I recently read The 8th Habit by Stephen Covey. In this book, Covey frequently talks about the 'greatest gift' human beings have that other living creatures do not - the power to choose. Covey says: "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lie our growth and our happiness."
Using this theory, the book challenges the great argument of Nature vs. Nurture. Are we a product of our genes or our upbringing? Covey argues the answer is neither. Since our lives are simply a series of choices, we have choosen what we are today.
Overall I view this as a solid theory. However, I recently attended a lecture that made me question it. The lecture was titled Contested Ways of Knowing by a sociology professor from the University of Regina by the name of Salvador Orlando Alfaro. Salvador spoke of the flaws in current academic institutions. Mainly, the dominance of Euro-centric knowledge and the absence of "other" knowledges in their curriculum. There's nothing wrong with euro-centric knowledge, but the absence of other knowledge doesn't provide students the opportunity to a well-rounded view of a subject.
Now here's where I'm having an issue. If we are constantly receiving a biased stimulus (Euro-centric teaching), won't our choices also be biased? If we don't have all the knowledge to make a choice, will we actually have power over that choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
So just what "other" things should we be learning? And exactly how are we "Euro-biased"? For that matter, what is being "Euro-biased"? Please define.
Are you saying that because we don't know every possible perspective on an issue that we can't make an informed decision? I would say we know enough in most cases.
What does Mr. Alfaro suggest, just think, "What would Che Guevara do?" (WWCGD?)
Hey Shawn,
I spoke with Che and he suggests a mass rebellion with table tennis to follow. Let me know if you’re in.
In this context, Euro-biased or Euro-centric knowledge has origins Europe (i.e. Pythagoras, Copernicus, etc.). In addition, Salvador included knowledge that was spread by European settlers in our society. He uses studies that prove some the theories developed by the likes of Pythagoras and Copernicus had been developed centuries before in other societies. However, here in North America we are only exposed to the Euro-centric teachings.
This exposure is fine in a number of cases, but Salvador points out there are now other forces that may be driving knowledge. As Universities become increasingly driven to generate revenue, they will typically take on research projects and professors that will also maximize revenue. By exploring a variety of different sources for knowledge, we ensure the information we receive will be less biased.
Fred
I am definitely in on the ping pong. I haven't played since Aird St. I miss it.
Alfaro sounds like he's been reading "Pedagogy of the Opressed" by Paulo Freire. Check it out.
How is this bias affecting our decisions, specifically? I read the one paper written by Salvador (you're on a first name basis with him now?) on the various problems in Central America. I'll put it this way. What would we be doing differently if our knowledge was more broadly based?
That’s a good question - one that requires some personal reflection and a touch of imagination. As a friend and I were discussing after the lecture, when you receive only one side of the story you also tend to receive more biases and stereotypes. For example, many people believe the main problem facing Africa is HIV/AIDS. While this is a massive problem, like one of my past posts stated, unsafe drinking water actually kills more people each year than HIV/AIDS and malaria combined. If one wanted to make a significant impact in Africa, based on the popular beliefs they would focus their energy on HIV/AIDS. However, if they had multiple sources of knowledge, they may be more inclined to address the issue of safe drinking water.
Well don't blame ignorance on the education system. I know that AIDS isn't the biggest killer in Africa (not by a long shot), and I'm a product of this Euro-centric system. Anyone who gets more than sound bites from Bono et al knows better. Also, I think it's important to differentiate between fact and opinion. Opinions can be biased, facts cannot. One may use facts to justify biased positions, but facts can also speak for themselves.
I might tend to agree with the "multiple sources of knowledge" argument if it was 1950 or so. But now we have the Internet, the blogosphere, and every other fountain of information there is. There's no reason that anyone should be misinformed on a subject of interest.
I attended the lecture with Fred and have also spoken with Alfaro many times. I agree that this opinion of Alfaro is pessimistic in nature, but to think socially we inevitably have to think critically. Moreover, this skepticism can lead to a specific form of resistance that challenges dominant discourses.
The lecture was not a cheap shot against the academy but a promotion of creativity, imagination and difference. More than that, the “other” form of knowledge may be articulated as an antagonist or protagonist to knowledge that is constantly reproduced in the mainstream in turn making these “other” forms of knowledge thinkable and valid.
