Our Cult of Smart (Part 2)

A Continuation of Part 1 of “Our Cult of Smart”

So, why should we care? 

  Why should the elitist sentiments of the educated few be of any concern to us? Don’t we live in a country where education isn’t accessible to most? Should we not instead be focusing on making schools more attainable and accommodating of larger sections of our society? 

   I think so too. Which is why ignoring the superiority complex of these educated fools is not really an option. Especially when they are so widely accepted and their sentiments so deeply rooted in other assumptions. Assumptions that further the exclusion, reduction and submission of our students. 

  Not convinced? Then maybe I should give you a few more examples of similarly reductive and exclusionary attitudes in our academic culture.  

Rote Over Active Learning

   Take, for example, how we continue to visualize education in our beloved country. Where a teacher simply walks into a classroom, opens the brains of our ignorant yet timid students and pours knowledge in.

 The dutiful child, grateful and unquestioning, leaves the classroom with more information in their head than when they walked in. The “empowered” student then becomes an “educated” one when they take an exam that, most often than not, measures just how much information they can memorize and spit out. As Prime Minister Dr. አብይ አህመድ recently put it: 

“ዛሬ እዚህ ለመገኘት ያሰብኩበት ዋና ምክንያት በርከት ያሉ ተማሪዎች አስተምረን እና አስፈትነን ከነሱ መካከል እናንተ ላቅ ያላችሁ አድማጮች እና አስቀማጮች መሆን ስለቻላችሁ ነው። ላቅ ያለ አድማጭ እና አስቀማጭ ማለት ላለፉት ሁለት፣ ሶስት፣ አራት አመታት መምህሮቻችሁ የነገሩዋችሁን ኢንፎርሜሽን በትክክሉ ያዳመጣችሁ እና ያስቀመጣችሁ፤ ስትጠየቁም ከተቀመጠበት ቦታ አውጥታችሁ ማሳየት በመቻላችሁ ብቻ ማለት ነው።”

(2023)

    It is safe to say that our general outlook towards academia is not only based on a narrow understanding of education, but also on a mistaken one. As it tries to use the extremely narrow yardsticks of memorization, dictation and rote learning to try to reduce, measure and put a value on something as complex as intelligence. 

   And it is because of these linear, faulty and reductive approaches that we, as a collective, continue to exclude those that do not easily submit to our standardizing ideals and practices. As noted Harvard Professor Dr. William James once put it: 

“Every person of native power, who might take the higher degree, and refuses to do so because examinations interfere with the free flowing out of his more immediate intellectual aims, deserves well of his country, and in a rightly organized community, would not be made to suffer for his independence.”

(1903)

  Now, I am sure that you, my dear reader, know of such misunderstood and unfortunate people in your own life. Those talented and dynamic students that are more inclined to mixing their brand of intelligence with academic skills that are not limited to memorization. Whose analytical nature, critical thinking skills and flare for creativity has pushed them to the margins; relegated, labeled and ostracized for the supposed crime of being a rowdy, undisciplined and unworthy student. 

   I wonder, would it surprise you to learn that even as early as the 1950s, academics like Dr. እጓለ ገብረ ዩሐንስ warned against this shallow and misguided outlook of ours:

“ትምህርት የሚሰምረው በተፈጥሮ ዝንባሌ መሠረት ሲሆን ነው። ይህ ሐሳብ ምንም ጊዜ የማይሻር፤ ከብረት የበለጠ ጥንካሬ ያለው ሕግ ነው። ይህን ሕግ የዘነጋ ሳይቀጣ አይቀርም። ይህም ሐሳብ በተማሪውም ባስተማሪውም ግምባር ላይ ሊጻፍ የሚገባው መሪ ሐሳብ መሆኑን በተለይ ለማሳሰብ እንፈልጋለን።”

(1956)

Human Capital Over Agency

 Need another example of an  exclusionary yet widely shared attitude in our society? How about our commonly held belief that being educated is synonymous with getting a job. Where a degree is understood to be a measure of your employability and how much money you can make in the future. Where the purpose of an education is not to create enriched and resourceful citizens but deferential employees that have to ruthlessly compete in an unstable economy and an ever-changing job market. 

   Luckily for us, this flawed point of view of ours was discussed and heavily criticized by the social anthropologist Dr. Eva Poluha in 2004 and educational researcher Dr. Tebeje Molla in 2018. And whilst their use of complex terms like opportunity freedom, process freedom, education agency and capability-based curriculum might be hard to comprehend, their central point should not be overlooked.  

  For they argued in favor of meaningful learning experiences that would not only provide a free intellectual space for our students. But one that would place them at the center of the learning process and encourages them to reflect on the structures that inform their social lives. As Molla put it:

“A capability-based policy focuses on promoting human agency rather than human capital. At present, the prevalence of knowledge economy optimism has led to the increasing colonization of education policy by economic policy imperatives”

(2018)

  Unfortunately, we are a long way from seriously entertaining such a point of view. And if you are ever in doubt about how our collective attitude falls short of this mark of active learning and student agency, then take a look at how we, as adults, continue to view education.  

 Where we, just like when we were students, view knowledge in general and education in particular as something that is bounded and unchangeable. Where the need to develop a critical and reflective consciousness takes a back seat. Where searching for new information and perspectives is only encouraged if it results in some monetary or social benefit. 

  And if we have a couple of degrees and a decent paying job? Well, we think we have reached the finish line of our educational journey. We think we have fulfilled its purpose. We are now understanding of ignorance but intolerant of illiteracy.

In a Nutshell

   This, in a nutshell, is our Cult of Smart. An academic culture that is well adjusted to injustice. Where the strict adherence to ሽምደዳ and obedience has burdened even the best of our students with the baggage of too much acceptance. Where social adulation, external validation and economic logic has reduced intelligence into a competition. One that is obsessed with determining who gets the best grade, who has the highest paying job and who is in the most "respectable" profession. 

  And whilst some of our fellow Ethiopians are distracted by the vanity of their small differences, there are others that have a different understanding of what it means to be educated. Unfortunately, it is these same people that are marked and ostracized for not adhering to our narrow conception of intelligence. Those that, because of their willingness to use their creative and inquiring minds to either question the rules around them, uniquely engage with the teaching material or find the repetitive material unstimulating, are labelled as undisciplined and አስቸጋሪ. A practice of labelling that continues well after they graduate. 

  So, who are we to celebrate? Those who believe that the right type of knowledge must be static, pre-determined and financially beneficial? Or those who believe that the right type of knowledge is one that is not only student centric but one that is found through actively questioning assumptions and developing a critical mind? Should we celebrate those that use education as  a benchmark for measuring a person’s worth? Or those that use education to understand themselves and improve the social conditions that inform our daily lives? 

   I would hope that you, my dear reader,  will opt to listen to our elders from the near and distant past. Those that have warned us against  such an elitist and static view on education. Those that would be repulsed by our firmly established cult of smart. From Dr. እጓለ ገብረ ዩሐንስ, ዳኛቸው ወርቁ, አቤ ጉበኛ and ይድነቃቸው ተሰማ to the Ethiopian philosopher ወልደ ሕይወት who, in the 17th century, said it better than I ever could: 

“የሚበቃኝ ብዙ ትምህርት ተምሬያለሁ ከቶ አትበል። የሰዎችን ትምህርት ሁሉ ብትማር እንኳ እንደገና የማታውቀው ይበዛል። በአንድ ትምህርት መኖርም ትዕቢተኛ ያደርጋል።”

For More on the Resources Used for This Work, Visit Gudu’s Catalogue by Clicking Here.