1 - Introduction

Greetings!

In these days of global concern about terrorism, fundamentalism, the senseless killing of the innocent, and the revival of deep-seated social conflicts of many stripes, the world academics could play a vital role in making the world a very much better and safer place for everyone.  My writings (the articles on this blog) can help you towards that end via an insight of global importance I arrived at in 1997 and have written about since, although one of its central aspects is not new, as will be clear by the quote from Professor Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy incorporated into the two main articles.⁽¹⁾  Significantly, the insight relates to your area of expertise (ie, of those to whom the writings on this blog have been sent by email) and, as reasoned in  footnote 2 below, rectifying the crucial problem underlying that insight is a collective moral responsibility of the world’s academics.  

The insight pertains on the one hand to a downside of the way the human mind works and on the other to the way the world education system steadily, although inadvertently, contributes to the exacerbation of that downside.  The nature of this problem and why and how it comes about is explored in the paper labelled “Education and Fundamentalism,” which was originally written in October 2009 for a somewhat different purpose than global circulation.  The paper also suggests a partial but pragmatic solution to the problem; a more comprehensive solution to this crucial problem being rather unlikely given the innate human nature as well as cultural differences of human societies and specialization requisites of human advancement (added later: see also "9 - Last Explanation," the first four short paragraphs).  

Further, the pervasiveness of the problem and its central role in thwarting human wellbeing and thus the massive damage it inflicts upon individuals and families and communities and nations (while none the wiser) would make it one of the gravest problems faced by humanity; its illusiveness would also make it highly dangerous since it is in fact the root cause and culprit behind a multitude of other societal problems and since it operates without giving its victims even a clue about the existence of a perpetrator! 

Given the broad scope of the problem, the writings necessarily treat it in a rather condensed manner, thus increasing chances for misperceptions in spite of my having made the utmost to write in clear and precise language.  This therefore calls for an open mind and not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  

I hope you find the articles informative and interesting and that you will reflect on the problem and the (partial) solution I have suggested and discuss them with colleagues, thus help minimize the devastating impact of the problem globally and hence uplift human wellbeing to a hitherto unprecedented level.⁽²⁾ 

Yours faithfully,

Rifat Afeef (from the Maldives) 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

⁽¹⁾  It should be mentioned that I actually read the book some five years after I first wrote about this insight in 1997 in the second main article on this blog labelled “Integrative Planning,” which was circulated widely in the Maldives and to a lesser extent abroad, and thus that the quote was added to the article much later. (But the problem’s multidimensional nature and its complexity had not crystallized in my mind then.) 

⁽²⁾  You may be sceptical as to how individual action on your part can lead to change at a global level.  The answer is simple and based on two realities: i) education systems are shaped primarily by what goes on in the collective heads of the academics, and ii) ideas trickle down and percolate across all sorts of boundaries, particularly in our Internet era.  Two unflattering corollaries also result from them: a) the deplorable aspect of world education system outlined in my papers – its failure to instil a sound foundation for productive interaction among humans and the multitude of societal problems resulting thereof – can be at least partly attributed to the state of collective mind of the world’s academics, since educations systems are shaped primarily by them, and b) the vast majority of them do not have a clue that a problem of such magnitude as described in these writings even exists ⁽ⁱ⁾ – irrespective of how highly knowledgeable they may be in their particular fields of specialization.  In fact, it is precisely because one is highly knowledgeable in one’s own filed that it becomes so difficult psychologically to come to terms with the hard-to-swallow truth: that specialized persons are knowledgeable only in their highly specialized fields and thus, bluntly put, that they are literally ignorant of what is beyond their specific fields,*** hence that there is no common language for high-level dialogue among those of specialized fields (in addition to the lack of a shared language for everyone for interacting effectively with others due to both human uniqueness and differences of their upbringings and cultures).  This is an inevitable outcome of the facts that on the one hand it is through specialization that humanity advances and on the other that it will be impossible for any individual to master every field of human knowledge.  It is this momentous reality and its unfortunate downside that I have dwelt on in my writings – a reality and outcome that humanity must face if we are to avert their devastating ramifications.  A little reflection will reveal that the simple but partial solution suggested has the potential to significantly reduce those devastating outcomes.  And your discussion of this important issue with your colleagues – within and beyond your own department, thus across professional boundaries (our problem is multidisciplinary, as you will no doubt infer from the papers) and also beyond the borders of your own nation – will help propel the process into motion, and the thus accumulated momentum, if sufficient, will home-in on the solution.⁽ⁱⁱ⁾  Before you could get motivated into action, however, you have to be convinced of both the existence of our problem and its destructive nature, and the rest will follow naturally.  To achieve this, keeping an open mind is imperative, given the multidisciplinary nature of the problem and the odds that at least part of what was dwelt on in the writings will fall outside your area of specialization, and as such, you would do well to talk to those knowledgeable in those areas before drawing any conclusions – and that would be central to the process of “keeping an open mind.”  If you’re relatively young (ages of direct recipients of these writings by email would vary from early twenties through mid-sixties and beyond) I urge you to engage in fruitful dialogue with older colleagues, particularly emeriti professors, who would have had wider experience of the spectrum of humanity’s problems and thus opportunity to have had observed with some detachment the workings of our crucial but illusive problem in real life. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

