|
|
In Harmony with SWARAJ:
Living in Harmony in the Spirit of Abundance
Introduction
When I first got Alok’s email concerning writing
about a personal journey towards Swaraj, I was already writing about “Education
as teaching and learning within the perspective of abundance,” for the
UNESCO-Civil Society Seminar, “Alternative Discourse in Education,” at the
World Education Forum in January 2003 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. During my
visit to India in December 2002 and the various discussions that took place
there, I started seeing the relationship and convergence of my approach with
Swaraj. When I look at what I have been doing since 1971, I realize how
much that falls within what later I saw as working within the perspective of
abundance. I realized that living and working in accordance with the
spirit of abundance is in harmony with the spirit of Swaraj because the meaning
I am using for the word ‘abundant’ is what is available, freely and easily, to
most (if not to all) people in a particular place, available to them as people,
community, culture or in the immediate environment. This, I believe, is
basic for self-rule, self-organization, and self-learning. In this
article, I will describe some of what I have done that embodied the spirit of
abundance.
My point in this article is to open the imagination
to possible convergences among many ways and approaches that stem from various
settings and cultures, regardless of the words that people use to refer to such
approaches, or even whether they have words for them or not. My point is
to stress the importance of starting not with a ready idea or concept (even if
that idea is as inspiring as Swaraj) but by being fully attentive to one’s
surroundings, by being in harmony with one’s convictions, and by constantly
reflecting on and trying to express one’s experiences (without forgetting the
extremely important fact that most of what we experience and understand cannot
be expressed in words!) I mean by “fully attentive” attentive with one’s
mind, heart, soul, senses and body, regardless of whether what we are attentive
to is visible or invisible. Starting with a concept (instead of life), no
matter how inspiring that concept might be, has serious drawbacks. It
reflects an approach that lacks spirit and aliveness; it considers concepts as
superior to life; it treats actions as implementations of theories and as
manifestations of ready meanings and models. By starting with a concept,
there is always the tendency and danger to fall into mechanical, technical,
detached ways of thinking and doing. In contrast, by working in harmony
with one’s experiences and inner convictions and by being attentive to one’s
surroundings, we may be surprised – as many of us did in Udaipur –to discover
that our hearts converge around certain universal principles while our minds,
contexts and work diverge totally. From such divergence, beautiful and
invigorating conversations and discussions emerged. In other words, life
(and not concepts) forms the starting point and the reference in how we
perceive and understand humanity and its relationship to the world. In my
case, for example, the projects I have been involved in and which I describe in
this article took place before I even heard of the terms abundance and Swaraj!
Abundance vs.
Scarcity: an analogy
During the academic year 1997/98, I was a visiting
scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. I
did not have an income and my wife’s salary was not enough for us to live
on. In order to survive, we had to change certain aspects in our ways of
living and consuming. One thing that proved to be helpful during that
period (which I still practice) was to include dandelion in my daily
diet. [Dandelion – for those who don’t know – is a wild plant, which is
abundant almost everywhere, and which is very rich in nutrients and every part
of which is edible (the leaves, the flowers, and the roots).]
There were two ways in which my wife, Carmen, entered
the story. As a good American, she used to dig and uproot this “most
undesirable weed” that grows everywhere and ruins everything (which usually
means ruining the grass in the landscape)! I had to plead with my wife in
order not to dig it out. The second way in which my wife entered the
story was through noticing me picking dandelion leaves and eating them directly
from the ground. She said, “Don’t let any of the neighbors see you.
They will think you are weird.” The image of seeing neighbors eating
potato chips immediately jumped into my head and I said, “I see them opening
shiny colorful little bags and eat something that looks weird. Who should
be embarrassed: I who eat something which is natural, healthy, organic, and
abundant, or they who eat something which is unnatural, unhealthy, artificial,
manufactured, and costly?” [Since then, Carmen and I have been thinking
of writing a small book that revolves around that story, because it embodies
two totally different ways of living and perceiving, two ways that exist in the
modern world – but are world apart! We haven’t done it yet but some day
we will.]
