Pak study notes
Pak study notes
click here
click here
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/fyxq5py5nv1nt/
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/qxlmc3aamw0cu/Pak-study
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/qxlmc3aamw0cu/Pak-study
assignment 1 code 541
Q1* how social scientists and philosopher defined the term social change expalin with example *
ANS
Social change is the transformation of culture and social organisation/structure over time. In the modern world we are aware that society is never static, and that social, political, economic and cultural changes occur constantly. There are a whole range of classic theories and research methods available within sociology for the study of social change. There are four main characteristics of social change (Macionis 1996): - It happens everywhere, but the rate of change varies from place to place. For example, the United States would experience faster change, than a third world country that has limited access to technology and information. Social change is sometimes intentional but often unplanned. For example, when the airplane was invented people knew that this would increase and speed travel. However, it was probably not realised how this invention would affect society in the future. Families are spread through out the country, because it is easier to return for visits. Companies are able to expand worldwide thanks to air travel. The numerous crashes and deaths related to airplanes was not predicted either. Social change often generates controversy. For example, the move over the recent years to accept homosexual rights has caused controversy involving the military, religion, and society overall. Some changes matter more than others do. For example, the invention of personal computers was more important than Cabbage Patch dolls.
What Causes Social Change?
There are various causes of social change. These causes include the following: - Culture Culture is a system that constantly loses and gains components. There are three main sources of cultural change.
The first source is invention. Inventions produce new products, ideas, and social patterns. The invention of rocket propulsion led to space travel, which in the future may lead to inhabitation of other planets. The second source is discovery.
Discovery is finding something that has never been found before, or finding something new in something that already exists.
Social Change
2 The third source is diffusion. Diffusion is the spreading of ideas and objects to other societies. This would involve trading, migration, and mass communication. The ‘mass media’ is a vital factor in the speed of social change. It permits rapid diffusion of ideas, making these manifest in the private and relaxing environs of the home, where audiences are at their most susceptible Conflict Another reason social change happens is due to tension and conflict (between races, religions, classes etc.). Karl Marx thought that class conflict in particular sparked change. Idealistic factors
Idealistic factors include values, beliefs, and ideologies. From Max Weber’s perspective: in essence, values, beliefs, and ideologies have a decisive impact on shaping social change. These factors have certainly broadly shaped directions of social change in the modern world. For example: -
o Freedom and self-determination
o Material growth and security
o Nationalism, e.g. French & English Canadians, English & Irish, Germans & French, Palestinians, Kurdish, Basque separatists and Spanish o Capitalism: not only the type of economic system, but also ideology, connected set of values and ideas emphasising positive benefits of pursuing one’s private economic interests, competition and free markets o Marxism Max Weber thought that the expression of ideas by charismatic individuals could change the world. Here are some examples of influential people who caused changes in the world (good and bad): Martin Luther King, Jr.; Adolf Hitler; Mao Tseng Tug; Mohandas Gandhi & Nelson Mandela The need for adaptation
The need for adaptation within social systems, for example: the development of efficient bureaucracies is an adaptive response of firms to a competitive economic environment. Environmental factors
Change can be through the impact of environmental factors such as drought and famine. The degree of natural disasters between different countries and regions also lead the different social changes between the countries. The shift from collecting, hunting and fishing to agriculture may have happened because, in some areas, the human population grew too large to be sustained by existing resources. Economic & political advantage
International shifts in economic or political advantage also have great impacts on social change. For example, ‘Globalisation’ & ‘the WTO’ are key factors in our modern society affecting the global economy, political structures and dynamics, culture, poverty, the environment, gender etc. Social Change
3 Demographic Change
Change occurs from an increase in the population or human migration between the areas. Compared to the Netherlands and Tokyo the United States has an abundance of physical space. The United States was affected by migration the late 1800's to early 1900's. When masses of people came to America, farm communities started to decline and cities expanded. Human migration between rural villages and big cities in China is causing a great impact on society in China as a whole. Social Movements and Change
Change can also occur from people joining together for a common cause. This is called a social movement. Social movements are classified according to the kind of change they are seeking. Two questions to ask about each type of social movement are: ‘Who is changed?’ and ‘How much change?’ More detailed information and discussion will be showed in the later section.
Consumerism
Maiteny and Parker have defined globalisation as a system of values based on the assumption that well being is best achieved by accumulating the maximum wealth as quickly as possible (Maiteny and Parker). The myth is that consuming more and more goods and services makes us happy. Increasingly, economic globalisation has led to cultural globalisation, in that our values are being formed by the underlying consumerist ideology: our desires have been manipulated to benefit the capitalist system, with its emphasis on economic growth. The West has adopted values and lifestyles corresponding to neo-liberalism, i.e. consumerism and individualism, which, in turn, lead towards corresponding outcomes, i.e. a high impact on the environment and social alienation. The more this situation progresses, the more the forces of social change react and mobilise.
The Role of Values and Ethics|
Human values are formed by a similar process and act in a similar manner. Although the word is commonly used with reference to ethical and cultural principles, values are of many types. They may be physical (cleanliness, punctuality), organisational (communication, coordination), psychological (courage, generosity), mental (objectivity, sincerity), or spiritual (harmony, love, self-giving). Values are central organising principles or ideas that govern and determine human behaviour. Unlike the skill or attitude that may be specific to a particular physical activity or social context, values tend to be more universal in their application. They express in everything we do. Values can be described as the essence of the knowledge gained by humanity from past experiences distilled from its local circumstances and specific context to extract the fundamental wisdom of life derived from these experiences. Values give direction to our thought processes, sentiments, emotional energies, preferences, and actions.
An historical study of certain societies bears out the development of ethics in line with cultural (and individual) development. Gradually, exploitation, injustice and oppression are recognised and rejected - as can be seen with examples such as the abolition of slavery, the banning of racism and the introduction of sexual equality. Animal exploitation and suffering is increasingly recognised and dealt with as such ethical attitudes develop, but this invariably takes longer - as human identification with animal suffering requires a greater degree of empathy and compassion. Social Change
4 Our ethical foundations (especially in the West) have evolved as a human-biased morality, but the past 20 - 25 years have brought a significant change. Both the animal rights and the Green movements have shifted the focus of attention to include the nonhuman world. This perspective is, in fact, not at all new. The ancient, yet living, traditions of Indians and Aborigines show a reverence and understanding for the natural world, which combines a respect for the sustainability of the environment with a care for the individual animal.
It is interesting to note that many individuals who championed causes of human welfare also campaigned against cruelty to animals (for example, William Wilberforce and others who campaigned to abolish slavery; great Victorian reformers such as Lord Shaftesbury, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill; black spokesmen such as Toussaint L'Overture of Haiti; and even Abraham Lincoln).
assignment 1 code 541
Q2 discuss institutionalization wand institutions in light of horton and hunt reading
Institutionalization, process of developing or transforming rules and procedures that influence a set of human interactions.