⁽ⁱ⁾ Any system not satisfactory to a majority cannot last for long in a free (or a quasi-free) society and will be replaced by a more satisfying one.  Had the world’s academics understood the devastation an aspect of the world education system was inflicting on humanity, they would have acted to change the situation, and the problem would likely have been rectified – and at a global level too, being enhanced by the instant access now ubiquitous globally.  (In fact, such global change now occurs routinely – for products and services as well as worthy ideas/concepts.)  Thus given that education systems are shaped by what goes on in the collective mind of academics,  ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ the momentum generated by an understanding of our problem by you and your colleagues (via dialogue among yourselves both locally and internationally) will home-in on the solution.  And since the problem is largely an attendant outcome of the mindset of the world’s academics and a lack of awareness thereof, they have a moral responsibility to rectify the currently deplorable situation and help raise humanity from its state of widespread misery. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*** Of course, there are many with wide backgrounds and thus have a more comprehensive perception of societal affairs – and some recipients of this email would be among them – but the vast majority of the college-educated do not have such backgrounds and thus would have rather limited perceptions.

Summary List of Distribution of Those to Whom the Writings were Originally Sent by Email and of Their Respective Departments and Universities Among Nations

Nation                                     No. of Universities      No. of Departments        No. of Academics

Australia                                  07                                38                                2,718

Austria                                     05                                23                                2,002

Belgium                                    03                                15                                1,244

Canada                                    07                                41                                3,305

Denmark                                  01                                07                                0,615

Egypt                                       01                                06                                0,101

Finland                                     01                                09                                0,525

France                                      06                                23                                0,577

Germany                                  06                                31                                2,295

Hong Kong                              02                                12                                0,519

Ireland                                     02                                11                                0,255

Israel                                        04                                22                                1,288

Italy                                          12                                50                                3,871

Netherlands                              05                                30                                2,953

New Zealand                            05                                28                                1,600

Norway                                    01                                08                                0,698

Singapore                                 01                                01                                0,058

South Africa                             01                                05                                0,080

Sweden                                    04                                25                                2,486

Switzerland                               05                                29                                2,082

United Kingdom                       11                                64                                2,776

United States                            13                                58                                2,728

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

22 nations                               103 universities          536 departments        34,776 academics

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

[The number of academics exclude those to whom the writings would have been delivered via their departments; although I have no way of ascertaining the exact number – since I could only request – my requests would relate to more than 500. The number of academics also reflect the original list compiled during the 12-15 months or so before I started emailing, but during the process, some emails were returned as undeliverable, a few requested removal of their names from the list, some switched institutions, and others left the academia altogether; the numbers given above do not reflect these changes.] 