These dominant euro-centric discourses foster passive binaries making people believe that structures in society are inevitable and beyond human influence. It is fair to say information is everywhere, on any and all topics. I am not sure if the main point of the lecture was to accuse people of being ignorant or claim that information wasn’t at all of our figure tips. Rather, consider this example – when completing a thesis in most faculties at the university level – you have to choose your theoretical stance from existing theories – where do these theories come from? More importantly, does the reproduction of these theories create a static base of knowledge? Alfaro alluded to these issues coupled with a push for “local” knowledge.
Modern society relies on structures to diffuse knowledge through institutions (universities) that act as systems of control via categories by experts that we are placed in form birth to death. Therefore knowledge is not neutral but a method of social management shaping modern societies. I do not think it is absurd to consider that “other” knowledge will provide a different “way”, and not the same “way” as a form of resistance or a matter of choice.
Truth (fact) is not absolute, it is a cultural construction linked to power – distorting knowledge in relation to power. The “other” knowledge can challenge the claimed autonomy that dominant discourses have - that was the message I took from the lecture.
"Truth (fact) is not absolute, it is a cultural construction linked to power"
2+2=4 - Fact or cultural construct?
Or perhaps a more interesting example: Humans are causing the earth to warm? Fact or cultural construct?
Re: 2+2=4
I guess it depends on your language consider this: are mathematical truths mere social entities, like marriages, or declarations of war, which would not exist if there were no human beings?
Re: truth
Was the bible absolute truth? Is it still absolute truth? If not; why did so many people believe it? If not; why don't that many people believe it anymore? Should your response be "we are more rational"? Please define rationality. If you respond, we think and act with reason? How does one act without reason?
Science only offers an intriguing perspective on nature, it is one perspective among many - it is not an incorrect one, but even speaking of corrective-ness is passive. Science helped civilize savages, or said differently, cultural genocide - as well it allowed the KKK to consider black people weak and unfit to survive.
When a new truth is constructed these same people mentioned above, and the like, will be the first to believe this construction as the truth without challenging it. That knowledge is dangerous, passive, and constantly perpetuated by the privileged discourses.
Just because there is no one there to count them doesn't change the fact that numbers are there. Mathematical models can be applied to real-world problems. Newton's three laws of motion would exist regardless of whether there were humans around or not.
I think it would behoove us to make a distinction between verifiable fact and opinion, which some may call personal truth. For instance, I'll revert again to Newton's laws. Those are facts. But the Bible as God's revelation, although I may regard it as truth, it is not a fact because it cannot be verified except by personal faith and belief. If it is, indeed a fact, it makes no difference whether anyone should believe it or not. The earth revolved around the sun before any person ever supposed it did. Saying that the sun revolves around the earth may be an "interesting perspective", but it is [at the risk of sounding passive] incorrect.
As to why less people believe in the Bible now than before, I would say increasing secularization and materialism has slowly driven personal faith out of people's lives. It's pretty easy for anyone to believe in a spherical earth if he sees a picture from space. It is more difficult to accept the presence of a god or God that cannot be physically seen or heard.
"Science helped civilize savages, or said differently, cultural genocide - as well it allowed the KKK to consider black people weak and unfit to survive."
Science, religion, pretty much anything can be abused for perverted purposes. But I think it's bogus that the KKK used science to do what they did. I could say "Science says blacks are inferior." That would not make it true. On the other hand, I could show that IQ is independent of race through statistical analysis.
I think you are more than confusing the issue. When you refer to the “increasing secularization and materialism that has slowly driven personal faith out of people's lives” – you lend a hand to my argument as the synthesis of this argument is that people were provided “other” knowledge that drove faith out of their lives (for better or worse). That “other” knowledge provided praxis for tremendous change as a protagonist to religious discourse. This is a shift that only took place because people were offered “other” knowledge that was not previously accepted or entertained by a minority of privileged because they were excelling off of people’s existing ideologies.
In short, with the enlightenment came radical new thinkers and philosophers who were articulating new discourses that were validated by the same minority.
How many people, university students included, understand the mathematical components of Ricardo’s comparative advantage or can quote Einstein’s theory of relativity (two thinkers entwined in the enlightenment) and if they can, what does this bring to light in their everyday lives as rational, reasonable citizens? Adversely, how many people have an opinion that lowering taxes is the best political solution to their problems or minimal government interference in the market is good for the economy? (Ratoriocal question, not for a response that will undoubtedly mention Newton’s laws of motion, which actually would not exist without a human, that being Newton – refer to Einstein’s theories on space and time or time-space).
We began by arguing for or against “other” knowledge and its place in the academy. And asked ourselves: do dominant discourses (the science of ideas), as a producer of knowledge, hinder people’s ability to make choices for themselves?