The Dual Logic Of Institutionalization
Institutionalization is a process intended to regulate societal behaviour (i.e., supra-individual behaviour) within organizations or entire societies. At least three actions in the process can be distinguished: (1) rulemaking or installment, (2) rule adaptation, or developing best practices, and (3) rule change, or replacing old rules with new ones. By the early 20th century, German sociologist Max Weber was already aware of processes of institutionalization and their subtle variations. He explicitly differentiated between rule configurations that were goal-oriented (Zweckrationalität) and those that were idea-consolidating (Wertrationalität). For example, the division of powers in government is institutionalized both as an organizational framework that results from and influences the competitions of political actors and as an attempt to safeguard a certain conception of liberty. Institutionalization is thus a human activity that installs, adapts, and changes rules and procedures in both social and political spheres. It affects the interactive behaviour of individuals and organizations as well as of political entities (e.g., states). This distinction between individuals, collective actors, and polities is important, because the ways in which rules and procedures are developed and subsequently become operational are different for each sphere. For example, the development and establishment of liberal democracy is actually an ongoing process of institutionalization. On the one hand, it reflects a shared value within a society as expressed in its appreciation of individual political and civil rights (Wertrationalität), but, on the other hand, the relationship between state and society is organized by means of basic laws to define its mode of governance to make it work democratically (Zweckrationalität). With regard to social interactions, rules evolve more often than not in a nonbinding fashion, albeit depending on informal hierarchies and whether they are born out of necessity. Eventually, many practical rules are developed into institutionalized behaviour that remains more or less stable over time: practices become shared rules that in turn are formalized in supra-individual terms (e.g., the Ten Commandments in the Bible and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of the social contract).
Political Institutions
This type of institutionalization may well be typical of organizations and societal development as such. Yet it is not typical of the political sphere: political systems are by definition characterized by the existence of binding rules that are formalized (e.g., by law or constitution) and can be enforced independently of individual actors (as in the case of enforcement by the police). Although procedures may differ to some extent, both rules and procedures are subject to scrutiny and external controls (by the judiciary, the legislature, electorates, and so on) that are characterized by hierarchical relationships. In this view, human interactions within a polity are prescribed and largely predictable. Hence, the process of institutionalization enhances a system’s stability. Yet it should immediately be noticed that also in the political sphere rules and procedures change. For example, they may be adapted when unintended consequences occur and the legitimacy of a political system is negatively affected by the relationship between rules and procedures, on the one hand, and by political behaviour and the system’s performance, on the other hand. Electoral reform and decentralization are examples of restoring the institutional framework of the polity to enhance legitimacy. The debates on a constitution for the European Union (EU) and on establishing democracy in postcommunist Europe in the 1990s reflected the attempt to regulate political behaviour and to enhance responsible government. Political institutionalization is therefore not a static but a dynamic process.
Theories Of Institutionalization
Institutional analysis has produced various explanations for the emergence and change of rule configurations and related behaviour with regard to political and social outcomes. The three main types of explanation may be characterized as rational choice, culture matters, and shock and crisis. In rational choice theory, institutionalization is regarded as the urge to promote general welfare, where rules of behaviour constrain the actor in choosing strategies of goal attainment. This is a well-established and widespread approach within institutional analysis and is well suited to understanding the emergence of governance in all its variations (from public to private, and so on), assuming that the actors’ preferences are stable and their interests are revealed in a transparent fashion (as is, for instance, assumed under democratic conditions in relation to party competition). However, although rational choice does perform quite well if these assumptions are met with respect to analyzing highly institutionalized systems and circumstances, it does less well in situations where conflict and values are prominent. It appears that this type of explanation is suitable for policy analysis and routinized behaviour. In the culture-matters explanation, the embeddedness of values and norms and their influence on social and political relations is seen as constitutive of the process of institutionalization. In the cultural approach, mutual trust is the basis for acceptance and justification of rulemaking and perseverance. For instance, the process of democratization is thought to depend on the cultural context in which formal binding rules are operational. This approach appears suitable for understanding behavioral variation of political actors under seemingly similar institutional arrangements like liberal democracy. According to shock and crisis theory, institutions change as a result of exogenous and indigenous shocks to a system. Rule adaptation or the installment of new rules and procedures can be conceived as different responses of political systems to a (perceived) crisis. Apart from a breakdown, this can also mean adapting the existing framework of reference for problem solving by government. Alternatively, endogenous shocks are often seen as sources for radical institutional change. More often than not, this is conducive to institutional battles over the preferred direction of change and conflicts over the extent of change. Examples of this are the breakup of the Soviet Union and the emergence and development of the EU. In this perspective, institutional change is analyzed with a view on shifting power relations among actors. The reorganization of a polity’s rule adaptation and related procedures is then considered as a redeployment of power resources. Institutionalization is a complex process of evolving rules and procedures that is by definition dynamic. As institutions must be considered as humanly devised contracts of social and political actors, the actual working and related performance of institutions is conducive to changes in society and its mode of governance.
assignment 1 code 541
Q 3 highlight modern political and economic system of the world and compare it with Pakistan
Ans
Political economy
is a social science that studies production, trade, and their relationship with the law and the government. It is the study of how economic theories affect different socio-economic systems such as socialism and communism, along with the creation and implementation of public policy.
/b>Political Economy
Different groups in an economy have different beliefs as to how their economy should be developed; hence, political economy is a complex field that covers a broad range of political interests. In simple terms, political economy refers to the advice given by economists to the government on either general economic policies or on certain specific proposals created by politicians.
Components of Political Economy
Political economics is split into two sections: Classical Political Economy and Modern Political Economy. Classical Political Economy studies the works of philosophers such as Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx. Modern Political Economy, on the other hand, studies the work of modern philosophers, economists, and political scientists such as John Maynard Keynes, Milton Freidman, and Friedrich Hayek.
The study of political economy is influenced by game theory, as it involves different groups competing for finite resources and power that assess which policies will provide the most beneficial results. It also relates to the capability of the economy to achieve the desired results. The study of political economy focuses on three major areas:
1. Interdisciplinary study
From an interdisciplinary standpoint, political economy focuses on economics, sociology, and political science to understand how economic systems, political institutions, and the environment affect and influence each other. The three areas in interdisciplinary study include economic models of political processes, the international political economy and how it affects international relations, and resource allocation in different economic systems.
2. New political economy
The new political economy area treats economic policies as a belief or action that must be further discussed rather than as a framework that needs to be analyzed. It unites the ideologies of classical economics and new advances in the field of politics and economics. The approach dismisses old ideals about agencies and the interest of states and markets and aims to encourage political debates about societal wants and needs.
3. International political economy
International political economy study, also known as global political economy, analyzes the relationship between economics and international relations. It uses ideas from economics, sociology, and political science. International political economy focuses on how states and institutions use global economic interactions to shape political systems.
Political Economy - Components
Political Economy Behavior
Political economists are very interested in gains and losses incurred with the implementation of a certain policy. It gives them an idea as to which groups support the policy and which groups don’t. They also examine how individuals increase their utility by participating in political activity.
Capital and labor are used to influence political processes and generate policy outcomes with the most benefit. The political behavior in an economy is shaped by:
1. Interests
They include the interest of individuals and groups who are able to use their power to influence policy. Individuals in government tend to promote their own economic and political interests that will help them retain power. People outside the government are often more concerned with the outcome of the economic policies implemented.
2. Ideas
Ideas are considered an important influence on policy, in addition to economic and political interests. It is assumed that individuals are self-seeking and rational and that they are unable to assess the outcomes of all the choices available to them.
Ideology allows an individual to decide what they should do in order to remain consistent with their basic values and beliefs. Incorporating ideology into economic models allows some political action to be guided by factors other than self-interest. Some people want to enter politics simply because they want to make a change in the world.
3. Institutions
There are political rules that include the Constitution and define how leaders are chosen and how a new policy can be implemented. Institutions help structure incentives facing individuals and groups within the economy.
Political Economy Theory
The modern economist’s theories are split into three ideologies, namely:
1. Liberalism
The liberal ideology stems from the concept of labor and exchange and the use of land, labor, and capital to produce durable goods. Liberal economists believe that economics can benefit everyone and that society can progress with the improvement in the standard of living. They think that the wants of the community rather than of individuals are most important for decision-making. They also believe in equal opportunity for everyone and are concerned with the structure of civil society.