List of Universities to Departments of Which the Writings have been Sent: (departments involved, if they exist, are: education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and communication; sometimes, where they were non-existent, related supplementary departments have been selected) 

Australia: ANU, Macquarie, Melbourne, Queensland, Sydney, UniSA, and UNSW;         Austria: Graz, Innsbruck, Salzburg, and Vienna;             Belgium: Antwerp, Libre Brussels, and Vrije Brussels;         Canada: Alberta, McGill, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, and UBC;                    Denmark: Copenhagen;                     Egypt: AUC;               Finland: Helsinki;      France: AUP; Lyon 2 Lumiere, Lyon 3 Jean Moulin, Pantheon-Sorbonne, Provence, Paris Descartes (Education);               Germany: Free Berlin, Humboldt Berlin,  Bonn, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Munich;           Hong Kong: CUHK and HKU;                     Ireland: Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin;       Israel: Hebrew U,  Tel Aviv,  Haifa,  Open U;                  Italy: Bologna, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Milano-Bicocca, Napoli-Federico, Palermo, UniRomaTre,  Sapienza Rome,  Turin, Napoli SU (Psychology), and Napoli UniSOB;   Netherlands: Amsterdam, Erasmus, Groningen, Leiden, and Utrecht;             New Zealand: Auckland, Canterbury, Massey, Otago, and Victoria;           Norway: Oslo;            Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy;        South Africa: Cape Town;         Sweden: Gothenburg, Lund, Stockholm, and Uppsala;        Switzerland: Basel, Bern, Geneva, Lausanne, and Zurich;                UK: Birmingham, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Open U, Oxford, and Ulster;                         USA: Chicago, Columbia, Georgetown, Harvard, Houston, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UHM, Yale, and Santa Fe Institute

List of recipients mentioned at the outset, although already containing about 35,000 names, is somewhat deficient.  The list I originally intended was much wider in scope (that is, more nations and universities) than it is now, but given the large amount of time taken in downloading email addresses, translating needed info on non-English websites, and other difficulties it has been narrowed down considerably. 

In a sense, the list that resulted also places more emphasis on “world education” vis-à-vis “religious funda-mentalism,” the two topics of the basic paper “Education and Fundamentalism,” since it now excludes, for one reason or another, most populous developing nations currently plagued by Islamic fundamentalism, such as Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria, and even Russia.  But given that the flaws in the current world education system is “at the root” and fundamentalism largely a branch emanating from it in spite of many other vital factors being involved in the process (see the basic paper, paragraph 15) dealing with the former is the more crucial step forward at present – a step that will serve as the springboard for subsequent tackling of the latter.  Notwithstanding its origins, religious fundamentalism also has a very different set of rules of engagement, thus by necessity, it should be dealt with separately and on its own terms.  But I do not see how this can be practically done without first tackling the flaws in the current world education system and the solution being accepted publicly and globally, as that solution is the starting point and the foundation on which the solution for religious fundamentalism could be based.  Thus expeditious tackling and compensating for the flaws in current world education system is the starting point forward.  And while the benefits of this spread across the globe helping to improve human wellbeing, it will lay the firm ground works for tackling religious fundamentalism.  Moreover, even if it is not dealt with separately, if we have a popular “education solution,” and given the logic of the paragraph referred to above, my prediction is that the intensity of religious fundamentalism rampant currently will diminish on its own.  This makes such a solution, as the partial one suggested in the basic paper initially and dwelt on variously in subsequent writings on this blog, all the more critical. 

2 - Education and Fundamentalism

World Education and Religious Fundamentalism – 

Two Vital Aspects Not Elaborated in the First Article ⁽¹⁾

The following are elaborations on two most important and vital aspects that were referred to in passing in my earlier first article and were never elaborated, as it was the down side of … global policy and factors related to it that were the focus of that article.

In reality, these three topics, namely, the down sides of … policy and of the world education system and religions fundamentalism, are intimately intertwined and are integral subsets of what I call “the way human mind works” at a broader level.  In fact, much of the downsides of human social condition, especially the misunderstandings at family, community, national, and international levels, as well as racial hatred and ethnic violence (not to mention religious fundamentalism) are issues attributable to a critical aspect of the way the human mind works.  Thus it is inevitable that efforts to improve these/other areas will benefit handsomely from a better understanding of this aspect of “the workings of human mind.”  In the many cases that crossed my path, efforts for improving various facets of the human condition have not taken into account this vital aspect of the functioning of the human mind, and the low level of success of such efforts could be partly attributed to the lack of this vital understanding.⁽²⁾ 

To grasp the critical/pivotal role played by this aspect of the functioning of the human mind in human well-being, we have to understand the dual nature of the process involved.  The first side of the process relates to the natural or inborn way in which humans develop perceptions about the world around them and the second side relates to the way modern education system repeatedly, although inadvertently, reinforces shortcomings of this inborn natural perception-forming process and exacerbates the outcomes as a result.  