I think it is obvious that society has produced, or culturally constructed, a person’s image, language and actions – conforming the majority based on the needs and wants of the privileged minority using knowledge as a tool. If this is unclear, refer to policies set by the United Nations, universalizing all problems and providing them solutions that benefit the West. Should this still be unclear maybe the answers will be found in definitions and initiatives of US Aid to develop the undeveloped in the mirrow of the West. And the list can go on.
However, I must concede to your arguments because really, who am I to say, ask a scientist as I am sure there is a mathematical model explaining this complex problem that will without doubt apply to society.
Not sure where you're going with the Einstein and Ricardo comment. Few understand them, and fewer still can practically apply them: so what? What's wrong with knowledge for knowledge's sake?
Newton's laws are still valid when neglecting relativistic effects (which can be done in typical problems). F=ma most definitely exists, albeit within quite broad conditions.
So should we let the undeveloped keep dying of malaria, typhoid, dysentery, etc? Or would helping them be cultural genocide?
As you so eloquently put; “What's wrong with knowledge for knowledge's sake?” So why did you even begin arguing in an argument over the need for “other” knowledge?
You keep getting lost in the syntax, while missing the whole meaning of each argument argued. For example: your last comment was simply ignorant not even worth challenging. “Or would helping them be cultural genocide?” Your point on Newton is more you arguing against yourself, as I did not once challenge Newton’s relevance.
You could go for days picking out a work here and another there and argue it but you have not once tried to make a point during your internship as Devil’s Advocate. FYI: he is not that happy with you.
With respect to your infinite wisdoms and undeniable brilliance, please feel free to get my email from Fred and I will gladly let you know just where you went wrong arguing something you don’t know. Or maybe I just did.
I think out of respect for Fred and the hard work he puts into his Blog you should stop littering it with useless banter void or any point.
I'll admit I have been rather all over with my comments, but there is no need for insults. I'll refine what I've been saying earlier.
Euro-centric society is pretty damned good, at least in terms of lifespan, standard of living, personal freedoms, and the list goes on. Other sources of knowledge should be given the benefit of discussion and debate, yes. I have no argument with that. It helps not only to strengthen new theories, but it can also buttress old ones.
By all means, question the status quo. My question is, the universities are going to replace what with what? Like Fred said, universities look for sources of revenue. Speaking for myself, I went to university to get a good career (first) and learn in general (second). This is probably the case for at least a large plurality of students. For us, the most important question would be how this new knowledge is going to affect our future careers. In a society of specialization, there is only so much well-rounded learning that can be squeezed into a university degree. Of course, Arts and Science grads are SO well-rounded and not biased at all. (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.) I'll freely admit I'm biased for the Euro-centric system. Why? Because it works well. Of course there are problems, but overall, free-market, Western democracies are the place most everyone wants to be. If I go to a doctor, I would prefer that she be a product of a Western university.
I often find it amusing that those who love to bash "Euro-centric knowledge" certainly love to enjoy its benefits, e.g. sanitation, transportation, communication, et al. How can we fit other sources of knowledge in curricula, in a meaningful way, and still retain our standard of living? Or is Alfaro not referring to radical surgery to the university system, merely evolutionary changes? I'm not sure what he had in mind. Castro socialism? (hope not)
I would appreciate the email comments @ shk500@mail.usask.ca.
I think you guys are getting away from the whole point of Alfaro's semenar(i wasn't there, just going on your summaries of his speech) I don't think its about pessimism at all. I think it's more about the fact that we live in a biased society with only so much time in our days and lives for education. Even though we are learning everyday we are only learning what we live. If for instance we lived in Africa we, as a society would be for more aware of the problems that face us. I think that a Euro-centric knowledge is taught here because it is the most practical, and widely accepted education we can get. Hence the reason that universities teach it for revenue reasons. I think there are still viable options for those who are interested in the teachings of other cultures and religions and societies that are taught at canadian universities.
As, for your arguments on belief and fact. I think the reason for the decline in belief in religion in western society has a ton to do with choice. We are able to make this choice is based on the fact that we have proven facts at our disposal. This being said religion is still a very viable, although extremely close-minded and biased
view, for people in our society. Just the fact that people can believe something so strongly with all disregard for science and fact says something about the power of belief. I have to say that I like to keep an open mind however I am biased towards science and not religion based on what I have learned in our Euro-based society, as are most.
Post a Comment