An interesting point was covered in the class today. Sir told us that he never gives money to the beggars as it would demobilise all the beggars and they would not form a cooperative (which he wants them to form).
In a similar way we can argue that welfare funds or the grants which are given by the state to promote development in the country will never serve its purpose as it would demobilise all the people involved in the said activity.
Also, evertime we help or train a person for an activity we are actually increasing his "loss" and so everyone should learn on his own. Or, we can also discuss that the class will never serve its purpose and there should be no kind of teaching or whatsoever!
Please comment on this paradox.
5 comments:
i think you should reflect a bit on what prof. raju taught us about needs. A common man would never be able to develop unless his needs are fulfilled first. it is with this factor in mind that the govt first tries to provide the basic facilities so as to try to fulfill their needs. It can also be said that the govt. is trying to ensure that the common man does not resort to using the "power" available to him, and try to bring the system down
ashish, i would like to take you back to our field work where we talked at length regarding education actually limiting one's cognitive ability. you can easily relate this particular example with this. the system of education or training is building walls around one's 'creativity' and restricting him to think in a particular way.
talking about the same point in the context of scott's weapons of the weak, the system is created in such a way that the power hierarchies are reproduced and inequalities remain. scott says that the one in power gives that minimum to the 'powerless'so that he is at subsistence level and the one in power does not lose investment completely. so, the process of training may also be a planned structure wherein the person is restricted by that training and hence taking away the potential of something bigger..
'knowledge is power', but that knowledge is defined by those who are in power.. this statement speaks explains things here..
again, when u think in an opposite way, the training being given is something which is basic or which is the little or minimum recourse to action. in the sense that one is given the package of experiences or findings right away so that one moves ahead from that point..
Well Ashish has presented two problems here. I will try to answer the first problem first and then the second problem. For the first problem we should see whether income generating capacity of the aid receiver is being built by the donor or the aid is just fulfilling the immediate needs of the receiver.
If the aid is fulfilling the immediate needs of the receiver then there will be no long term development of the receiver. But if the aid is building his capacity to take up a livelihood generating activity, then the aid should be given by the donors (whether it is state government or any other donor).
But there is one situation where the donors have to fulfil the primary needs of the receivers before starting to build up there income generating capacity. This has to be done when the receivers are so poor that they are not able to feed themselves properly. In such a situation, the receivers will not be game for any any capacity building training if there basic needs are not fulfilled first.
The second problem that Ashish has presented is of loss a person suffers due to a training or a teaching or a help that he receives from anyone. I think that it is not a loss to him because he saves on the time that he would take to acquire the new skills. Infact, if we take the things that are taught to a student in todays college or university or institute, then he may not be able to discover and learn by himself in his entire lifetime what he is taught in 3 to 4 years of graduation. In a way the technological advancement of the entire human race is built on this principle. The new generation is taught whatever the older generation knows and then the new generation is expected to build on that knowledge or preserve it by practising it. So education or trainig is in no way a loss to a person. Infact it can be reinterpreted as a capacity building exercise of the students by the teacher so that the student can build on the knowledge that he has acquired.
gud one ashish..
i wud like to focus on ur extrapolation of beggar example to uselessness of classes in IRMA.
i attend classes not to listen to teachers, but bcos i can listen to the opinion of students..teachers speak only wat is known..students r the one who speak on the unknown..i think ur extrapolation has missed out the point tat in a class it is not a one-to-one interaction like the beggar-sony sir case...
Post a Comment