From the beginning of a child’s life, sensory inputs about both tangible and intangible aspects of the world around him or her are translated into perceptions which become increasingly complex.  Acquisition and development of language by a child greatly improves this process.  Later, through schooling, the child acquires problem-solving capabilities at a very early age, which are then developed systematically and progressively and a high level of competency is acquired by the time the teenager finishes school, subsequently gaining further sophistication in various specialized fields/areas by the time he or she completes a college education. 

The outcomes of the duel aspects of these processes relevant to this article are:

i) individuals’ perceptions are determined by the information bases acquired and conclusions arrived at either subconsciously or by thinking intuitively &/or methodically based on it; and

ii) given that these information bases become progressively narrower in scope as one goes up the education ladder, individuals end up having extremely narrow windows through which he or she can view and understand the world and its issues, thus with rather narrow world views. (See the long quote from Professor Will Durant at the end of this article for more details of this result.) 

Modern education system is thus guilty of reinforcing the downside of our inherent and natural perception process without any compensatory measures – without even being aware of the immensity of the problem it takes part in creating.  The outcome is that in the modern society we do not have a shared language for the much-needed high-level dialogue, and also, contrary to popular belief, that people with specialized educations will have a rather limited ability to grasp many of the societal problems which encompass an extensive range of entwined/complex aspects.⁽³⁾  This in turn means that societies have a rather limited ability to generate viable solutions to those problems – not to mention the multitude of endeavours that have potential to improve human wellbeing.  The outcome of all this (relevant to this article) is that while we recognize that humans are unique (arising from our brains being structurally and interactively different, both aspects progressively reinforcing each other) today’s world  education system, which is supposed to help us understand the world better and prepare us 

(page 2) 

for enhanced roles in society, failed miserably to bridge the inherent gaps among individuals (and thus communities and nations) resulting from our natural uniqueness, and inadvertently helped them to widen to immense chasms.  One can observe that this failure in turn underlies much of human misery – much of the reasons for disrupted families and racial & ethnic hatred and the resulting violence and social unrest within, and also war and turmoil among, nations.  

If this is the case, it will be futile to talk about the betterment of the human condition without developing effective tools for bridging the gaps resulting from the above processes.  Writers mint millions talking about men being from Mars and women from Venus or about how one has not meant one thing or another, without really providing effective tools for addressing the actual problem.  Such talk is in the category of cures for symptoms and not cures for the root causes responsible for those symptoms.  (The “symptomatic” versus “fundamental” dichotomy elaborated in the first article.⁽⁴⁾)  As such, they are among the “end-of-the-pipe solutions,” to borrow a phrase from environmentalists, referring to the provision of catalytic converters at the end of exhaust pipes rather than taking into account what actually goes into the engine in the first place.  In a similar vein, most international conferences on “peace” are in the end-of-the-pipe solutions category – since they are usually measures after-the-fact and not efforts to prevent conflicts that would otherwise become inevitable if their root causes were not dealt with beforehand.  Such measures will be of limited effectiveness at best without addressing the deeper root cause discussed here that underlies much of the human misery. 

At a practical level, this root cause of human misery can be reduced markedly by providing effective tools to individuals for bridging the inherent gaps that inevitably arise from human uniqueness (which are inadvertently reinforced and exacerbated by an education system that is unaware or insensitive of the fiasco to which it is party for creating) by teaching them how to communicate effectively across those gaps with fellow human beings.  For best results, the methodology for effective communication and related psychology should be incorporated in curricula at all levels of the world education system, for the desired competencies cannot be instilled without such education and training from an early age.  (At all levels because on the one hand an “attitude to communicate with empathy,” like other such attitudes, can be formed only while we are small children but at which stage we are not geared to understand theory, and on the other hand, teaching theory when we are older will not be effective since without the correct attitudes instilled in us to begin with, what we study will be compartmentalized in a corner in our brains and will have questionable impact on our behaviour; both approaches in isolation – either to only instil attitude without the scope for theory or to teach theory without instilling the right attitude – will defeat the purpose.)  Luckily our mere awareness that what one says cannot reach others fully due to human uniqueness will go a long way to counter present deficiencies and improve mutual understanding, which will significantly help advance better human relations within and among nations and reduce religious and ethnic hatred and the resulting intolerance and violence that plague much of the world today.  

