are high. Poor families live in rented housesso how can these expenses be met? That is whypeople are so tense and poverty is increasing andresulting in evil and terrorism. Parents ask childrento earn money but how they can do so when suchconditions prevail?”

Ashfaq, Electrician

“First of all, unemployment, and secondly, those whoare employed get very low salaries that cannot meettheir needs. The government should decrease inflationand provide employment. I earn 3000 rupees permonth, which means 100 rupees a day. In 100rupees, I can hardly afford to buy vegetables andother basic necessities. We should at least get 6000rupees a month, so that our basic needs can bemet.”

Mohammed Iqbal, Naib Qasid

“Poor people do not get employment. Banks giveloans to big people and not the poor because theycannot give sureties. If people could get loans frombanks and start businesses they would progress andthis is how poverty would decrease.”

VOICEVOICELESS

of theBy

MUHAMMAD KHAN ZADA

Q

54

forEDucating Social Change

Mohammed Hayat, Peon“The root cause of poverty in our society is injustice.Investors fill their safes by sucking the blood of thepoor and the poor are becoming tight–fisted (tangdast) day by day. Our present economic andeducation system is increasing poverty in society. Ourpopulation is increasing but our rulers have no clear(wazeh) economic policy. Plans are made but theyare not implemented. We have a 55 years oldeducation system, which only produces clerks andservants. We have separate education systems for therich and poor. Technical education is beyond thereach of the poor that is why we are producing aforce/an army of unemployed youth.”

Ayoob Shan

“The root cause of poverty is that the educationsystem in Pakistan is of two types. Children fromrich families get education in wonderful schools andpoor people do not have the resources to geteducation, their children do not even get bread,cloth and shelter. They are occupied with suchproblems so they cannot acquire a quality education,which the children of rich people have access to andthat is why there is always a gap between the richand poor. The deficient education system and thedifference between the rich and poor are the reasonsof economic difficulties. Only rich children geteducation in society and reach important positions.They easily take bribes and promote nepotism andevil.”

Sardar Manzoor Hussein Khan, H.R.C.P.

“The root cause of poverty in society is thateverybody wants to become rich by suppressingothers. That is why everybody is worried. Secondly,as Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said ifall Muslims would pay zakaat, which has beenenjoined upon Muslims by God, poverty wouldeventually be eliminated from society. But todayeverybody is unaware of religion and nobodyunderstands his or her way and everybody wants tobecome r ich and accumulate more wea l th .”

Muhammad Sawab Khan, Showroom Owner

“The root cause of poverty is the deficient policiesof the government. We work from morning toevening and just earn 150 to 200 rupees a day. Thegovernment does not think how we can meetexpenses while fixing maximum wages up to 200rupees or salary up to 3,000 rupees per month. Theyshould calculate it before fixing the amount. Howcan a poor family survive in just 3,000 rupees amonth?”

Mohammed Ishaq, Transporter

“Poverty is the result of the wrong policies of thegovernments which have failed to protect the interest

of the poor people. All governments have providedincentives and advantages to rich people. Similarly,rich people have benefited well–off people rather thanthe poor.”

Shamim Khatak

“The first reason is that education is not commonamongst the masses. Therefore, undesirable peoplecome to power and are not questioned. They corruptthe system. If people are educated, they would electthe right people, poverty would be eliminated andour country would progress.”

Shafiq

“The root cause is that our politicians have lootedthe country with both hands. Therefore, today ourcountry is burdened with debts and poverty. If onepercent of the dollars, which have so far come tothis country, was spent on the public we would nothave a single poor person in the country. We shouldcatch all the politicians and hang them upside downand recover all the money from them. This is howwe can get rid of poverty.”

Mohammed Ashraf

“I think the cause of poverty in society is theviolation of the rights of the poor. No poor personis given his or her rights completely and rich peoplecontrol their rights like a dragon (azdaha). Thesalaried employees put in more work and time andyet only few of their rights are granted to them.This is the reason why poor people are becomingpoorer.”

