On Arguments and Conformity in Education

I dont know about the experiences others had in school, but I got the impression that raising uncomfortable questions is never advisable for someone who wants to stay in the teacher's good books. Is it that as a society we prefer not to have our youngest members think too much? Or is it that the collective conscious of human society is a control freak, relying on controlling the range of our thoughts to preserve the current social structure, with its hierarchy and power structures? Or is it that restricting the things about which a modern student thinks is made necessary by the now vast treasure trove of knowledge gained by us over time, which has lead to modern curriculum being so vast and extensive that the opportunity cost of any digression is very high?

I now stand on the other side of the table. Now I have to decide what sort of a teacher do i want to be.

What should be the role of a teacher in the development of a student? Should/Can it be impressed upon students that books are the real sources of knowledge and the role of a teacher is to help in the process of reading and understanding them? How does one encourage students so used to being spoon fed chapters/topics for all their life to educate themselves? How should the diversity of intellectual capability in class be dealt with? Can students ever get over the sense of hierarchy that permeates our existence and not judge themselves with respect to others and learn for the sake of learning?

These and many other questions are yet unanswered..Any ideas?

On the Matter of Corruption

There is a lot to be said about how and why arguments are stifled or at the very least, not encouraged in social groups cutting across time, space and political boundaries. However, before the discourse on the dynamics of change is taken any further, I would like to say something about an issue that has been hogging the headlines in India lately - Corruption.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines corruption as:
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery

I would venture to suggest that this definition is reasonably concise and accurate and conveys what most people would understand by the term. However, it is also suitably vague. It is difficult to fathom how it can be used to isolate individual cases of corruption without having to rely on our fair judgement.

Would landing a job or a contract through your 'network' be construed a corrupt practice? The bribe in the this case being non-monetary bonds of social contracts that friends or family members are bound by..

Even more difficult is conjecturing on the factors that foster corruption. Although here in India, with most people having had multiple encounters with corrupt officials, there is simple explanation that is oft repeated, that of poor wage rates leading to corruption.

Yesterday, while talking about the state of the law enforcement agencies in India, inevitably the question of corruption came up. A lawyer friend of mine, like countless many have done before him, suggested that corruption is rampant in lower levels of the police as the constables and inspectors are not paid as well as they should be.

Extending this logic would imply that the private security guards stationed outside so many office blocks and residential apartments, who are paid even lesser, should be more corrupt. And should be expected to demand for extra money (over and above his wages) from individual house owners/employees to ensure that their cars arent stolen. Police constables dont have better qualifications than most private security guards and cant therefore claim to be underpaid with respect to their skill sets. Infact they are very well taken care of by the government, never having to fear loosing their jobs or paying medical bills etc..

I think that they are corrupt because they can be. If there was a way for me to get an FIR registered without meeting with a constable and therefore be required to pay a bribe, the incidence of demand for bribes would reduce. The same would hold, if government jobs were not granted forever, or if the lower levels of the judiciary were in not as derelict a state as it is in..

As to the question of money (wealth as opposed to income), i think it is probably the only commodity to which law of diminishing marginal utility doesnt not apply.

What do you think?

On Encouraging Arguments

Its been a long time coming and maybe this should have been the first post. So here it goes:

It seems obvious to me that the ability and willingness to question and articulate them; to search for their answers and disseminate them comprise one of the fundamental forces that have and continue to shape human society. Fueled by curiosity and sustained by the breadth of the mental faculties of man, argumentative men and women have challenged the status quo, maintained checks and balances on power wielders and perhaps most importantly, have been the source of that most essential ingredient of change, ideas.

Why is it so that cultures through the ages have created mechanisms to stifle dissenters? Languages have so developed that arguments or their synonyms have distinctive negative connotations? Why has human society not been able to internalize change?