(Paragraph 9) Currently, is there anything called “communication” at any level of world education system – including in the economically and technologically advanced countries?  An emphatic “No!” is the answer.  In the current system, a child is taught from the early stages to deal with largely an inanimate world, for example, wooden or Lego blocks or clay initially, graduating perhaps to frogs and mice from the world of the living, but no effort whatsoever is made to assist him or her to understand fellow human students, and finally shifting to higher levels of thinking, including the manipulation of symbols.  This of course includes something called “English” or “Maldivian” or whatever but never enabling them to effectively deal with fellow students!  Although we live in human societies, instilling competency in the crucially important and yet extremely difficult task of effectively interacting or communicating with other human beings does not warrant any importance in today’s world education system!    

The result is that we may grow up to be brilliant engineers expert in minutiae of microchips  and intricacies of space flight or scientists competent in dealing with subtleties of the DNA of life, but would such persons be able to communicate meaningfully and without argument with one’s mate or children or colleagues?  Without the right attitude for communicating with empathy (which can be instilled only when we are small children) followed by a good grounding in theoretical basics and supplemented by adequate training, it is only a few who have a natural knack for sympathetic interaction and meaningful communication, who can listen with insight as well as talk; most do a lot of talking or lecturing but little meaningful listening, and add to the dissatisfaction and turmoil we see around the world daily.  Thus if we want to better the human condition, we have to start with the root causes as stepping stones to arrive at the relevant answers, not end-of-the-pipe solutions.  And for best results, this thinking should be adopted globally in our interdependent age in which distance has shrunk unprecedentedly and irrevocably.  

It is clear that adopting the “root-cause view” put forward here and addressing the chasms arising from inherent human uniqueness which are inadvertently reinforced and exacerbated currently by the world’s education system by helping people to communicate better has the potential to uplift human wellbeing to unprecedented heights; it will also enable us to focus our limited energies more productively on pressing issues instead of the vain “debates” now in vogue.  But it should be kept in mind that for this thinking to bear fruit in the near future, the global community at large has to start acting now.  And for that to happen effectively, … … , which in turn means coming to grips with the nature/dimensions of the problem, foremost among which being the recognition that that vital problem actually exists, which in its turn will naturally open the door for practicalities of better understanding and addressing it.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is a short way from here to reach the conclusion that religious fundamentalism is a direct spin-off of the very same phenomenon of “the way the human mind works” as described in the preceding paragraphs and which by its nature creates barriers to consensus progressively. 

To know how this works, we have to understand a basic mechanism through which evolution of human knowledge (which underlies perception) takes place.  In the case of non-religious human knowledge, evolution is characterized by improvement over historical time whereas in the case of religious knowledge, the process involves degeneration.  Let me elaborate/explain.  

Of the body of non-religions knowledge, scientific knowledge best epitomizes this positive improvement phenomenon.  Science has advanced over time by eliminating concepts and/or practices that were not verifiable by yielding positive results, as the ancient practice of drilling holes in the skull to drive out demons or the more recent practice of blood-letting to cleanse the body of whatever that ails it.  It might take time, perhaps a decade or two currently, for viable/proven concepts/techniques to go mainstream.  The body of non-religions knowledge, particularly the sciences, therefore has kept improving over historical time. 