Habibullah Buneri, Clerk

“One particular cause of poverty is unemployment.Because of the high population in the country, peopledo not get adequate opportunities to purchase morein less income. If there are good job opportunities,only those people get hold of them who haveinfluence (sifarish). This increases unemployment inthe country and results in poverty which in turnaffects the majority of people in our country.”

Ghulab, Social Worker

“As far as poverty in society is concerned, I thinkthe first cause of poverty is lack of education. Ifpeople are not educated they will not be able tobenefit from different sources. Secondly, economicstability significantly influences a society. Corruption,instability and chaos are negatively influencing thelives of the people. I think the third importantreason is that without unity, society would neverprogress.”

Shahid Ali

55

DevelopmentDIARY

By: KT

“Have you heard? Mr. Chomsky’s coming to town.”“Chomsky who?”“ Yo u k n o w, t h e o n e w h o w r i t e s a l o t . ”“Writes a lot what?”“A lot of things, this and that.”“You don’t know do you?”“Uh, um, of course I do, but he’s so deep I needto be in the proper frame of mind to remember.Besides at least I know who he is. Now help mechoose what to wear. EVERYONE in Islamabad isgoing to be there you know. It’s the event of theseason.”“Like who?”“Well you know, MNA bhai, Minister baji,Secretary uncle, Deputy chacha,Senator aunty etc. etc. And oh, thatfamous cricketer also, what’s hisname?”“And I assume these people allknow who Chomsky is, right?”“Of course they do! Well, some ofthem at least. But what does itmatter anyway? He’s a famousAmerican and he’s coming fromIndia. Hmm, I wonder i f Ishould wear my bandhni sari,j u s t t o h e l p p u t h i m i nperspective.”“What was he doing in India?”“Oh the usua l s tu f f. Talk ing andpartying I suppose.”“What makes you think he was partying?”“Well why wouldn’t he? Everyone who goeson “tour” parties. What do you think, theywork? Which reminds me, I must get aninvitation for Kiki for the dinner as well.”“So what is he going to be talking about?”“I don’t know, something about rich people andpoor people, I suppose. That’s what these typesusually talk about. Of course definitely somethingabout America, since he’s from there. I wonder if hecan tell us something about the new visa rules. Ineed to renew my five–year multiple fast. Choochoo’sson is getting married next month and I need to goand buy new shoes from Nine West.”“Do you think he is going to say anything about thewar in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s nuclear program,terrorism in Kashmir, the perils of globalization andAmerica’s domination of the rest of the world?”“My God, how am I supposed to know? I just gotFifi to get me a VIP invitation. Seems like maybeyou should go too since you seem to know so much

about the “deep” stuff.”“Well I would definitely like to since I have onlybeen reading Professor Noam Chomsky’s work for thepast seven years and wrote a crit ique on hislinguistic theory two years ago.”“On his what? And he’s a Professor?”“Well, he’s actually one of the most accomplishedlinguists and political activists in the world today.He’s also a master of cognitive sciences, philosophy,history, social activism and politics. He’s writtenhundreds of books and thousands of articles. Basicallyhe is one of the most brilliant and radical, albeitignored, intellectuals of the twentieth century. Oh,and I certainly don’t think he likes to ‘party’.”“Well the things you learn everyday. If you like Ican ask Mimi to see if she can get you an invite.Of course, not in the VIP section, you know. That’salready reserved.”“Oh I already tried that. But since I just happen tobe a university student studying InternationalRelations and Development Economics here, I was

told I wasn’t entitled to get an invitation. Asecurity risk is what I think they said, or

m a y b e i t w a s b e c a u s e o f t h eexpensive Iftari the organizershave arranged and can’t affordto pay for too many people…”

“Don’t worry, dear, maybe nexttime. Now what should I wear, the

green dress or the red one?”