2. Marxism
Marxism states that inequality is bad, and wealth is generated from labor and exchange. It does not support the private ownership of resources, which it believes leads to inequality and only favors the needs of the elite and not of the whole society.
3. Economic nationalism
This is the belief that the state possesses all the power and that individuals should work to make use of the economic benefits. The ideology states that the government should control all resources and that individuals are ignorant and cannot create a cohesive society without a strong state. Thus, political economy provides us with an understanding of how a country and household are managed and governed by considering both the political and economic factors associated with each.
*Q 4 write a note on following *
(a) neo-Marxist view of late capitalism
In the most sophisticated version of neo-Marxism, that of Cohen, ‘there is … a conflict between social equality and the liberty of some people,’ but that should not stand in the way of ‘the pursuit of social equality, since a humane concern for liberty must first of all direct itself to the condition of those who enjoy hardly any of it.’
Neo-Marxists thus agree with liberals that freedom of the individual is the most important political value, and that modern capitalism delivers it to all members of society, including proletarians, in several important ways. First, all members of a capitalist society (worker and capitalist alike) are legally free. Second, any particular worker is always legally free, and often economically free, to leave the proletariat and become a petty bourgeois or even a capitalist. But, within a capitalist society, ‘although most proletarians are free to escape the proletariat, indeed even if all are, the proletariat is an imprisoned class.’ Third, capitalism has delivered ‘important freedoms beyond that of buying and selling.’ These include ‘freedom of speech, assembly, worship, publication, movement, political participation….’ The neo-Marxist Cohen is agnostic about ‘how accidental the connexion between capitalism and those freedoms has been and is,’ but is committed to the view that only ‘freedom to buy and sell belongs to capitalism's inmost nature.’ But Marxists must still acknowledge that ‘bourgeois freedoms’ really are freedoms: ‘… when socialists suggest that there is no real liberty under capitalism, or that socialism promises liberty of a higher and unprecedented kind…their line is theoretically incorrect and politically disastrous. For liberty under capitalism is, where it exists, just that, liberty; and if socialism will not give us plenty of it, we shall rightly be disappointed.’
In recent writings, Cohen (1995) has begun to investigate the idea of real freedom, understood as ‘autonomy, the circumstances of genuine control over one's own life.’ With this turn, neo-Marxism returns to the old site of conflict, since we must ‘ask what kind and degree of control over external things a person must have to enjoy autonomy, and then to ask whether such control is compatible with socialist equality.’ Cohen's project now is to translate the idea of real freedom into terms that are applicable to the real world, and, where possible, quantifiable. His model of ‘equal access to advantage’ now stands alongside van Parijs's (1995) and Sen's (1992) models. It thus forms part of a rich developing research program. Whether it should still be called Marxist is another question. *(b)Democracy and economic development *
"It fully shows that the Chinese ... not only make reputable economic achievements, but also have the ability and confidence to succeed continuously on the path to democracy." (-- People's Daily, May 26, 1998, page 3)
It feels a little strange to read this in the official editorial of the national newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, but this assertion provides us with a good starting point in our inquiry into the relationship between economic development and democracy. Nowadays few, if any, politicians and political scientists alike, would deny that democracy and economic development are correlated. As Lipset said, "[p]erhaps the most widespread generalization linking political system to other aspects of society has been that democracy is related to the state of economic development"(Lipset 1959:75). However, as to the causal relations between the two, there have been quite divided opinions. We can discern at least three kinds of hypotheses from previous literature:
Some authors hold that democracy and economic development have a reciprocal effect on each other. A classical example is Friedman, Justin's favorite. Friedman believes that more democratic political rights will reinforce economic rights and therefore will be beneficial to economic development; on the other hand, the assurance of the individual's economic freedom results in, and is predicted upon, the maintenance of a free-enterprise exchange economy that constitutes an ideal economic arrangement for a free society (Friedman 1962). Although he also stressed that some activities of the democratic government, such as income redistribution, would tend to retard economic development, these activities are not peculiar to democracies. In Friedman's opinion, what retards economic development is not democracy, but governmental interference. (I owe this point to Justin Fox). Some scholars view the favorable effects between democracy and economic development as single-directional; that is, economic development leads to democracy, but democracy retards economic development. Therefore democracy would be directly related with economic level, but inversely related with economic growth, since wealthy countries might have reached high economic level for other reasons, but would slow down after democracy is established, while for poor countries economic development has not create a favorable environment for democracy but thus they would also enjoy economic growth not retarded by democracy. Almost all the advanced economies of the world, including the United States, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, etc., and also almost all the emerging economies in contemporary world, made their initial take-off and fastest growth under non-democracy, or at least not under the kind of democracy we have in mind today. This view can be stretched as far as stating that "dictatorships are needed to generate development" (Przeworski and Limongi 1997:177).
The third hypothesis is quite close to the second one, but in this hypothesis economic level is controlled for and the relationship between democracy and economic growth is non-linear, or curvilinear. That is, at lower stages of economic level, democracy would be unfavorable to economic development, while at the higher level, democracy would do a better job than non-democracy in encouraging economic development. Another way to put this curvilinear relationship is to control for level of democracy. As Barro concluded, "the middle level of democracy is most favorable to growth, the lowest level comes second, and the highest level comes third"(Barro 1996:14). Intuitively and empirically, all these three hypotheses seem plausible. Numerous examples or counter-examples can be raised to support or disprove them. Yet which one are we to choose? In my opinion, if we are to look at these inquiries from the perspective of economic development, we should not over-emphasize the distinction between democracy and non-democracy. In the investigation into the causal relationship between democracy and economic development, it seems inevitable to compare democracy with non-democracy in their different effects on economic development and also the different effects of economic development on them. However, democracy and non-democracy are not so clearly distinct in their effects on some intervening variables that play important roles in bringing about economic growth or disaster. Nor are they very different in the influences that economic conditions exert on them. I will explore both points respectively as follows.
On one hand, both democracy and non-democracy can have beneficial or harmful effects on economic development. Previous studies in both economics and political science have offered numerous hypotheses on what factors encourages or dampen economic development (Clark 1982). Here I will focus on three kinds of stability, that is, ownership stability, legal stability and social stability. These three kinds of stability are among the most necessary conditions for economic development, though not sufficient conditions. If democracy or non-democracy have an effect on these three kinds of stability, they are bound to also have an impact on economic development. However, this impact unfortunately does not discriminate very much between democracy and non-democracy.
First, by ownership stability I mean the stable property rights system of a society. The productive potential of any property rights system depends not only on the way in which rights are assigned, but also (and perhaps more importantly) on the degree to which those rights are enforced (Coase 1960). Which one, democracy or non-democracy, would be better at protecting property rights? There doesn't seem to be much difference. Both democracy and non-democracy can infringe or protect property rights. In democracy, the pressures from the worse off for income redistribution are much greater than in non-democracy. Whereas in non-democracy the coercive authority can effectively quell the opposition who advocate an alternative, more distributionally favorable property rights system (Firmin-Sellers 1995:868). However, the coercive authority of the non-democracies might get out of hand and the ruler(s) might "use his power to steal the nation's wealth and to carry out nonproductive investment"(Barro 1996:2). An outstanding example would be the dictator Marcos of the Philippines, whose rule turned the richest country in Southeast Asia into the poorest. In this respect democracy might fare better, but in all we can hardly make much distinction between democracy and non-democracy in their impact on property rights system.
