In my last article I raised the issue of conflict between a Western paradigm mirrored in the school curriculum from primary to tertiary education and an Indigenous worldview.
The article criticised the demarcation of different disciplines or departments in the education system, knowledge contained in silos and presented in a linear fashion (the idea of progress in a series of stages).
This impedes effective learning for those who come from cultures with a cyclical worldview.
They learn better with a holistic and collaborative approach. The conflict is not only reflected in the classroom.
The whole gamut of governmental institutions will need to break from rigid structures to be more malleable and work collaboratively with private and civic organisations to deal with today’s global crises.
The incorporation of alternative knowledges in the education curriculum could become the powerhouse for such changes.
I will now focus on the contrasting linear and circular worldviews, using some examples as they manifest themselves in everyday circumstances including classroom situations.
Linear and cyclical worldviews
The linear worldview is reflected in the way things are organised. Schools are divided into zones of disciplines or departments.
Departments are divided into “compartments” or subjects such as language which might be made up of English, iTaukei, Hindi, French, and so forth.
This compartmentalisation is what is meant by a/the silo presentation of knowledge, where individuals or teams acquire information that is not shared with people in other departments.
What is needed is to weaken the divisions to allow a greater flow of information, and a clearer understanding by learners of how ideas or concepts or entities connect.
The fragmentary compartmentalised approach to knowledge is problematic because it is based on narrow interpretations that privilege Western ideas and values, to the exclusion of other epistemologies.
The cyclical worldview conceives every phenomenon as connected together to form an unbroken whole. It focuses on relationships among the entities, and how they (can) cohere to maintain the whole.
Both worldviews may share the same conclusion about the world even though they take different approaches to arrive at this. However, to ignore the difference in approaches can inhibit learning.
Let me give an example: the concept of rights and responsibility as being complementary values that should always go together, has hardly been touched on in the present school curriculum.
There is much emphasis on individual rights, but very little on responsibilities. The concept of “right” has become a concern amongst the iTaukei because the emphasis on individual rights clashes with iTaukei tradition and can also exacerbate social fragmentation.
Exercising one’s rights must not be viewed in isolation. It should be considered in relation to other individuals and entities that make up the family/community/society.
An individual demanding to exercise their rights in an indigenous setting must be viewed in communal context — how does the exercise of a right affect the family and community?
In iTaukei tradition the emphasis lies heavily on one’s responsibilities to the family and community.
There is always an assumption that rights can be claimed, but they are never emphasised and every right comes with responsibilities.
Clearly, the two cultures both value the concept of rights and responsibility, but differ in what they emphasise.
There is a real need to balance the two in today’s more complex social world. Schools should put greater stress on teaching ‘responsibility’.
My personal observation in Australia, having lived here for decades, is that the emphasis on individual rights is more supportable and socially acceptable in wealthy countries than in developing countries.
This is because, apart from clashes of cultural values, rich countries have the infrastructure to provide support when youths insist on their rights and as a result may later find themselves in a difficult situation such as adolescent pregnancy. In Fiji, when youths find themselves in this predicament, they go back to the family and community for help.
But ill-equipped and underresourced, the community does not have the wherewithal to support them, while coping with the burden of day-to-day survival.
The nurturing of children in the two types of culture is generally different. In one culture a child is expected to learn to be independent and make decisions almost from the day they start talking, in the other learning starts in the early to late teens.
This difference is reflected in classroom teaching. Teaching where western culture predominates encourages students to talk, express their opinions, and ask questions.
In contrast, in iTaukei culture teaching is more directive. We may ask, what or who needs to change when there is a cultural conflict? In my view, there comes a point in our lives when we need to modify our behaviour for the sake of the younger generation who increasingly must face a complex world of fast-tracked, interconnected, highly computerised global culture.
For our youths’ sake, we need to accommodate certain changes that may involve linear ways of learning to ensure they are well prepared for a sustainable future. They should be better prepared to handle this complexity.
Perhaps parents should change their ways of nurturing, and teachers should change from a didactic to a more inclusive teaching. Individual ‘rights’ are here to stay.
Like a square peg in a round hole they sit uncomfortably with iTaukei culture, but are nonetheless a necessity in our complex contemporary world. I return to the problem of silos in structures such as schools.
The school itself is part of a bigger silo, the Ministry of Education. Schools need to break down silos in departments/disciplines, where necessary, including its subjects so that boundaries between them become permeable.
Demarcations should be softened so that topics and contents of different subjects become more interconnected to ensure children’s holistic and clearer understanding of issues.
Moreover, interdisciplinary teaching minimises or blunts the utilitarian approaches underpinning today’s education that continues to adhere to models emphasising competition, selection, individual accomplishment, human exceptionalism and (the myth) of meritocracy.
I digress here to comment on a recent step taken by our Coalition Government on the subject of silos.
Last week (The Fiji Times, March 28) Professor Prasad spoke about the Government’s attempt to act on reports from Fiji’s education and economic summits to meet the needs of different communities.
This is an attempt to break down silos in the hope of strengthening connections at the national level.
Breaking the silos involves various departments working with the grassroots which may require a multifaceted approach to meet their needs.
Resolving problems helps to create equity in communities which can potentially thaw conflicted relations.
Dissolving silos and collaborative work will help solve problems and build relationships between Fijians in their different cultural and economic milieu.
Public servants and bureaucrats are not the only ones who need to dismantle their linear and siloed thinking in favour of a more flexible mode.
Teachers should also take this change on board, an elasticity that necessitates adapting siloed thinking into a flexible one.
Dismantling of silos has a long way to go. Nonetheless it is coming.
In my concluding article, I will discuss my view on Family Life Education(FLE) and why I think it is time stakeholders must take the FLE bull by its horns and stop procrastinating.
• ETA VARANI has a PhD in Education (University of Sydney). She taught indigenous studies and education at Macquarie University and University of Sydney. The views expressed in this article are hers and not of this newspaper
