Tue, Dec 16, 2014 - Page 8 News List

Education and political neutrality

By Kevin Kester

Perhaps the gravest misconception of the 20th century, one that has been politically taught in schools and universities, is the belief in an apolitical education and worldview.

It has been integrated into the public curriculum that being apolitical gives individuals and agencies an objective prerogative in their activities and thus prevents biased social action.

However, neutrality is often the assertion of benevolent naivety, or worse — the agenda of colonial administrations and overzealous “scientism” to conceal the power and politics behind supposed neutral agendas.

In individuals, it might be the consequence of internalized oppression.

For example, schools continue to be presumed neutral sites of learning; the World Bank is believed to be an objective organization for development loans; and Fox News claims to be “fair and balanced.”

Yet, the history of the 20th century clarifies that this stance is significantly flawed. The prerogative of any educational endeavor is to foster social purpose and relevant action, and the realization of social purposes relies upon collective decisionmaking — politics.

Among the greatest forums where this debate has taken place are national parliaments and international organizations such as the UN. And although it might be controversial to claim that the UN has been an integral site for the production of ideas that have inspired national parliaments and social movements to change the world, the creation of human rights standards is just one example.

Human rights spread in the 20th century, buttressed by the UN to which they are anchored, and they have been taught in educative spaces the world over.

All of this in spite of the absence of the presumption that the UN is an apolitical space.

So, if the educative power of the world body has been profound precisely because it is a space where ideas and agendas are allowed to confront each other — very much like a university — then it seems that education at all levels must become much more aware of its social and political purposes.

Advocates of this approach are not preaching propaganda — neither in universities nor public education. On the contrary, they are challenging the propaganda that exists now when authorities push the dangerous idea of “neutral” learning. So-called “neutral” education or political objectivism, in its extreme form, allows one group to push its values on another disinclined group and disables the latter from organized resistance.

Step back for a moment to take a look at academics and schooling rather than the traditional political public sphere and it becomes clear that the two fields overlap significantly. Both are concerned with four primary areas of inquiry: governance and development; comparative politics and education; international politics and education; and political and educational philosophy.

These areas of inquiry, in turn, rely on many common academics and research methodologies. It is not coincidental that this is the case. Consider that the 20th century might very well be remembered as a century of the expansion of formal education, when states began to rely on education as the mode and means of becoming modern. Modernity is a political exercise. And education, both public and private, is each person’s right — as is political action. Indeed, in many states, it is a responsibility to be politically active.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top