Second, by legal stability I mean the stable rule of law in a country. In a sense market economy is a legal economy. It is distinguished from the pre-market "moral economy", which is governed by the same "general social relationships" that mold the whole society (Booth 1994:656). A stable legal system is a necessary condition to attract domestic and foreign investment. Unfortunately again, democracy is not necessarily better than non-democracy in its guarantees of stable rule of law. On the contrary, even outright dictators, if they are far-sighted, will have an incentive to ensure a stable legal system, and they have more resources to do that. So non-democracy might have a more stable rule of law than a democracy where the state is weak in its enforcement of law. However, as Olson pointed out, since most autocrats are by their nature especially susceptible to succession crises and uncertainty about the future, it might not be in their interest to respect the law, which creates a very short time frame for economic agents and renders them unwilling to make investments that take time to mature. Taking this into consideration, we would agree with Olson that democracy is better than non-democracy in the guarantees of legal stability, as "the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed to have a lasting democracy" are "exactly the same conditions that are needed for maximum economic development" (Olson 1993:572). Here, again, democracy and non-democracy are not so different in their guarantee of legal stability.
Third, by social stability I mean the lack of such social unrest as (roughly by degrees) crimes, strikes, demonstrations, riots, revolts, and civil wars, etc.. Needless to say, social unrest would to some extent damage the productivity of the society. It is hard to imagine a nation with rampant social unrest would achieve economic growth, but whether democracy or non-democracy is more capable of maintaining social stability is hard to decide. The same mechanism that ensures rule of law for non-democracy might work to quell social unrest, as the rulers have an interest to see to it that they have the monopoly in the distribution of the surplus in social output. However, non-democracy might have more social unrest, either because the widespread discontent against the government have no alternative peaceful outlet, or because the stake of state power is so high that ambitious contenders would use force to achieve it. In contrast to this, democracy might achieve more social stability, as both the discontent of the masses and the ambition of political élites would be temperated through the peaceful channel of competitive elections. When the Hong Kong Democratic Party leaders proclaimed "We抣l be back!" to their supporters on the night of Hong Kong's handover to China, they didn't mean violent revolt, not even protests, but that they would come back through legislative elections, and they did. So in this aspect, we, again, do not see much difference between democracy and non-democracy.
On the other hand, economic conditions can have beneficial or harmful effects on both democracy and non-democracy.
First, economic hardships can topple both democratic and non-democratic regimes. It seems that democratic regimes are more vulnerable to bad economic conditions, as the famous example of Weimar Republic testifies. Przeworski et al counted instances of survival and death of political regimes in 135 countries observed annually between 1950 and 1990 for a total of 4,318 country-years, and found that poverty is a fatal enemy of democracy: "[p]oor democracies, particularly those with annual per-capita income of less than $1,000, are extremely fragile: based on our study, the probability that one will die during a particular year is 0.12", or that it "can be expected to last an average of 8.5 years". In a year after their income falls, the probability would rise to 0.22(Przeworski et al. 1996:41). However, non-democracy is no less susceptible to bad economic conditions than democracy is. As Lipset pointed out, "[f]rom Aristotle down to the present, men have argued that only in a wealthy society in which relatively few citizens lived in real poverty could a situation exist in which the mass of the population could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues"(Lipset 1959:75). Poverty and/or worsening of people's living standard can be made use of by political forces to incite sufficient support in pulling down the present government -- not necessarily a transition to democracy, though. The most recent example would be the resignation on last Thursday of 32-year autocrat Suharto in the aftermath of the financial and economic turmoil in Southeast Asia. So non-democratic regimes are no less likely to die under severe economic conditions than democratic ones are.
Second, both democracy and non-democracy can benefit from economic growth. It seems at first that economic growth would be only beneficial to democracy. This tradition can be traced back to Lipset, who regards economic development as one of the "social requisites" of democracy (Lipset 1959:69). Przeworski et al also found that for democracies, "economic performance does matter: indeed, democracy is more likely to survive in a growing economy with less than $1,000 per-capita income than in a country where per-capita income is between $1,000 and $4,000, but which is declining economically (Przeworski et al 1996:49). However, nothing in principle prevent non-democracy from gaining widespread acceptance and support if it succeeds in generating economic growth. Non-democratic regimes don't have to die when the economy is good and promising, and democratic transitions generally are not made at such times. Non-democracy (and also democracy) might perish for various reasons, economic disasters, succession crises, social movements, etc., but normally not because of economic growth. Here economic development doesn't seem to discriminate against non-democracy in favor of democracy. They are both bolstered by favorable economic conditions.
From the above examination of the causal relationships between democracy and economic development, we can arrive at an intermediate conclusion that the distinctions between democracy and non-democracy are not so great as we traditionally think, at least from the perspective of economic development. More theoretical exploration and empirical studies have still to be done to make the causal relationships clearer. One possible avenue of inquiry is to make distinctions more within than between democracy and non-democracy. That is, besides democracy versus non-democracy distinction, there must be some other differences between the political regimes that account for both their different influences on economic development and the different influences of economic development on them. For example, in Barro's cross-national data regression, he used a scatter diagram, plotting the part of the growth rate that is unexplained by the independent variables other than the democracy index and its square on the democracy index. The diagram pattern shows a resemblance of a "horn", suggesting the probability of heteroskedasticity. We have to consider why the variance of the residuals in growth rates decreases as the country becomes more democratic. More generally, the heteroskedasticity may be due to an omitted explanatory variable (Kennedy 1985:105). Another approach was offered by Firmin-Sellers, who arrived from a case study at the conclusion that a government must strike a delicate balance between coercive and cooperative institutions to ensure economic development, that is, it wields sufficient coercive authority and credible commitment.
The causal relationships remain largely inconclusive, but from my above analysis, I would rather believe that the relationship between democracy and economic development could be metaphored to that of "double ratchets". That is, they both might have some effects, directly or indirectly, on each other, and either democracy or economy might develop for whatever reason, but as one of them develops, the "teeth" of its ratchet would become more and more "protrusive", thus more and more effective in preventing the other from reversing. On one hand, economic development is not sufficient to bring about democracy, but as the economy develops to higher stages, it will become more and more effective in preventing democracy from perishing. On the other hand, democracy is not sufficient for the economy to grow, but as the polity develops toward a full-fledged democracy, it will be more and more difficult for the economy to shrink or reverse to an earlier stage. As both democracy and economic development have their own "semi-independent" dynamics, this view of mine is quite similar to that of Hirschman (Hirschman 1994:344), who called his processes and concepts as the "ratchet effect" and "taking on a life of its own". However, if, as he said, only when a behavior is said to become "second-nature" is it normally assumed that one is in the presence of genuine learning, whether, how and when democracy or non-democracy has become the "second-nature" can only be determined by the eventual economic consequences, as in his cases of Spain and Germany. After all, the introduction of this concept of "second nature" seems to be of little use.
Even though democracy does not necessarily lead to economic development, nor the other way round, even though democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for poor countries from the perspective of economic development, I have to emphasize here that we should not stretch this "indistinction" between democracy and non-democracy too far. My point here is: economic development can not and should not justify democracy, nor can or should it legitimize non-democracy. Economic development can not justify democracy simply because it is not yet clear whether democracy is more effective than its alternatives in bringing about economic development. Next I will focus on why economic development should not justify either democracy or non-democracy. The economic considerations can be nothing more than just an instrumental point of view, and if we regard it as a sufficient justification for either kind of regimes, the consequences would be dangerous. Tocqueville stated:
Nor do I think that a genuine love of freedom is ever quickened by the prospect of material rewards: indeed, that prospect is often dubious, anyhow as regards the immediate future. True, in the long run freedom always brings to those who know how to retain it comfort and well being, and often great prosperity. Nevertheless, for the moment it sometimes tells against amenities of this nature, and there are times, indeed, when despotism can best ensure a brief enjoyment of them. In fact, those who prize freedom only for the material benefits it offers have never kept it long.