This story about potato chips (PCH) and dandelions
(DNL) clarifies the difference between living in a way that is governed by the
perspective of scarcity and living in harmony with the spirit of
abundance. When I look back at what I have done since 1971, I feel that I
have been embodying the spirit of abundance in my thinking and work, although I
never saw it in these terms until I read Illich (in January 2000 at the
recommendation of Gustavo Esteva). Illich clarifies how modern
institutions are built around the scarcity perspective; i.e., scarcity is basic
in the functioning of institutions and professionals, in a world governed by
the values of control, winning, profit, greed and elitism.
As I mentioned earlier, I am using
the word ‘abundant’ to refer to what people, the community, and culture have;
i.e., to what is available to people freely and easily. And I am using
the word ‘scarce’ whenever institutions and professionals are needed to produce
a commodity or execute an action (regardless of whether that commodity or
action takes a material, social, cultural or intellectual form). In this
sense, DNL is abundant while PCH is scarce.
All what DNL needs in order to grow
is the working of nature and suitability of the environment. In contrast,
PCH needs institutions, professionals and artificial ingredients for its
manufacturing. In fact, when institutions and professionals are needed in
the case of DNL, they are needed to kill the plant, and not to help it
grow. They are needed, for example, to produce chemicals that would be
effective in killing dandelions; they are needed to transport such chemicals,
to advertise them, to sell them, and to get rid of the containers in which they
were stored; they are needed in order to test the quality of the chemicals,
give licenses etc. In addition, special institutions are needed to certify
those professionals who are qualified to produce, transport, and sell.
Companies would compete as to whose product is more effective and whose ways
are more permanent in killing dandelions. A committee may even be created
to conduct contests and give awards to those who prove to be better killers of
this most wonderful plant!
Personal experiences that embodied the spirit of abundance
Education, in its present dominant
form, is built around the perspective of scarcity. Institutions and
professionals are needed at every step of the way. Learning and knowledge
become commodities that need institutions and professionals in order to
produce, control, assess, and deliver them. The claim that it is
impossible to learn without them becomes, in time, a popular belief.
I have been working since 1971 with
the spirit of abundance, not because I was conscious of it but because of the
same reason I started to eat DNL: I could not afford manufactured
commodities! I had to depend on what was available at the time and place
where I happened to be. Over the years, I increasingly became aware of
the tremendous amount and diversity of what is available! Institutions
and professionals usually suppress or ignore or even become unaware of what is
available simply because they can neither make money nor control people when
they deal with what is freely available. The conditions under which I
worked most of my life – living under Israeli military occupation – forced me
to look for what was available in people, in the community and in
culture. Building on what was available was the only way to do things;
otherwise, I would not have been able to do them. Looking for and
building on what is available became a habit and a principle in my life.
In this sense, being creative and
innovative in working with what is naturally or culturally or humanly available
is different from being creative and innovative in working with manufactured
things – where creativity is mainly technical and motivated by forces from the
outside, mainly institutional and market forces and values. Under the abundance
perspective, creativity and innovativeness spring out of involvement in life
with all one’s being, and working within its real boundaries. [It is
worth mentioning here that some of the most creative, insightful and inspiring
writings of the 20th century were written in prisons, where what was
available/ abundant to prisoners were their memories, reflections,
articulations – and of course abundance of time!]
The personal experience that I would
like to start with is when I was growing up in Ramallah, Palestine, in the
1950s. Kids in every neighborhood would clear up a space and change it
into a soccer field where we would play every day, anytime we pleased; no
permits or monthly fees were needed. In addition, we felt free to change
the rules as we pleased and as we saw fit. No child/ kid was excluded;
even when there were children who were too young to play, they were allowed to
play as “empty peanuts,” which meant that they were not full players, but could
run around in the field. That beautiful spirit (which embodied abundance)
was slowly replaced by clubs, official playgrounds, and by professionals who
told kids “this is wrong” and “that is right.” Playing soccer started
shifting into the scarcity paradigm, controlled by institutions and
professionals, and requiring high fees. It became exclusive to those who
could afford them. Under such conditions, a new “class structure”
naturally developed. Some started feeling less than others according to
some outside measure. Playfulness and joy soon gave way to control,
winning and elitism.