Afterthoughts:

I h a p p e n e d t o a t t e n d t h electure given by Professor Noam

C h o m s k y i n I s l a m a b a d o nNovember 26, by a hair’s breath,

which was preceded by a painful storyof mismanagement on behalf of theorganizers, which I had to endure along

with many others like myself. It wastragic to see yet another case of selective

elitism at play amongst our so–called corridorsof power (or the octagonal Convention Center).

Seats that should have been filled with students,activists and young professionals from our publicuniversities, were instead filled with those who mayor may not have anything substantial to say aboutProfessor Chomsky (add to that 500 empty seats). Aquestion of “quality rather than quantity” was howthe organizers chose to put it. Quality of what,Kashmiri shawls and ministerial positions? Ironically,the organizers willingly chose to perpetuate an ethoswhich went against the teachings of ProfessorChomsky himself.

It was equally tragic that the main impetus behindthe event was associated with the largest universityin Islamabad but the event did not even fractionally

forEDucating Social Change

56

forEDucating Social Change

represent the students there.A personality as distinguishedas the late Eqbal Ahmad(may he rest in peace), inwhose memory the event washosted, would probably cringewith embarrassment in theafterlife.A n d w h a t i m p r e s s i o n Iwonder did Noam Chomskyhimself get of this facade?Unfortunately, probably thew r o n g o n e ( a p p a r e n t l yEdward Said i s our nextguest – God help us!). Wehope that at least, he getsthe opportunity to meet the “ real” people ofPakistan. The people who not only study him, butwho envision equality, opportunity and justice in theircountry. Those who are struggling for the day whenwe ourselves will be lifted out of oppression andAmer ican dominat ion and can r ight fu l ly beacknowledged for our own inte l l i gence and

perseverance.

P r o f e s s o r C h o m s ky, y o uprobably did not manage tomeet such people. But let meassure you, there are severalof us here. With all yourwisdom and experience, Ihope you do not judge ustoo harshly. Two days in twoc i t i e s ( i n a l l t h e w r o n gplaces) is hardly enough toform the correct impression.

Whatever Noam Chomsky’so w n i m p r e s s i o n w a s , w e

ourselves need to accept and rectify our faults andweaknes se s . H id ing beh ind the rhe to r i c o fintellectualism and radicalism is not enough to justifyour misshapen identity. I would have willingly sat onthe floor of a stadium if need be, but how many ofthose sitting in the Convention Center on November26 would have? It is that which we need to figure

www.zmag.org

ZNETThe best resource for watchers of world

events and campaigners of socialchange...

RD WORLD TRAVELER puts up magazinearticles and book excerpts that offer analternative view to the corporate media

about the state of democracy in America, andabout the impact of the policies of the UnitedStates' government, transnational corporations,international trade and financial institutions, andthe corporate press, on democracy, human rightsand social and economic justice, in the ThirdWorld.

U P P O R T T H I R D W O R L D T R A V E L E R . C O MVisitors are encouraged to buy the booksand subscribe to the magazines that appear

on this website, to ask their libraries to put themon their shelves and their bookstores to stockthem, and to tell others about the wealth ofinformation that they provide.

Without public awareness of and supportfor independent progressive authors,publications and publishers, this much-

needed information may not continue to beavailable.

For more information please mail to:steve@thirdworldtraveler.com

THIRD WORLDTRAVELER

www.thirdworldtraveler.com

THIRD WORLDTRAVELER

www.thirdworldtraveler.com

S

3

W

A COMMUNITY COMMITTED TOSOCIAL CHANGE

Address:18 Millfield St

Woods Hole, MA 02543USA

‘They’ say that the world will not be the same afterSeptember 11 (9–11). I ask what was the world likebefore September 11 and what significant changes do‘they’ want to bring about? I would like to ask‘them’ what was so ‘right’ about the pre–September11 world which is damaged and won’t be the same?Let’s refresh our memories about the beautiful world‘they’ have created, whose solidarity, morality, freedomand jus t ice was a t tacked on September 11 :