But such is not the case with regard to the body of religious knowledge; in matters religious, there is no viable means to verify the truth or falsity of issues.  Furthermore, matters religious are cloaked with a “divine” protective veneer (similar to a resistant strain of bacteria that has developed a defensive outer layer impene-trable to conventional drugs), thus few in their right minds would want to be subject to the ire of a populace that fervently believes every minor tidbit to be “divine.”  This is one factor.  The other is that all matters religious are subject to “interpretations” by those who claim to have the intellectual wherewithal, that is, the clergy, during which process (stretched over historical time) the full body of religious knowledge gradually but steadily gets tainted with the limited (leading to distorted) perceptions of those who do such “interpretation.”  (See above: perception formation.)  Because of these two vital factors, namely, the path for evaluation of religious issues being blocked for the non-clergy, and simultaneously, due to “interpretations” of those issues by the clergy who claim to know but in reality do not,⁽⁵⁾ the body of religious knowledge has evolved over historical time in the wrong direction, towards distortion and degeneration, away from the original messages of the pioneers responsible for them, be it Moses or Jesus or Mohamed.⁽⁶⁾  It should also be noted that a basic reason underlying this degeneration arose from the lack of ability to separate the “message” from the incident circumstances that surrounded it, ie, the life conditions and mindsets at the time of those pioneers.  Moreover, necessity for the messages frequently arose from dictates of those circumstances themselves.  This makes a significant part of what we inherited from the past as “religion” doubly meaningless in the twenty first century. 

(Paragraph 15) This already confused situation is further exacerbated by engaging children in rote-learning from an early age, which stunts their innate curiosity and ability to think and reason critically.  In addition, given that the specialization focus of world’s education system leaves one with a significantly narrow worldview, the process also leaves many of those who get rote-learned educations as children vulnerable as adults to be swayed by eloquent mischief-makers out to get a compliant following, since they claim answers to many questions their victims ponder but to which the latter’s limited information bases and stunted ability for reasoning cannot generate satisfying answers, especially given their lack of a suitable value system to show the way in our complex life conditions; chances of such victimization being further enhanced by heightened aspirations that cannot be fulfilled to one’s content in today’s competitive world. 

With this backdrop, a helpful way to put religious fundamentalism in perspective is to ponder the implications of the “Social Judgement Theory,” a prominent theory in the field of social psychology, or more specifically, what it says about social perception.  The theory postulates three “latitudes” or parts as constituting the sum total of one’s schema for evaluating others’ viewpoints: latitudes of acceptance (agree), non-commitment (neither agree nor disagree), and rejection (disagree).  (This evaluative process can be expected to likely operate at an unconscious or at best a semiconscious level.)  Thus those whose knowledge is said to be complex (that is, those with a wide variety in their knowledge bases) tend to have relatively wider latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment but narrower latitudes of rejection.  On the other hand, those with simple (or limited) knowledge bases tend to have relatively narrower latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment but wider latitudes of rejection.  As a result, it is relatively easy to talk about issues with those who have complex or extensive knowledge bases without much argument while such conversations are not possible with those who have simple or limited knowledge bases.  And given the way humans make sense of the world based on what they have between their ears, it would not be surprising in the least that those with knowledge limited to religious doctrines will be among the most “narrow-minded” and with whom one cannot have a reasonable conversation about anything without what they consider their deities’ pronouncements getting in the way! 

We can get further insight into how such narrow-mindedness is reinforced daily by realizing that it is due to the outcomes of the thesis of SJT in conjunction with our innermost yearnings to affirm our beliefs and prejudices that “birds of a feather” congregate with their kind – be it those of various denominations of religious faiths or political inclinations.  In such gatherings much of the talk participants hear will fall within their latitudes of either acceptance or non-commitment, and little will venture beyond either into latitudes of rejection.  Thus common beliefs and prejudices are reinforced in individuals and they come out of gatherings elated, with “happiness” neurotransmitters flooding their brains.  Since such gatherings make participants happy/satisfied, they provide powerful motivation to uphold shared beliefs and prejudices but little to question them, since the driving force behind our motives lies in what makes us happy/satisfied/fulfilled.  (Think of Skinner's pigeons or lever-pressing monkeys in psychology experiments to visualize how "reinforcement" works – the forces driving human behaviour may be much more sophisticated but operate on the same basic principles.)  