The difference between the two ways
of playing reflects the difference between living with universal rules and
living with universal principles. The size of the soccer field, number of
players, positions, movements etc, are part of universal rules that are
arbitrary. Love to play is a universal principle that applies to all
people, everywhere. Swaraj and living with the spirit of abundance embody
principles; the rules change according to place and time and to people engaged
in living. Wisdom is connected to principles; science and math (as
conceived by people like Descartes and Bacon) are more connected to rules and
laws.
Without being conscious of it, it was
probably experiences such as the free flexible soccer spaces that formed the
roots of what I did later, both in my teaching and my work in general. My
first “experiment” in working with the spirit of abundance was in 1971, when I
started the voluntary work movement in the West Bank in Palestine (the region
has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967). What is available
in other countries to young people (such as shopping malls and consumer
commodities) was, fortunately, not available for young Palestinians living in
the West Bank. Thus, the idea of the voluntary movement was attractive
and meaningful. What was needed for voluntary work was available: our
hands, feet, energy, time and surroundings. People would gather every
Friday and Sunday and we would go and work wherever work was needed. We
worked in farming, in building roads, in water projects, with children….
The idea spread in other areas, including some neighboring countries.
Another experience that embodied the
spirit of abundance during that same period was related to schools. I was
in charge of math instruction in the schools of the West Bank from 1973 until
1978. I looked for what I could do beyond the routine work that was
assigned to me, which was visiting classes and writing reports about
teachers. I looked for “elements” that were abundant. Questions are
abundant, I thought, and “every person has questions that s/he is interested in
pursuing” is a universal principle. I thought that if every student comes
with such a question, together they could form a club. I encouraged
students to start math and science clubs, building on the fact that science
starts with questions that people ask. The clubs were so successful that
the Israeli military officer of education in the West Bank had to issue an
order banning them! That was in 1976. [One interaction with science
teachers is worth mentioning here. When a teacher complained that they
could not teach science without laboratories in the school and without
factories in the area (the scarcity paradigm), I asked, “Aren’t there flies in
the classrooms and in students’ homes {abundant creature}? Let your
students observe flies and record as much information as possible over a period
of time, and then compare their various observations with one another.
They probably will learn more science than the textbooks and classes they
usually go through.” The teacher smiled and looked at me as if I were
joking or being ridiculous.]
Another abundant idea with which I
worked during that period is related to the conviction that every person is a
creator or co-author of meanings. I used to visit schools and ask
children about meanings of words and phrases such as “what is a point?” and
“what does 1=1 mean?” Children create meanings all the time, though they
usually are not aware of it. The biggest obstacle to co-authoring
meanings is institutions and professionals, since one of their main functions
is to provide and control – even fabricate and monopolize – the meaning of
words. [I will say more about co-authoring of meaning later.]
Another abundant idea that I worked
with during the 1970s was related to logic. One of the hardest ideas I
encountered with teachers was for them to accept that every child is
logical. It is so engrained in our minds that there is only one logic,
usually mastered by only a few through studying it with certified
professionals, that it becomes very hard to imagine a pluralism of logics or to
believe that every person is logical. A teacher who does not understand
or agree with a child’s logic usually concludes that the child is illogical
instead of following a different logic. The belief in one logic and that
it has to be taught is an example of the scarcity paradigm. Believing
that every person is logical, and that people develop their logic through
interaction with life, is an example of the abundance perspective. The
distinction between believing in one universal logic and believing in a universal
principle that the world is pluralistic, with a multiplicity of logics,
which does not necessarily mean that one has to agree with or understand, is a
very important distinction. The danger in the scarcity paradigm, however,
is not the belief in one logic as much as in its creation of tools that are
claimed to be universal and objective. The abundance perspective,
in contrast, expects every place to develop its own understanding and tools.
