How much muddying is enough?

Maduranga Kalugampitiya (MK) in his Kuppi article in The Island of June 6, titled, “Have humanities and social sciences muddied water enough?” tries to highlight the stepmotherly treatment given to humanities and social sciences (H/SS) in higher education and says that the practitioners in these fields are themselves responsible for this downgrading of the two fields. The core of his argument is that the H/SS streams being in a lowly position in campuses, is more a problem with the practitioners of H/SS than one with the condescending attitude of the policymakers and the general public. As a remedy, he goes on to say, we have to muddy the water, meaning, we have to make interventions that will unsettle the status quo so that the authorities will sit up and take notice; and for this to happen there should be a restructuring of the relevant programmes.

With regard to the weaknesses found in H/SS streams, MK refers to a few issues, saying that the necessary restructuring should produce academics who can engage “in a political reading of the realities that define our existence in society and raise difficult questions about such existence.” However, it is doubtful whether such an exercise will raise the level of recognition being given to H/SS studies because as he himself agrees, “downgrading the humanities and social sciences disciplines are global by nature and are very much part of the neoliberal world order, which dominates the day.” Asking difficult questions and disturbing the status quo are not likely to raise H/SS streams to the dignity they deserve because the relevant subjects under H/SS are by no means the ones that can cut any ice with the global powers that determine which disciplines would best suit to run the circus of their profit-making consumerist economy.

Asking disturbing questions will be the very thing that will make the giants further denigrate the H/SS programmes. Of course, students of hard sciences neatly fit into the “predefined slots” of the mighty engine which determines the world order. It is the students of hard sciences along with those of engineering, medicine, marketing, IT, etc., that have predetermined places in the system with high salaries, perks and prestige. None of these disciplines are free of the market paradigm and help perpetuate the system. None of the subjects coming under H/SS have that glamour in the eyes of those who pull the strings; hence muddying the water will only further aggravate the problems of the field of H/SS. In fact, the widespread idea that spending time and money on these subjects is a waste is directly related to their being evaluated, not by progressive minded academics who envision a more humane society, but by those who are on the top, promoting crass consumerism and profitmaking. Hard sciences, commerce and technology are grist to their mill.

MK’s assumption that H/SS streams are smeared with a bit of soft skills to add some “value” to them is a bit erroneous. It is not only these subjects, even those prestigious subjects like engineering, IT, marketing, etc., have a top layer of soft skills, without which, the students cannot secure a lucrative job. For example, it is an open secret that most of those who are absorbed in to the private sector are not necessarily those with better academic credentials; they happen to be the ones who perform at the interview better although they may have average grades. This, once again, shows the direction of education which is set to produce those so called “employable graduates”; an education which is mightily influenced by the market requirements. As such, whether with or without the topping of soft skills, the H/SS will not compete with the hard subjects. The problem lies elsewhere outside the pail of the curriculum.

The very fact that MK “self-consciously” uses science-related terms like “laboratory” and “H2O” to prove his points in a discourse on the problems of H/SS streams itself shows the popular appeal of science terminology. That’s the crux of the matter. The hard subjects are quite pervasive even in terms of language and the reasons are above and beyond our comfort zone of purely academic interests. Everybody wants to do hard sciences or marketing related subjects because they are the ones that will take them to the promised land of luxury and comfort. Anyone who takes a liking to subjects like, painting, music, language, history, geography, archeology, etc. will have to do it at their own peril unless he sees a clear path for social climbing. As such, the idea of muddying the water will not go a long way with the powers that be unless muddied water can compete with “purified” bottled water in the market place!

MK touches a sore spot when he says that most H/SS researchers wouldn’t produce anything more than “jargonised commonsense”. He goes on to state that the reason is not simply the lack of “rigorous academic training and exposure to critical theory” because even well qualified researchers don’t seem to muddy the water enough. One reason for this, according to him, is the lack of academic integrity of the researchers who for personal reasons flinch from conducting research and push conclusions to their logical ends. They fear the undermining of their own privileged position and the backlash from the society. If this is the case, it is a tragic situation which truly begs the question whether it is worth pursuing H/SS subjects. In fact, it proves that H/SS streams are not only in need of significant restructuring, but even the basic concepts of H/SS have to be reexamined and necessary formulations put in place. It is doubtful whether how much academic training would be enough to make a veteran researcher get enough “training to withstand that pressure”. After all, there are many laymen who can resist pressure from outside without any academic training!

Finally, there seems to be another reason which merits a radical restructuring of the H/SS streams. Of course, the students may be getting training in critical thinking when they are made to study these subjects. The study of almost every subject in H/SS- be it literature, history, sociology, art, economics, political science, language or archeology involves critical thinking. However, as “humanities and social sciences” imply these are much related to our existential problems. This is all the reason why such critical thinking should not be limited to their narrow subject areas. Isn’t it pertinent to ask how much of these critical thinking skills have helped the practitioners of H/SS (teachers, students and researchers) to look critically at the socially and culturally transmitted traditions that have had a stranglehold on our lives? If the conventional mindsets of most of these practitioners are any indication, it is clear that the necessary restructuring must comprise fundamental changes, if the relevant students are to be made progressive minded citizens in our society.

Susantha Hewa