(Elster 1993:269) Here Tocqueville put special emphasis on freedom, or personal autonomy. To justify democracy, we need to add another assumption, that of intrinsic equality. As Dahl justifies democracy:
If the good or interests of everyone should be weighed equally, and if each adult person is in general the best judge of his or her good or interests, then every adult member of an association is sufficiently well qualified, taken all around, to participate in making binding collective decisions that affect his or her good or interests, that is, to be full citizen of the demos. (Dahl 1989:105)
This is a little different from John Stuart Mill's utilitarian justification for representative democracy. Mill also pointed out that "each is the only safe guardian of his own rights and interests"(Mill 1951:279), but the thrust of his arguments is closer to the justification of democracy on economic development. Mill holds that the criterion of a good form of government is "by ... the goodness or badness of the work it performs for [the people]"(Mill 1951:262), and he believes that happiness is the supreme good. So I don't think it would be a far stretch to assume that these imply the instrumental justification of democracy that democracy is desirable because it can bring about well-being of the people, which is instrumental to people's happiness. In this respect, he is quite similar to such classical utilitarians as his father and Bentham.
This utilitarian justification of democracy has some recent reminiscences. Anthony Downs developed an economic theory of democracy in which every person is assumed to be maximizing his or her welfare under democracy in a utilitarian sense (Downs 1957). In a book explicitly directed toward this economic model of democracy, Plamenatz argued that people do not and should not prefer democracy to its alternatives because they believe it is better at maximizing the satisfaction of their wants. "Neither its champions nor its critics are concerned with maximizing the satisfaction of wants or the achievement of goals. They favor it because it gives men certain rights and opportunities; or they reject it because it does not. But these rights and opportunities are not valued because they make it easier for people to maximize the satisfaction of their wants"(Plamenatz 1973:168).
From the above sketch of some relevant literature, I would conclude that democracy, as well as non-democracy, should not be justified on the ground of economic development. We prefer democracy to non-democracy in that democracy is the only feasible form of government that ensures us basic freedom and equality, rights and opportunities, and these freedom and equality have their own rights. They are ends in themselves, and we do not need to introduce utilitarian considerations to justify democracy. So democracy is desirable not because it can bring about economic development and let everyone better off, which, as we have seen, does not have much distinction between democracy and non-democracy. If we believe that economic development should justify democracy, then we have to also concede that it should also justify any kind of regime, provided that it also generates economic growth and makes everybody better off. Actually the instrumental justification had also been used by non-democratic regimes in legitimizing themselves. A prominent example is the former Communist countries. When the Stalinist rulers realized that they could no longer legitimize their regime by the claim to represent the true preferences of the people, they turned to economic and political performance as the new justification for their rule. However, when they failed to live up to people's expectations and encountered "systemic crisis", the regimes collapsed (Weigle and Butterfield 1992:23).
In conclusion, in this paper I purport to show that previous studies of the relationship between democracy and economic development may have over-emphasized the distinction between democracy and non-democracy, and that economic development can and should justify neither democracy nor non-democracy. I also suggest that future studies may focus on other characters of the regime than democracy versus non-democracy. If I may venture to make policy prescriptions, I would support the efforts to ensure economic freedom, to promote the development of competitive capitalism, and to enhance individual freedom and equality. However, I would rather not support such efforts to "export" democracy to developing countries or such passive attitudes as to "wait-and-see" economic development to automatically bring about democracy.
Q 5 discuss the origin of pakistan and its ruling elites in light of suggested reading by khalid bin saeed
ANS
Authoritarianism is a malaise that has tainted Pakistani politics since time immemorial. Authoritarian rule has also affected media freedom in the country, with negative effect on democracy. The state of the media in Pakistan after independence can vouchsafe for this fact. There are innumerable reasons for this but to understand the phenomenon of political authoritarianism in South Asia, particularly Pakistan, one has to trace its roots to the pre-partition era of Indian Subcontinent. From great Mauryan ruler Asoka to the Mughals, all rulers have practiced authoritarianism in one way or the other. The British were no different. They practiced their own set of authoritarianism.
“In the Indian Subcontinent, the whole concept of the power of the monarch differed from that of European feudalism, in which the king had authority over all persons and things in his domain. This authority was delegated to the lords and the barons who vowed allegiance to him. Thus, the hierarchy of authority was built up. Both the lands and the people connected with it belonged to the feudal lord and through him to the king. This was a development of the Roman concept of the dominion. In India, the king had the right to collect certain taxes from the land, and this revenue collecting power was delegated to others. With disastrous results, the British broke up the traditional village communes known as Panchayats and introduced oppressive feudalism.” Feudalism in itself is a form of authoritarianism. “In delimiting a formal sphere of politics, the British colonial system aimed at reconsolidating its authority and placing the networks of social collaboration and control on a firmer footing.” Both Pakistan and India inherited the colonial legacy of authoritarianism. It was quite evident in the political system of both newborn countries. Immediately after independence in India, “the rule of law was ever bent to subserve either executive action in the administration or the will of dominant elements of society.” Whereas India made an effort to democratise itself – and has been quite successful – Pakistan failed to make a viable transition to democratic rule after emerging from the debris of British colonialism. The colonial state was quickly replaced by authoritarian rulers, whether civilian or military. This was because the Muslim elite of Pakistan comprised of opportunists who only joined the Pakistan Movement after it was apparent that a new Muslim state was going to emerge soon. The founder of Pakistan, Jinnah himself has been accused of being authoritarian. “Notwithstanding the differential administrative legacies, both India and Pakistan drew heavily on the colonial state’s methods of bureaucratic control and centralisation [after partition]. The government of India act of 1935, strengthening the very bureaucratic ‘steel frame’ of the British raj that had been the bête noire of Indian nationalists, was adapted to serve as the constitutional framework in both countries. In principle, the ideal of democracy based on the Westminster model of parliamentary government ensured a formal separation between the bureaucracy and a representative political executive. But in actual practice the bureaucratic authoritarianism inherent in the colonial state structure remained largely intact.”
Pakistan was ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan’ until he was alive. “As long as Jinnah was alive (he died September, 1948), he was Pakistan. He held the position of Governor-General, but the powers and influence that he exercised were far beyond those normally associated with that office. The Cabinet rarely functioned without his directives. He was the supreme arbitrator between the Centre and the provinces.” Jinnah’s authoritarian legacy did not die with him.
After putting his name forward as the Governor-General, Jinnah’s first act “was to apply for powers under the 9th Schedule rather than Part II of the 1935 Act which gave him at once dictatorial powers unknown to any constitutional GovernorGeneral representing the King.” The powers of the Ninth Schedule can be gauged from this: “The Ninth Schedule gave even greater powers to the Governor-General than those available in Part II of the [1935] Act. For example, under Section 67(b), if Legislature failed to pass a Bill in the form recommended by the Governor-General, the Governor-General might certify that the passage of a Bill was essential for the safety, tranquillity, or interests of British India, or any part thereof.”