The intifada:
Many things affected my life deeply
but, no doubt, the most inspiring and invigorating one that shook a lot of the
dirt/ junk that I accumulated over the years was the intifada, which
means, in Arabic, shaking off the dirt.” It is most inspiring because it
brought aspects out of the shade and made them visible. It brought out
what is abundant in relation to beautiful and nurturing aspects in the culture
and in people. It brought out the abundant spirit of taking initiative
when people feel they are totally responsible for their lives. It was
phenomenal; people did what they thought needed to be done. There was no
authority to expect it to do things or from which to ask permission.
Thus, the Intifada, which started in 1987 and lasted for almost six
years, embodied in a striking way the spirit of abundance. [An earlier
period that manifested this spirit of taking initiative was the decade of the
1970s. As a result of the defeat and expulsion of the PLO from Jordan in
1971, people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had no choice but to depend on
themselves in doing what needed to be done. Activities of all kinds
flourished: voluntary work, theater, and music...]
During the period of that first intifada,
Israel closed down all institutions, including schools and universities, and
paralyzed all official systems. I don’t remember any other period in my
life where people took care of themselves, ran their daily affairs, and related
beautifully to one another, as much as that period. It made me realize
how much people, society and culture have. The society had to function
with what Israel could not close down: the family, the neighborhood, churches
and mosques, planting, raising animals, the upbringing of children, and
traditional ways of doing things, solving disputes, enjoying themselves,
teaching, learning, etc. It made me aware of cultural and social aspects
that were made invisible (or considered backward) by dominant structures and
terminology. It made me aware that most of what we need is there, and that
most of what we buy and consume under “normal” conditions is not needed.
It made me aware that we may need institutions and professionals in certain
specific limited aspects of life but that we need – even more – spaces where
people can live, interact, learn, do, produce, and express outside the
intervention of institutions and professionals. During that first Intifada,
I realized that what kept Palestinian society viable were people who were
rooted in the soil of the culture and in daily life, whether literate or
not. It was the rooted traditions and social structures that kept the
various communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip functioning. In other
words, the crucial factor in whether a person is “nurturing the community and
nurtured by it” is not whether one is literate or not, but whether one is
rooted in the cultural soil and in daily living or not. For me, the
challenge facing communities everywhere, is to reclaim and revalue the diverse
ways of living, learning, studying, knowing, relating, doing, and
expressing. Like most people during that period, I asked myself what
could I do with what was available? As someone who worked in education
and with children and youth, I thought that reading, writing and expressing are
things that people can do under the circumstances. Expressing oneself is
an abundant idea; every person has some way of expressing herself/himself
(expressions here do not refer only to forms that are recognized as such, but
also to forms that reflect what people do in their daily work, such as farming,
building, knitting, raising children…). I started a reading and writing
campaign, since all what it needed was there: books, ability to read, papers
and pencils and hands, and stories to tell. [For details, see my article
“The Reading Campaign Experience within Palestinian Society: Innovative
Strategies for Learning and Building Community, Harvard Educational Review,
Feb. 1995]. In the case of those who cannot read and write, they could
use other means to express themselves and tell their stories. [Those who
are interested in more details about that period, please see some of what I
wrote elsewhere, including Learning to Survive
(1992), Community Education is to Regain and Transform What has been Made
Invisible (1990), Regaining Our Identities and Our Lives (1991).]