An estimated 13–18 million people, mostly children,die from hunger and poverty each year. That isabout 40,000 people per day, or 1,700 people anhour…only 10–15 percent of hunger stems fromemergency; most hunger 85–90 percent is born outof poverty.Half the world – nearly three billion people – liveon less than two dollars a day.The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries)is less than the wealth of the world’s three richestpeople combined.Less than one percent of what the world spendsevery year on weapons would be needed to putevery child into school.51% of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodiesare owned by corporations.20% of the population in the developed nations,consume 86% of the world’s goods.The developing world spends $13 on debt repaymentfor every $1 it receives in grants.Approximately 790 million people in the developingworld are still chronically undernourished, almosttwo–thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.7 Million children die each year as a result of thedebt crisis; 8525038 children have died since thestart of the year 2000.

Source: www.globalissues.com

At the end of the day, these are mere numbers.Numbers have limitations. Numbers can only tell ushow many not how much. Numbers surely tell usthat most of us have been faced with acts of terrorand misery on a daily basis; but fail to conveysuffering, despair and wretchedness. Numbers informus that millions of innocent lives, mostly innocentchildren, are lost to horrifying conditions of povertyand hunger; what numbers do not tell us is thehelplessness and anger such traumatic conditionstrigger. These are brutal acts of terror concealed andc o m m i t t e d i n t h e n a m e o f d e v e l o p m e n t ,

modernization and globalization. How many wars have‘they’ planned and fought against economic terrorand injustices? In the large scheme of things theseare emotionally charged words, inconsequential andinsignificant questions. So let’s not have high hopesas the poor and oppressed don’t count; the worldwas beautiful for those who matter and is even moreso only for them.

As I sat down to write, I had no intention ofdiscussing these issues. I planned to present the rangeof possibilities that are still there for people whowant to do something constructive and meaningfulabout the prevalent situation of war and terror acrossthe world. More than anything else, I wanted tostart this year with rekindled hope and positivity notskepticism. But, honestly, how can you not see andfeel the deplorable circumstances that surround mostof humanity? How can you remain oblivious to thepain and suffering of your fellow humans? How isthat possible? I believe that unless you make aconcerted effort not–to–see the atrocities committedagainst your own species, you really cannot miss it.And, to me that is the distinguishing factor betweenus and them. ‘They’ do not want to see it, ‘we’cannot un–see it.

Back to the main purpose of this essay – hope ofpos s ib i l i t y. I s there any? What I know andunderstood and learnt from our collective past, I amvery hopeful. There is no denying the fact that welive in a world which is full of injustices. Yet thereare those whose individual and collective efforts haverepeatedly proven what Noam Chomsky regards as,“our innate ability to be free and constructive”. Healso says that there are scientific way of proving thisbut I think i f we look around us , there areinnumerable examples of that happening everyday.

Since the first issue of EDucate! I have interactedwith a lot of people and am glad and relieved thatmost of us still have our humanity intact and wantto do something good and hopeful for our collectivefuture.

During the course of writing this essay, I read anarticle from one of my greatest teachers, whom Ihave never met as yet , Howard Zinn, whichredoubled my hopes for good in this world. With hisexclusive permission, I present excerpts from hisinspiring essay:

FinalAnalysisThe Hope of Possibility

MASHHOOD RIZVI

BYHOWARD ZINN & MASHHOOD RIZVI

58

I have tried hard to match my friends in theirpessimism about the world (is it just my friends?),but I keep encountering people who, in spite of allthe evidence of terrible things happening everywhere,give me hope. Especially young people, in whom thefuture rests.

I think of my students.

I think of my students at Boston University and ofyoung people all over the country who, anguishedabout war in Vietnam, resisted in some way, facingpolice clubs and arrests. And brave high schoolstudents Mary Beth Tinker and her classmates in DesMoines, Iowa who insisted on wearing blackarmbands to protest the war and when suspendedfrom school took their case to Supreme Court andwon.