It is an undeniable fact of history that not more than 200 families have shared political power in Pakistan since independence. These politicians have exploited the country in collaboration with the military. Lust for power has proved to be disastrous for Pakistan. “Masters of the new nation, the bureaucrats had little interest in organising elections, and political developments following Jinnah’s death can only be described as chaotic. There were no fewer than seven prime ministers in ten years. Liaquat Ali Khan (50 months in office) was assassinated. His successors, Khwaja Nazimuddin (17 months); Mohammed Ali Bogra (29 months); Chaudri Mohammed Ali (13 months); Shaheed Suhrwardy (13 months); I.I. Chundrigar (2 months); and Firoz Khan Noon (11 months), all became victims of palace intrigues…Throughout the 1950s two archetypal bureaucrats, Ghulam Mohammed and Iskander Mirza, brazenly abused their powers as head of state to make or break governments. In April 1953, Ghulam Mohammed set an unfortunate precedent when, citing the government’s failure to resolve ‘the difficulties facing the country’, he dismissed Khwaja Nazimuddin and installed Bogra in his place. When Bogra responded by trying to limit the governor general’s power, Ghulam Mohammed dismissed him too. And so it went on.”
Those in power have used the religious card to further their own vested interests. “The common man had been told that perhaps the greatest factor responsible for the establishment of Pakistan against overwhelming odds was the Islamic bond, which could overcome any divisions. After the establishment of Pakistan, the wranglings of politicians, the dismissal of governments – all accompanied by intense regional conflicts between Bengalis and West Pakistanis and between Punjabis and Sindhis, and Punjabis and Pakhtuns – confirmed the common scepticism and disillusionment about Islamic unity and the Islamic state.”
If authoritarian rulers are not challenged, the state becomes weak. When the state becomes weak, the people get restless. This would lead to the state’s collapse. “The two basic functions of the state are the maintenance of order and the collection of taxes. The former task is the domain of the criminal justice system. The latter is the function of the financial administrative machinery. The manner in which power is exercised determines the effectiveness and justice of law enforcement and tax collection. Prolonged failure in the performance of these two core functions condemns the state to anarchy and collapse. Keeping the apparatus in line is the role of the central executive and political leadership. Without a reasonably strong, enlightened, and rational, directing impulse from above the full predatory potential of the state is in time unleashed upon society, which in turn becomes progressively more ungovernable.”
code 8609 assignment 2
Q 1 analyze plato's theory of education
Answer
Education for Plato was one of the great things of life. Education was an attempt to touch the evil at its source, and reform the wrong ways of living as well as one’s outlook towards life. According to Barker, education is an attempt to cure a mental illness by a medicine. The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once stated that the main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right objects. This explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the ramifications of his theory of education. Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to establish a university or introduce a higher course or to speak of education as such. This emphasis on education came to the forefront only due to the then prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against the practice of buying knowledge, which according to him was a heinous crime than buying meat and drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education system. He held the view that without education, the individual would make no progress any more than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own loving remedy without giving up his luxurious mode of living. Therefore, Plato stated that education touches the evil at the grass root and changes the whole outlook on life. It was through education that the principle of justice was properly maintained. Education was the positive measure for the operation of justice in the ideal state. Plato was convinced that the root of the vice lay chiefly in ignorance, and only by proper education can one be converted into a virtuous man. The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban individualism, abolish incompetence and immaturity, and establish the rule of the efficient. Promotion of common good was the primary objective of platonic education. Influence on Plato’s System of Education: Plato was greatly influenced by the Spartan system of education, though not completely. The education system in Athens was privately controlled unlike in Sparta where the education was state-controlled. The Spartan youth were induced to military spirit and the educational system was geared to this end. However, the system lacked the literacy aspect. Intriguingly, many Spartans could neither read nor write. Therefore, it can be stated that the Spartan system did not produce any kind of intellectual potentials in man, which made Plato discard the Spartan education to an extent. The platonic system of education is, in fact, a blend of Athens and the organization of Sparta. This is because Plato believed in the integrated development of human personality. State-controlled Education: Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men and women. He was of the opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily trained to fit into any particular class, viz., ruling, fighting or the producing class. Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without any discrimination. Plato never stated out rightly that education system was geared to those who want to become rulers of the ideal state and this particular aspect attracted widespread criticism. Plato’s Scheme of Education: Plato was of the opinion that education must begin at an early age. In order to make sure that children study well, Plato insisted that children be brought up in a hale and healthy environment and that the atmosphere implant ideas of truth and goodness. Plato believed that early education must be related to literature, as it would bring out the best of the soul. The study must be mostly related to story-telling and then go on to poetry. Secondly, music and thirdly arts were the subjects of early education. Plato believed in regulation of necessary step towards conditioning the individual. For further convenience, Plato’s system of education can be broadly divided into two parts: elementary education and higher education. Elementary Education:
Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be predominantly physical education. In other words, every school must have a gymnasium and a playground in order to develop the physique and health of children and make them resistant to any disease. Apart from this physical education, Plato also recommended music to bring about certain refinement in their character and lent grace and health to the soul and the body. Plato also prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history and science. However, these subjects must be taught by smoothing them into verse and songs and must not be forced on children. This is because, according to Plato, knowledge acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore, he believed that education must not be forced, but should be made a sort of amusement as it would enable the teacher to understand the natural bent of mind of the child. Plato also emphasized on moral education. Higher Education:
According to Plato, a child must take an examination that would determine whether or not to pursue higher education at the age of 20. Those who failed in the examination were asked to take up activities in communities such as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like. Those who passed the exam would receive another 10 years of education and training in body and mind. At this stage, apart from physical and mathematical sciences, subjects like arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and dialectics were taught. Again at the age of 30, students would take yet another examination, which served as an elimination test, much severe than the first test. Those who did not succeed would become executive assistants, auxiliaries and military officers of the state. Plato stated that based on their capabilities, candidates would be assigned a particular field. Those who passed in the examination would receive another 5 year advanced education in dialectics in order to find out as to who was capable of freeing himself from sense perception. The education system did not end here. Candidates had to study for another 15 years for practical experience in dialectics. Finally at the age of 50, those who withstood the hard and fast process of education were introduced to the ultimate task of governing their country and the fellow beings.
Q 2 describe the impact of john dewey's philosophy on modern education
Answer
John Dewey is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of modern educational theory. In this video, we will briefly explore his philosophical position and how his ideas have impacted education for decades. John Dewey and Education John Dewey is nothing less than a rock star of modern education. His ideas and approaches to schooling were revolutionary ideas during his lifetime and remain fundamentally important to modern schooling today. In this video, we will take a brief look at the background of John Dewey as well as a more in depth look at his educational philosophies and ideals. When we're done, you should be able to describe Dewey, but more importantly, you should be able to identify his philosophy in action. Biography John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont, on October 20, 1859. He was a bright kid, attending college at the University of Vermont at only 15 years old! At the University of Vermont, Dewey focused on the study of philosophy. Dewey graduated with his bachelor's degree in 1879. He then began his teaching career. He taught two years of high school in Oil City, PA, and one year of elementary school in Charlotte, Vermont. In 1884, Dewey received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and immediately began his university teaching career at the University of Michigan. Dewey spent most of his early career there, except for a one-year stint at the University of Minnesota. In 1894, Dewey left for the University of Chicago, where he would become the head of the philosophy department. At the University of Chicago, Dewey would work to develop much of his viewpoints that have lasted far beyond his time. In 1904, Dewey would become a professor at Columbia University, where he would retire in 1930. The Views of John Dewey John Dewey is probably most famous for his role in what is called progressive education. Progressive education is essentially a view of education that emphasizes the need to learn by doing. Dewey believed that human beings learn through a 'hands-on' approach. This places Dewey in the educational philosophy of pragmatism. Pragmatists believe that reality must be experienced. From Dewey's educational point of view, this means that students must interact with their environment in order to adapt and learn. Dewey felt the same idea was true for teachers and that teachers and students must learn together. His view of the classroom was deeply rooted in democratic ideals, which promoted equal voice among all participants in the learning experience.