The Arab Education Forum” and Qalb
el-Umour
Since 1997, I have been involved with two projects “The Arab
Education Forum” and the Qalb el-Umour Project, both of which embody a
different perception, conception, practice, and “myths” concerning learning and
the use of language. Qalb el-Umour, in particular, is a good
example of what we can do to unplug ourselves from the ideology of control and
consumption: no editorial board, no permission, no selling or buying, no budget
outside what those who produce it can afford… Both projects are examples
of building on what is abundant: people’s experiences, reflections,
expressions, and discussions. [For details concerning Qalb el-Umour,
see my article in Vimukt Shiksha April 2001, a special issue of “Unfolding
Learning Societies” by Shikshantar, Udaipur, India (see
www.swaraj.org/shikshantar]
An irony
One last remark: the irony in western
thinking and style of living is that it deals with what is abundant (such as
knowledge, expressions, meanings…) as scarce while it deals with what is scarce
(such as land and water) as if it were abundant. Every time land and
water proved to be limited, Europeans did not change their ways of living and
styles of consuming but rather solved the shortage by conquering new lands and
new sources of water, and as a consequence wiped out and replaced indigenous
peoples and stole their waters and lands (along with other natural resources
such as wood; if the New York Times continues to consume what is equivalent to
60,000 trees daily, other countries, such as Cameroon and the Amazon, have to
suffer). [An example closer to home is the fact that a person from New
York or Boston can go today to the West Bank or Gaza Strip and take land from
its Palestinian owners and use their water at the rate of 40 times as much as a
Palestinian! Part of the collapse in capitalism, and in the world today,
is due to the fact that there are no more continents for capital to conquer,
and no more resources to steal. Like dinosaurs, capitalism will die
because there would be nothing more to eat!]
On the Way of Abundance:
Co-Authoring of Meanings
In order for us to again teach and
learn within the perspective of abundance, we need to unlearn a lot of what we
have learned and internalized through education and other institutions,
including terms we use, the meanings that are assigned to them, and dominant
standards and measures. There is a need to challenge dominant terms,
meanings, categories, measures, and basic assumptions and convictions.
Healing from words that are not rooted in the soils of cultures or in the soils
of daily living is crucial to our healthy growth. Carving terms that
spring out of our experiences and reflections is one crucial aspect of living
within a different logic. In what follows, I will give examples of words
whose current dominant meanings fall under the perspective of scarcity, and
suggest meanings that stem from a spirit of abundance. For me,
co-authoring meanings, or independently investigating meanings, and sharing
them with one another, is a most important aspect of living in harmony with the
principle of abundance. It can be expressed as follows: every person,
young and old, has the right and duty to investigate the meaning of words,
sentences, and expressions, in light of one’s experiences, readings,
discussions, and inner convictions. This is the essence of what for me is
one of the most inspiring ideas in human history: al-ijtihad in
Islam. What I would like to suggest here is to extend the spirit of this
wonderful idea to other aspects of life, including teaching and
education. Independent investigation of meanings is a most important
factor in building thought, and in rearticulating the meaning of dominant
concepts in today’s world, such as democracy, civil society, social
transformation, cultural diversity, freedom, equality, participation, human
rights etc. Examples follow:
I will start with democracy.
I use the term to refer to the freedom of choosing one’s meanings, one’s
teachers, and one’s way of living, learning, expressing and raising one’s
children – and not only one’s government. By putting an effort to
investigate the meaning of words that we use, we would be acting freely.
Freeing oneself from universal concepts, meanings, theories, measures,
knowledge, and tools is crucial to regaining diversity and participation in
life. Choosing one’s teachers is as fundamental as choosing one’s
government.
Civil society.
One main aspect of the dominant meaning for civil society is that it is one
where NGOs are active and play a significant role in society. But, when
we remember that NGOs (judging even by the term itself) cannot do anything,
cannot even be formed and exist, without the constant blessing and approval of
governments, we realize that it is a new cover up of control. They are
effective in the conquest of both space and imagination. They are
effective in keeping people away from being the main actors in running their
affairs. What we experienced during the first intifada is very
revealing about what civil society could mean: people working with what they
have as persons, as communities, and as a culture, outside the interference of
institutions and professionals, whether governmental or non-governmental. My
experience during the first intifada was that what kept the Palestinian
society functioning was, as I mentioned earlier, what Israel could not close
down or paralyze, and by depending on what the immediate environment produces
in terms of food. These for me form the basic elements of a civil
society. It is a society that lives a good part of its daily life outside
the intervention of official institutions (be they governmental or
nongovernmental) and of professionals (be they certified or “organic”).
Civil society is one where people are responsible, first and foremost, for
running their basic affairs such as the upbringing of their children and doing
what needs to be done according to their judgment.