We can reasonably conclude that religious fundamentalism is a state of mind arising from the indoctrination of people from a young age with religious doctrines that originated in response to circumstances far removed from those of our time and moreover seen extensive distortions over historical time; the transformation of this mental state towards extremism being greatly enhanced by the downsides of both “the way the human mind works” and the way the world  education system is currently set up, and further exacerbated significantly by the exploitation of thus transformed states of mind by some people to attain their own ends – regardless of the nature of those ends or whether underlying motives are labelled “bad” or “good.”  And given its complex nature, it will be prudent for those dealing with religious fundamentalism to take account of the various factors that collectively contribute to that illusive phenomenon.  It will also be clear from preceding accounts of the dynamics of the processes involved that it will be futile to reason with those who are literally brainwashed with narrow belief systems that have seen progressive distortions over historical time and moreover do not have even an inkling that many beliefs they so ardently hold do not have much of a reality to them.  … …

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 ⁽¹⁾ As mentioned in “1 - Introduction,” this article was originally not written for global circulation.  It is in fact the second of two articles that address three topics with global implications – world education and religious fundamentalism being two of them.  For clarity, I have kept the focus here on only these two topics and deleted the few references this article had to the first one, which is largely about international politics.  

⁽²⁾ Such understanding would call upon integrated knowledge, to varying degrees, from the fields of education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, as well as communication – among others.  

⁽³⁾ Arthur Koestler’s novel The Call-Girls: A Tragic Comedy, although a bit dated, convincingly captures many aspects of the controversies and uncertainties associated with this crucial but illusive phenomenon. 

⁽⁴⁾ The labels were adopted from the USA’s MIT Professor Peter Senge’s classic The Fifth Discipline. 
⁽⁵⁾ Examples: The Galileo fiasco centered on the Church's geocentric solar system, inquisition, and witch hunts; current “interpretations” relate to creationism, abortion, stem-cell research, and nuclear physics.  

⁽⁶⁾ Significant insight into this process of historical distortion in the realm of Christendom can be gleaned from Dan Brown’s international bestselling novels The Da Vinci Code and Angles & Demons. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Malé, Maldives; October 2009 (original article); significant changes made in August 2010 & March 2011 

3 - Further Elaboration

Further Elaboration on the Logic of the Central/Basic Aspect 

Having widely circulated both an earlier edition of the paper “Education and Fundamentalism” and the older paper “Integrative Planning” locally and to a lesser extent abroad, it is my surmise that some people find it difficult to comprehend the basic aspect of the papers’ thesis despite being easily convertible to a simple if-then type of logical statement such as: if a + b = z and if c + d = z, then a + b = c + d.  Accordingly, the logic of that central aspect can be stated as: if specialized education provides a high level of knowledge within limited narrow bands (like the limited range of visible light within the full electromagnetic spectrum) and if public policy encompasses a wide range of fields which are entwined and complex, then (it follows that) those with specialized educations (without at least a basic knowledge of all relevant main fields involved as well as their overlapping areas) will not be able to formulate sound public policy – although they may think the policy they formulate is sound.  

A simple Venn diagram could clarify this apparently difficult problem.  Imagine the area of a sheet of paper representing the full range of fields constituent of public policy and the areas of a number of circles on the page representing the respective specialized fields.  Almost all circles will overlap some others to varying degrees.  From this we can see that one’s field of specialization, represented by the area of only one circle, cannot be stretched to the full range of fields, represented by area of the page.  Also (while contrary to a Venn diagram’s simple logic) it will not be possible for those in any two fields to understand their overlapping new field unless they have adequate knowledge of it.  For example, both sociologists and psychologists must study the overlapping new field of social psychology, which has characteristics very different from those of either sociology or psychology.  And medical students may initially know biology, chemistry, and physics, but not the overlapping fields of biochemistry, biophysics, and physical chemistry, characteristics of each differing from those of the original disciplines and from those of each other.  Likewise, knowledge of hydrogen and oxygen would not help one to know about water, which has properties very different from those of both oxygen and hydrogen.  Incidentally, both sociologists and psychologists do study their shared field, but those in many other academic fields do not and yet implicitly take it for granted that they are knowledgeable of overlapping fields; worse, they are often unmindful that knowing their own fields would not enable them to know others.  And given that such behaviour arises from distorted perceptions rather than from reality, they can be classified on a par with what social psychologists call “self-serving bias” – given the mental mechanisms involved in both cases are likely to be about the same. (See footnote 5 of “Education & Fundamentalism” for a reminder of the devastation such mindsets can induce.)  