How John Dewey Reformed Education
Dewey's pragmatic and democratic approach to schooling may not stand out as radical today, but in the early and mid-1900s, his view of education was in contradiction to much of the then-present system of schooling. Dewey's approach was truly child-centered. A child-centered approach to education places the emphasis of learning on the needs and interests of the child. In Dewey's view, children should be allowed to explore their environments.
He believed in an interdisciplinary curriculum, or a curriculum that focuses on connecting multiple subjects, where students are allowed to freely move in and out of classrooms as they pursue their interests and construct their own paths for acquiring and applying knowledge. The role of the teacher in this setting would be to serve more as a facilitator than an instructor. In Dewey's view, the teacher should observe the interest of the students, observe the directions they naturally take, and then serve as someone who helps develop problem-solving skills.
Traditionally, a teacher would stand in front of a group of students who are all sitting in rows. The teacher is usually the deliverer of information and the job of the students is usually to receive this information and regurgitate it in some form of a written test.
In contrast, in a classroom based on the ideas of John Dewey, you may see a teacher deliver background content information, but you would also likely see students working in groups, with those groups exploring differing concepts within the content. You would see lots of conversation and lots of collaboration. While you may see a written test, you may also see student projects, presentations, or other differentiated techniques of evaluation.
It is probably fair to say that, around the world, DevAellAns as wel now for his educational theories (see entry on philosophy of education, section R ■Ijewey, and ogressive movement) as for his philosophical ones. However, a closer look at D ody of W S how often these theories align. Dewey recognized this, reflecting that his 6 *a m opus on, Democracy and Education (DE, MW9) "was for many years that [work] i hilos 1 uch as it is, was most fully expounded" education". In lieu of philosophy's increan derfe• -specialized and technical, he (FAE, LW5: 156). DE argued that pinhole. as "the general theory of urged a greater investment in the problems akettin v t this was a call to see philosophy from the standpoint of educaf on. Dewey wrore, Education offers a vantalefrom whi-human, as distinct from the technical, significance of philo ussions.. ratio t of view enables one to envisage the rejection mak. a in practi e are N o conceive education as the process of forming philosophic proble they arise re, ey are at home, and where acceptance or fundamental disp•, intellec v. moti and nature and fellow-men, philosophy may even be defined as the ge ral theory o non. (D 9: 338) Dewey was active in education his entire life. Besides high school and college teaching, he devised curricula, established, reviewed and administered schools and departments of education, participated in collective organizing, consulted and lectured internationally, and wrote extensively on many facets of education. He established the University of Chicago's Laboratory School as an experimental site for theories in instrumental logic and psychological functionalism.
This school also became a site for democratic expression by the local community. Dewey's "Reflex Arc" paper applied functionalism to education. "Reflex" argued that human experience is not a disjointed sequence of fits and starts, but a developing circuit of activities. Learning deserves to be framed in this way: as a cumulative, progressive process where inquirers move from the dissatisfying phase of doubt toward another marked by the satisfying resolution of a problem. "Reflex" also shows that the subject of a stimulus (e.g., the pupil) is not a passive recipient of, say, a sensation but an agent who takes it amidst other ongoing activities in a larger environmental field. Cognizance of such fundamental facts entailed, Dewey argued, that educators discard pedagogies based on the "blank slate" model of curriculum. Rather, in The School and Society, Dewey wrote, "the question of education is the question of taking hold of [children's] activities, of giving them direction" (MW l: 25). Dewey's How We Think (1910c, MW6) was intend., primarily, to instruct teachers how to apply instrumentalism; education's intellectual goals could be advanced by acquainting children with the general intellectual habits of scientific inquiry.
The native and unspoiled attitude of childhood, marked by ardent curiosity, fertile imagination, and love of experimental inquiry, is near, very near, to the attitude of the scientific mind. (HWT, MW6: 179) Given Dewey's different approach to psychology, teaching roles would need revision. While teachers still had to know their subject matte, they also needed to understand the student's cultural and pm sthuil backgrounds. Learning as an activity which incorporated actual problems necessitated a careful integration of lessons with specific learners. Traditional motivational strategies, too, had to change; rather than relying on rewards or punishments, Deweyan teachers were called to reimagine the whole learning environment: they must merge the school's preexisting curricular goals with their pupils" present interests. One way to do this was by identifying specific problems able to bridge curriculum and student and then create situations in which students have to work them out,. The problem-centered approach demanded a lot from teachers, as it required training in subject matters, child psychology, and various pedagogies canal& of interweaving these together Dewey's educational philosophy ernerged amidst a fierce 1390's debate between Tonal "romantics" and "traditionalists". Romantics (also called “New" or -Progressive' educatio centered" approach, they claimed that the child's natural impulses provi point. As active and creative beings, education should not fetter gr subordinated to content if necessary. Traditionalists (called -Old" -cuniculum-centered" approach. Children were empty cabinets w lessons. Content was supreme, and instruction should discipline In many articles and books (-My Pedagogic Creed", MW I; Democracy and education, 19I6b, MW9, Expene developed an interactional model to move beyond that d While Romantics correctly identified the child (reel indispensable starting point for pedagogy, Dow Larger social groups (family, community, nati interests, needs, and values as part of an ed tiqa Still, of these two seer•s, De discipline and mem thought it paramours for personal freedom, soon be under their do and lifelong friend G.II and personal experienc Insofar as these were s cho children's growi n s. -T reproduces. withi the typical col
fey), urged a -child-anon's proper starting en instruction should be by Dewey) pressed for a culum fills with civilization's "Co ensure they are receptive. 5; The School and Society, 1899, duration, 1938b, LW 13, etc.) Dewey refused to privilege either child or society. tincts, powers, habits, and histories) as an that the child cannot be the only starting point. ave a legitimate stake in passing along extant nthesis. Iffirt the likillue-placed by traditionalists on icy of iffrcontent (facts, values), Dewey t incorporating, with a wide berth h—this had to remain clear—would ttered so very much. Following colleague self' was an emerging construct of social s could be isolated from their social context. had to become micro-communi6es to best reflect be a preparation for social life excepting as it social life-.