Social transformation.
Part of my “healing” during the past 30 years had to do with unlearning to be
arrogant, to feel – for example – that literate people have a better
understanding of life than illiterates. Another aspect of arrogance is
wanting to change the world, society, and others according to what we think is
good for them. We can rebel against experts and call ourselves “organic
intellectuals,” “conscientizors,” or “agents of change,” but the arrogant
assumption that we know what is good for others is common to all such
terms. An arrogant person does not necessarily mean that the person is
bad; it could spring out of goodness and of good intentions. Now, through
the years, I learned that the only person I could change or transform is
myself. And the way I found meaningful in this regard is reflecting and
contemplating on what I do or experience, and try to express and share that
with others. This obviously is in harmony with the spirit of
abundance. By doing that, others may change. However, this kind of
change is different from change that is designed and controlled by me.
May be “natural growth” is a better phrase to describe change that happens
naturally. Natural growth is a process that is abundant; it happens to
every living human, animal, plant, society, idea, or passion. Natural
growth does not need institutions or professionals in order for it to
happen. In fact, just like in the case of DLN, institutions and
professionals can help kill or hinder natural growth. Schools, for
example, usually hinder natural learning. I would like to mention again
the case of NGOs that claim social transformation as their goal. Even
when an NGO is critical of a government, and stands against its abuses and pays
a price for that, very rarely we hear that it is reflecting on and discussing
its internal ways of governing its people and programs. This is part of
what I meant by honesty being a fundamental value. I should start by
looking at my way of living and see what I do on a daily basis that is harmful
to myself, or to others (in the way I treat them), or to my relationship with
others, or to nature. Before we can blame governments and point to their
abuses, we need to look at our own behavior and see whether we do anything of
the things we criticize. Thus, social transformation, which I subscribe
to, is one that starts with reflection, articulation, discussion, including
reflecting on the values that I live by, and – as a result – changing my self,
including my behavior, convictions and values. One very important aspect
of social transformation is co-authoring the meanings of words that I use.
Cultural diversity and pluralism.
A city like Boston, where groups (Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Chinese, Porto
Ricans…) each lives in its own area, where the interaction is nonexistent or
only through businesses, is closer to the diversity in a zoo than to a
pluralistic society. In this sense, I see that Boston embodies cultural
diversity, but not pluralism. We can have cultural diversity without
being pluralistic. Within a pluralistic society, interactions among
various groups who hold radically different worldviews are very high and
daily. What characterizes the pluralistic attitude most in my
opinion is that the dialogue with other worldviews stays alive, and never
breaks down. In other words, it is possible to have cultural diversity
and still believe in progress along one universal path. For me, one
measure of pluralism is having different ways of learning and different systems
of knowledge, all of which are legitimate, and people have the choice to use
the money and resources allotted to education in the upbringing of their
children the way they see fit. In a pluralistic society, there are no
comparisons, no universal standards, and no measurements that are determined
from above and applied to all. Measuring and counting are crucial in the
scarcity perspective; in fact, they help create scarcity. The worst enemy
of pluralism, and thus of peoples and cultures, is not universal beliefs but
rather the development of universal tools, that claim to be neutral and
objective, and that can impose, gently or coercively, a certain set of
universal meanings, measures, styles and beliefs. For education to play a
role in humanizing globalization, it has to embody pluralism and wisdom as
basic “ingredients” in its basic convictions and daily practice, which
necessitates giving up “objective” measurements and assessments. It is
again the difference between DLN as a global plant, and PCH as a global
commodity. The two globalizations as I already said are worlds apart!
What are needed today are not ready
answers and commodities to be given to people but ways of protecting people
exactly from ready (mostly manufactured) answers and commodities. Using
the image of DLN again, what they need is protection from institutions, their
chemicals and regulations, and from the professionals that produce and mange
them. They don’t need help in growing, what they need is a clean, healthy
and nurturing environment.
The conquest of the imagination is
probably the worst form of conquest, because the defeat becomes internal and
self-generating, and the constraints and limitations become internalized.