Of course, some would say, that was the sixties.

But even in the seventies andeighties, when there was widespread head–shaking over the“ a p a t h y ” o f t h e s t u d e n tgeneration, an impressive numberof students continued to act.

I think of the determined littlegroup at B.U. (most of them hadnever done anything like this, butthey were emulating similar groupsat a hundred schools around thec o u n t r y ) w h o s e t u p a“ shanty town” on campus torepresent apartheid in SouthAfrica. The police tore it down, but the studentsrefused to move and were arrested.

In South Africa in the summer of 1982 I had visitedCrossroads, a real shantytown outside of Capetown,where thousands of blacks occupied places thatlooked like chicken coops, or were jammed togetherin huge tents, sleeping in shifts, six hundred of themsharing faucet of running water. I was impressed thatyoung Americans who had not seen that with theirown eyes, had only read about it or seen photos,would be so moved to step out of their comfortablelives and act.

Beyond those activists, however, there was a muchlarger population of students who had no contactwith any movement, yet had deep feelings about

injustice. Students kept journals in my courses, wherethey commented on the issues discussed in class andon the books they had read. They were asked tospeak personally, to make connections between whatthey read and their own lives, their own thoughts.This was in the mid–eighties, supposedly a bad timef o r s o c i a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s a m o n g s t u d e n t s .

In the spring of 1988 I made a sudden decision toquit teaching, after thirty–odd years in Atlanta andBoston and three visiting professorships in Paris. Isurprised myself by this, because I love teaching, butI wanted more freedom, to write, to speak to peoplearound the country, to have more time with familyand friends.

News of my leaving Boston University seemed tospread; last class was especially crowded, with peoplethere who were not my students, standing againstthe wall, sitting in the aisles. I answered questionsabout my decision, and we had a final discussionabout justice, and the role of the university, thefuture of the world.

Then I told them that I was ending the classhalf–hour early and explained why. There was astruggle going on between the faculty at the B.U.School of Nursing and the administration, which had

decided to close the school downb e c a u s e i t w a s n o t m a k i n genough money, in effect firing thenursing faculty. The nurses werepicketing that very day in protest.I was going to join them and Iinvited my students to comealong. When I left the class,about a hundred students walkedwith me. The nurses, desperatelyneeding support , g reeted ushappily, and we marched up anddown together.

It seemed a fitting way to endmy teaching career. I had always

insisted that a good education was a synthesis ofbook learning and involvement in social action, thateach enriched the other. I wanted my students toknow that the accumulation of knowledge, whilefascinating in itself, is not sufficient as long as somany people in the world have no opportunity toexperience that fascination.

I spent the next several years responding to speakhere and there around the country. What Idiscovered was heartening. In whatever town, largeor small, in whatever state of the Union, there wasalways a cluster of men and women who cared aboutthe sick, the hungry, the victims of racism, thecasualties of war, and who were doing something,however small, in the hope that the world wouldchange.

forEDucating Social Change

The Possibilityof Hope

HOWARD ZINN

To be hopeful in badtimes is not just

foolishly romantic. It isbased on the fact thatthe human history is a

history not only ofcruelty, but also of

compassion, sacrifice,courage, kindness.

59

Wherever I was – whether Dallas, Texas, or Ada,Oklahoma, or Shreveport, Louisiana, or New Orleansor San Diego or Philadelphia, Washington…I foundsuch people. And beyond the handful activists thereseemed to be hundreds, thousands, more who wereopen to unorthodox ideas.

But they tended not to know of each other ’sexistence, and so, while they persisted, they did sowith the desperate patience of Sisyphus endlesslypushing that boulder up the mountain. I tried to telleach group that it was not alone, and the verypeople who were disheartened by the absence ofnational movement were themselves proof of thepotential for such movement. I suppose I was tryingto persuade myself as well as them.