Q.3 Develop a teaclIng method basedlUiuslim philosophy of education. The book Tandhib al-akhlaq is considered the most famous book of Miskawayh; so this is the work of which we shall examine the contents quite carefully, so as to base on it our presentation of Miskawayh's remarks on the education of young boys, only. For the work contains, in general, the majority of opinions which he introduced in this subject, although he did aim for a basis to acquaint the reader with the may to reach the supreme happiness. Maybe this tendency of his can be considered an effective translation, or a practical application, of the views he embraced, such as `seeing comes before action' [10] i.e. knowledge precedes action. For if the reader knows moral happiness, and is influenced by the contents of the book, all his actions will be fine, according to his interpretation. Hence it can be said that Miskawayh's book prepares the may for anyone who examines its contents to reach supreme happiness. So it is not possible to separate the learner's personality and character from the science he learns, and the aim and objective for which he is striving to learn it [11]. The second maqala (section) of the seven in the book discusses character, humanity, and the method of training young men and boys. This is preceded in the first maqala by a discussion of the soul and its virtues. This all amounts to a general introduction, which needed to be presented because of the prevailing opinion in Miskawayh's day, where psychological studies took precedence over any other philosophical subject. This was like an obligatory introduction to every philosophical study. This 'moral happiness' was the happiness enabling the human being to live happily, in accordance with the requirements of virtue. Thus it was a personal happiness which the human being could reach through intellectual effort, and striving to acquire the sciences which would make his thought inclusive of all the areas and all existent beings, and make him free himself from material things so as to reach the degree of wisdom whereby to grasp human perfection. The knowledgeable one who reaches this degree of supreme happiness is, in Miskawayh's opinion, called 'the one completely happy', and the pleasure he attains, in this case, is an intellectual pleasure [12]. Miskawayh mentions supreme happiness in the third maqala of Tandhib al-akhlaq, and gives a detailed account of it in order to attract the attention of one who does not know it, so that he will seek it and will be seized by the desire to reach it [13].After this Miskawayh sets out to clarify the various kinds of happiness and its virtues, which the human being is able to approach, and to live happily in this world following the , requirements of vinue, in his view. To realize this he cites a number of conditions, some internal and some external Among internal conditions, which influence the rational state of the human 'ng and aorn, a,, direction towards good or bad, are conditions within his own body, in respect of his moderate temperament. Other conditions are external to the man body, and 1 ten to rise above shortcomings, and to love good for others, to include friends, chi n, and w love of others, and affection towards them, can play a part in the progress and upw vent people; that is because these are a sphere for fulfilling the different virtues. I rti in the environment surrounding the human being, inasmuch as human society ditions of reaching supreme tbizi,nizLhie human being can only fulfil his petrion t he is a social being, as well as Asa result of human beings living th witaoythAzd contact enriched and virtues are rooted in them, their experience is dice. The importance of transactions with people, as Mis yh sa virtues which only do so itin doirintts ftifIsran Itteif tegnty, courage, ogti en itte the appearance of and generosity. If the perso apparent, and the for this reason the wi fro en:41e, a city, containing ma, human being would ve. places that it is people, for his human the idea back to its original source, since Aristo This "It Besides all this, the b c con cItppines ological conditions and factors; this is because training the so making rt from general and particular experiences, are centred on the huminclinations, so as to attain the degree of happiness appropriate fotetaim Medicine for souls', clarifies the importance for man to know his own defectstoting health to the soul', clarifies the method of treating the illne of souls In ma al yh does not distinguish between evil and illness; and the psychological Is or illnesses he shness cowardice, pride, boasting, frivolity, haughtiness, scorn, treachery, ac inns injustice, . Miskawayh is concerned with talking about the fear of death, also grief For he considers that it is not difficult for the rational man who desires to free his soul from its pains and save it from its dangers to examine the illnesses and treat them so as to be set free from them. This must be by success from God and by the man's own personal striving:, both are required, one completing the other [15].. The above may serve to explain that, for Miskawayh, ethics are very closely bound up with the objective of the human being's education; for he stresses continually that it is not possible to distinguish between the learner's personality and character, on the one hand, and on the other the science he learns and the aim and objective for which he is striving to learn it. This is what he stresses very clearly in the introduction to his book, stating: Our aim in this book is that we should acquire for our souls a character, whereby we shall give rise to deeds which are all fine and good, yet will be easy for us, with no trouble nor hardship. This will be by craft and educational organization, and the way here is that we should firstly know our own souls what they are, and what kind of thing they are, and for what reason they were ereated within us — I mean, their perfection and their aim — and what are their faculties and abilities, which, if we use them as is needful, will bring us to this high rank; and what are the things holding us back from it, and what will purify them so they prosper, and what will come upon them so that they fail [16]. Ethics as a philosophical study is considered a practical philosophy, which strives to decide what should be; so examining this field of study does not lead to philosophical reflection as a final aim, but rather it is used in practical life. Maybe Miskawayh himself emphasizes this in his looking at philosophy and its divisions, for he sees that it is divided into two parts: a theoretical part and a practical part, each completing the other [17]. It should be pointed out that when Miskawayh .t out to talk of the training of young boys, he only approached this subject as his serious intellectual concern with the final end to which the human being is heading, or should be heading; and his moral philosophy, as a whole, brings the human being to reach supreme happiness; for there is no paradise nor fire, no reward nor punishment, since he distinguishes between philosophy and religion. He considers that religion retains man in his state of childhood and boyhood, where the faculty of the intellect is weak, while philosophy and supreme happiness remain for the human being's youth and manhood, where his intellect is mature and he knows how to use it towards the highest virtues and most perfect aims [18]. The foregoing clarifies, to a great extent, how Miskawayh remained one of the Muslim thinkers most devoted to Greek philosophy. For he distinguishes between re n and faith, or between philosophy and religion, since the supreme happiness is a human happiness, o which is neither imposed on man nor withheld from him by anything outside the scope of his will an 'suing frnM4n intellect greater and stronger than his [19]. Within this framework Miska ' dismssr training of young men and boys is placed, and within this framework also his view must be to d and read, in what concerns the choice of this age-group rather than another lir ab t d t t some opinions and viewpoints on the matter of their training. In his writings Miskawayh did not the ord 'eduotaword widely used in his day and his milieu with the ing it Ii known that the word 'education' was only quite recen e m •ng now intended. The tendency here has tings, 'training' (ta'dib) so as not to im his thoughts in connection with this • The opinion here is that himself o text it carries which the writer h It is also useful to point widest circulation and most used in Islamic civi education' in many of its aspects So the words `teach words like 'training' and 'culture' (adab), where they exp air use despread also in the 3rd and 4th centuries H, likewise the word ran s use of them restricts them to what we today call the , attested by reference to the Qur'anic words, for instance: 'Say, Lordred (rabba) me when young.' (17:24). This being so, e ry nature, which is undertaken by adult, particularlyparents, for the y I]. If so, it c that the meaning of training primarily indicates the effort expended and dire d by adults, to i to the young desirable knowledge, morality, custom, and behaviour, to prepare them in the manner which makes them the acceptable human model within their society, i.e. the Muslim community of that time. Miskawayh aimed to discuss 'refinement of character' and realizing this; he reflected, and based this on what was said by Aristotle in his book of Ethic, and in the book of Discourses also, that evil may be transmitted through training, even to the best, but not in all circumstances. For he sees that repeated warning, and training, and people's adopting good virtuous policies, must have some sort of influence among the kinds of people; there are some who accept training and move swiftly towards virtue, and others who approach it, and move towards virtue slowly [221• Miskawayh ends his discussion of this opinion by explaining his view that every person can be changed; having done this, he indicates its influence on young men and boys, and the necessity to train them. Miskawayh does not confine himself to this view of Aristotle, but deduces it also from the reliable laws that are the way God deals with His creation [23]. So Miskawayh held that what the boy has been accustomed to since youth will be of influence when he grows up; hence, he discussed the training of young boys, to which subject he devoted some pages of his book. This was one pan of his thinking to realize his aim; consequently he made use of one of the books available and well known in his academic environment, and indicated it with exceptional confidence. Maybe this was a result of his trusting that what he did not write about his original aim, despite its importance, the Greek author, well known in his day, achieved the very same objective. So he borrowed from him, and thus in the second maqala of Tandhib al-akhlaq there is the following heading: 'Section on training young men and boys, the ideas taken from the book of Brusun'. Certain Orientalists came across some copies of this book, including a copy in the Egyptian National Library (Dar al-kutub al-misriyya), with the title `the book of Brisis on a man's management of his household (domestic economy)' (Kitab Brisis ft tadbir al-rajul li-manzilihi). However, the name was also written on an inside page of the book, as 'Brusun': which the Germ ntalist Paul Kraus corrected to Bryson [24]. Whatever the opinion, this book, or manuscript, to s attention to treating the method of domestic economy, through the discussion of four points: a b. servants; c. women; d. children. Miskawayh tac"n)clkift7ult:i:Ii?troesetkbntr?anliYtrwhatil:Zanil , which emphasizes what was already indicated, laces; however, he sometimes added certain personal discussion some detail on his experiments and observations
Comments
Post a Comment