At the same time, however, the imagination embodies abundance in an amazing
way. Every person is born with a lively and rich imagination. The worst
enemy for the imagination is ready answers and models. What limits the
imagination most is a set of given options (usually meaningless or false ones)
that a person has to choose from. This is why the educated textual
mind/imagination has usually few alternatives, given by experts through
language. In contrast, children’s imaginations are open to infinite
possibilities. The incredible and unpredictable nature of children’s
imaginations is the real hope that humanity can never be totally controlled.
Summary
If we let our imagination free itself
from moving only along “paved roads” and allow it to wonder around, we would
discover the tremendous richness, beauty, diversity, and abundance in
life. We would regain our ability to make our own paths and discover the
real world, the “countryside,” and we will come in contact and talk more often
with one another. In this kind of world, there is no official to ticket
you because you moving on the wrong side or in the wrong direction. There
is no meaning wrong side or wrong direction. If we free our imagination
from the hegemony of universal meanings, answers and measures, we would
discover the tremendous diversity and abundance that exist in the world.
One abundant idea, which I stressed in this article and which I consider of
utmost importance, is that every person is a source of meaning and
understanding, a co-author of meaning and co-partner in constructing knowledge
and building reality. Thus, a main challenge we face in today’s world is
protecting, creating or providing spaces where people can work, think, relate,
interact, and build, outside the intervention of institutions and
professionals, including NGOs, organic intellectuals, and conscientizors.
Truth, wisdom, trust, faith and
honesty are fundamental values within the spirit of abundance. Teaching
and learning within the abundance perspective necessarily require a shift in
our perception of us as human beings and of our place in the world, and a
transformation in our relationship to one another and to the world.
Just like a seed is uniquely
complete, a person – within the abundance perspective – is looked at as
uniquely complete (this is a phrase which I heard from Satish and Shilpa in
India). All what a seed needs is an appropriate environment (soil,
nutrients, water, sun, temperature, and loving care) in order for it to
grow. The internal ingredients are complete and unique in that
seed. [Genetic engineering would make sense in the scarcity perspective.]
Similarly, what a person needs to grow healthily is a healthy
environment. Every person is uniquely complete, which means, among other
things, that comparing and measuring are unnatural, even harmful to that
uniqueness and completeness. Two basic ingredients of a healthy
environment are beautiful relationships and living in harmony with nature.
Abundance is related to universal
principles, pluralistic attitude, cyclic thinking, and hospitality. In
contrast, scarcity is related to universal thinking, universal laws, one path
for progress, linear thinking, and control. Universal thinking has been a
major factor in destroying diversity and pluralism, forcing learning to move
along narrow paths, equating understanding to acquiring information and
technical skills and knowledge, and pushing wisdom aside. The logic embedded in
universal thinking naturally leads to the belief that one person/ people/
nation/ country/ religion/ culture can be absolutely better than another
(according to some measure that is claimed to be universal) and, thus, can
impose their ideas and ways on the world at large – in the name of development,
progress and saving them from “being left behind.” The belief that one’s
ideas and ways are the best is not new. What is new (and exclusively
characteristic of western civilization) is the successful diffusion/
dissemination – through “universal” tools – of certain beliefs and practices as
universal. The most effective tool has been education as it has been conceived
and practiced at least during the past 300 years – through a curriculum taught
to all students, and through standards, measures, concepts and meanings that
are claimed to be universal. Mathematics and the sciences with their
claims to universal truths, and technology with its magical impact on people,
have been part of this triumphant march of universal thinking and the belief in
a linear path for progress. Ignoring wisdom and pushing it outside people’s
consciousness seemed necessary for science and technology to develop at an
amazing rate. However, they have been, at the same time, a main cause for the
catastrophic situation and trends, which we witness today around us. A
civilization (even life) cannot hold together for too long without
wisdom. An important part of wisdom is living with the spirit of
abundance or SWARAJ or whatever word people choose to refer to such way of
living.
Munir Fasheh
Director, Arab Education Forum
þ
|
|