It is merely an instrument that morphs its target into a cog for the capitalist-consumer machine. It is often said, that a good education is aimed at providing its seekers with the so called ‘necessary’ skills that will allow them to navigate the challenges of the modern world. That central challenge is nothing but the pursuit of a means of living. Those means of living only exist via outlets that have been propped up by the global elite, most notably highly centralized states and the investor class. Thus, the tides of academic rigour that a student endures are in theory expected to culminate in the securing of his or her means of living. Now, the detractor will say that, you have completely misunderstood the modern educational project. They will retort by saying that education is a fundamental right, that it informs and civilises students, and that it frees them from dependency. In summary, they will shield its core constituent under a shallow veneer of some abstract essence that according to them makes modern education something ‘more’. A right, a privilege, something that distinguishes the educated from the non-educated akin to how the dead are distinguished from the living. They inextricably couple it with the notion of teleological progress, the idea that modern education has ushered in man’s maturation, his awakening from his prior superstitious slumber. In certain post-colonial Muslim social echelons, one hears the mantra of honor and prestige that comes about as a result of scaling the educational ladder. Interestingly, one finds in the revivalist circles (whether religious or secular) a palpable lamenting over the ‘lack’ of education, which according to them explains what they perceive as decline. Hence, we see that when it comes to the concept of education despite it being, overtly material, it is cunningly packaged in a flowery philosophised language with the aim of enchanting and silencing the recipients of its message. For who, in their right mind, would stand in the way of progress or the ever expanding ambit of inalienable rights? Yet, we ask the overzealous proponents, what is the metric of success of your concept of education? Literacy, rudimentary arithmetic skills, the stringing together of phrases into cogent sentences? For what purpose might I ask? To craft unignorable job applications? To crank numbers in a simulation? To prepare bureaucratic briefs? The school student is primarily concerned with transitioning to the next grade, those transitions are contingent upon the clearing of exams. Perhaps some might say the child learns for the sake of learning as a result of undertaking this journey. That is entirely possible, however what aspect of learning, wisdom and knowledge is manifested in a timed exam? The exam demarcates simply the boundary between two hierarchical levels of the educational ladder. No deep level of understanding can rear its head in a two-hour exam, what is gauged is simply the ability to deploy an arsenal of academic ‘tricks’ within a limited time window. Perhaps this ceases to be the case at the high school level. But the high schoolers main concern is acceptance into a university, again contingent on exams and coursework. The extracurriculars and some aspects of the school curriculum may have fostered within some students a spirit of learning, something abstract and lofty, but that takes a backseat to whatever template the university expects the prospective student to comply with. The detractor might say that these issues cease to persist at the level of higher education. However, is that really so? The constant tug of GPA’s, research projects and internships. The constant anxiety to elongate one’s CV. A student’s pursuit of research may start with an impulse to uncover the truth but that is easily snuffed out as the goal becomes to pursue graduate school. GRE’s and recommendations take the cake. And graduate school? Knowledge production for the sake of production, with the graduate student playing the role of cheap fodder for the commercialisation and valorisation of some ‘breakthrough’. The early career scientist therefore is devolved into a wandering hermit, hopping from post-doc to post-doc. Becoming either disenchanted with the system or a purza of the machine. I ask the detractor where are those high ideals you spoke of? It would seem that even if one were to tread this path with the intention of aspiring to something ‘noble’ ‘praiseworthy’, ‘abstract’ it is demonstrably true that those aspirations very soon crumble as the economic concerns become more and more pronounced. Concerns hoisted upon the cogs by those who direct them from high above. Those scaling the corporate summits have it no better. For, how can a stable work environment exist when its participants are grovelling for scraps thrown by their superiors. That is bound to produce only narcissists and egoists. An emanation of greed from the sphere of the CEO to the sub-lunar realm of the employee. Our detractor might once again brush these concerns aside and respond, that this is how innovation and ingenuity is fuelled, do you oppose the world we live in? I only seek to question what direction we are truly headed in. If what is required from the critic is complete and total submission to the machine, and not to question its ideological premises, then I am afraid I cannot comply. It seems to me that your ideals simply do not hold true.
Afkar-e-Qurtuba 