Going around the country, I was impressed again andagain by how favorably people reacted to what,undoubtedly, is a radical view of society–antiwar,anti–military, critical of the legal system, advocatinga drastic redistribution of the wealth, supportive ofprotest even to the point of civil disobedience.

Especially heartening was the fact that wherever Ihave gone I have found teachers, in elementaryschool or high school or college, who at some pointin their lives were touched by some phenomenon –the civil rights movement, or the Vietnam War, orthe feminist movement, or the environmental danger,or the plight of peasants in Central America. Theywere conscientious about teaching their students thepractical basics, but also determined to stimulate theirstudents to a heightened social consciousness.

It is (this) change in consciousness that encouragesme. Granted, racial hatred and sex discrimination arestill with us, war and violence still poison ourculture, we have a large underclass of poor, desperatepeople, and there is a hardcore of the populationcontent with the way things are, afraid of change.

But if we see only that, we have lost historicalperspective, and then it is as if we were bornyesterday and we know only the depressing storiesin this morning’s newspapers, this evening’s televisionreports.

It is (that) long–term change which I think we mustsee if we are not to lose hope. Pessimism becomesa self–fulfilling prophecy; it reproduces itself bycrippling our willingness to act. There is tendency tothink that what we see in the present moment wewill continue to see. We forget how often in thiscentury we have been astonished by the suddencrumbling of institutions, by extraordinary changes inpeople’s thoughts, by unexpected eruptions ofrebellion against tyrannies, by the quick collapse ofs y s t e m s o f p o w e r t h a t s e e m e d i n v i n c i b l e .

The bad things that happen are repetitions of bad

things that have always happened–war, racism,maltreatment of women, religious and nationalistfanaticism, starvation. The good things that happenare unexpected.

Un expected, and yet explainable by certain truthswhich spring at us from time to time, but which wetend to forget:

Political power, however, formidable, is more fragilethan we think. (Note how nervous are those whohold it.)

Ordinary people can be intimidated for a time, canbe fooled for a time, but they have a down–deepcommonsense, and sooner or later they find a wayto challenge the power that oppresses them. Peopleare not naturally violent or cruel or greedy, althoughthey can be made so. Humans beings everywherewant the same things: they are moved by the sightof abandoned children, homeless families, thecasualties of war; they long for peace, for friendshipand affection across lines of race and nationality.

Revolutionary change does not come as onecataclysmic moment (beware of such moments!) butas an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzagtowards a more decent society. We don’t have toengage in grand, heroic actions to participate in theprocess of change. Small acts, when multiplied bymil l ions of people, can transform the world.

To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishlyromantic. It is based on the fact that the humanhistory is a history not only of cruelty, but also ofc o m p a s s i o n , s a c r i f i c e , c o u r a g e , k i n d n e s s .

What we choose to emphasize in this complexhistory will determine our lives. If we see only theworst, it destroys our capacity to do something. Ifwe remember those times and places – and there areso many – where people have behaved magnificently,this gives us the energy to act, and at least thepossibility of sending this spinning top of a world ina different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’thave to wait for some grand utopian future. Thefuture is an infinite succession of presents, and tolive now as we think human beings should live, indefiance of all that is bad around us, is itself amarvelous victory.

forEDucating Social Change

"The success or failure of what we strive for can neverbe predicted; the only thing that can be predicted is

that if we do not try to do something about economicinjustice, race and gender discrimination, nothing good

will happen."

Howard Zinn on the future

60

SOCIAL CHANGE

societ al learningcritical consciousness

collectivenesswisdom

intellectualismfree thinkinghopechallengeliberation...

moralitytransformation

humanizationrighteousness

couragesocial equality

classlessnesssocial justice...

EDUCATINGfor

Pakistan Rs. 45South Asia US$ 3.95Rest of the World US$ 4.95