To further illustrate, an example cited in a letter I wrote to members of the Maldives parliament in April 2005 to highlight both the nature of the problem and how it would most likely be the single biggest factor underlying the inappropriate policies by our government (and for that matter by the governments of other less as well as the more advances nations) is as follows:  

A physician and a structural engineer (both highly qualified/experienced in their specialized fields) went to an intensive care unit of a hospital.  The physician took one look at gauge(s) connected to a patient (which provided an adequate picture of the physiological state of his/her body) and instantly grasped the essence of the condition of the patient, whereas the engineer couldn’t make head or tail of it.  Then they went to a large building under construction with the reinforcement in place and ready for concreting, and the reverse happened.  The engineer took one look at the scene and immediately understood the essence of the reinforcement layout, whereas the physician couldn’t make head or tail of it. 

Similar outcomes are likely to result for those with backgrounds in social sciences, as economics and sociology, or with unrelated backgrounds, as psychology and geography.  The conclusion to be drawn (relevant to our problem) is that people with specialized knowledge do not have a common language using which they can converse meaningfully about societal problems at any high level of proficiency.  (We can also say that we are able to understand issues in specialized fields at any high level of proficiency based on the specialized knowledge acquired at institutions of higher education.)  

Given the lack of a common language for meaningful dialogue (due to the lack of knowledge in the overlapping specialized fields) imagine what the outcome will be if a group of people proficient in their specialized fields were gathered at a round table (the process routinely used in institutions of all modern societies) entrusted with finding solutions to societal problems, which are, by their very nature, intertwined and complex, with no clear demarcation among their various entwined fields!!  (For a better grasp of the nature and ramifications of our problem and its devastating impact on societies, please reflect on the quote by Professor Will Durant.)  

5 - From Local to Global Focus ...

From a Local Focus to a Global One

Recapping the main points of the transformation of my focus from a local one to a global one, particularly the last paragraph, would shed significant light on the nature of the problem explored in the writings on the blog.  

Ever since I returned home after my first degree and started working in the Maldives government in December 1978, I have been experiencing a growing unease for the lack of meaningful and constructive dialogue among colleagues, myself included, that lead to positive outcomes.  For years, I had no clear idea of the underlying reasons for this failure.  Then, in 1997, I did some systematic thinking, which lifted the fog from my mind. 

I began with a physician – how he/she manages to achieve positive results, ie, cures an ill patient.  Obviously, the answer lies in his/her ability to understand the intricacies of the functioning of the human body and how outside agents intervene to disrupt physiological functions of its systems.  Thus it is the theoretical knowledge and practical experience acquired by the physician via academic education that enabled him/her to solve the problem of the patient’s illness.  The same logic is applicable for professionals in other fields. 

Given that it is the high-level knowledge we gain that enables us to unravel the complexity of any situation at hand, it follows that a person without the appropriate knowledge will not be able to bring about such positive outcomes.  As a result, persons versed with knowledge in one field also cannot apply it to other fields to bring about positive outcomes.  Stretching this logic further, it should be clear now that there would be significant barriers, at the very least, for people knowledgeable in specialized fields to engage in constructive high-level dialogue that are necessary for effective cooperation among themselves to solve complex problems of today’s world, since each person’s knowledge would be limited to his/her specialized area and since their overlapping areas would be hazy for most of them – as they are unlikely to have knowledge of those areas. 

This thinking is dwelt-on in my 1997 paper labelled “Integrative Planning” in which I likened the behaviour of specialized people trying to unravel a complex problem to that of seven blind men trying to describe an elephant after each one touches only one part of it.  This is a global problem in today’s world in which education transcends national and geographical boundaries; the problem having roots in world education, which currently lacks awareness that such a problem even exists, let alone its devastating impacts. 

How world education is at least partially linked to this problem is spelt-out in that paper.  Notwithstanding this awareness, and in spite of the awareness of the psychological connotations involved (also explicitly dwelt-on in that paper) in the earlier years following the paper, my efforts were limited to the local context, in trying to convince the local political cadre who include an increasing number of people with college degrees from abroad of the nature of the problem we have at hand.  An assumption implicit in that effort was that when the nature of the problem was spelt-out explicitly and in irrefutable terms, people would begin to see the light of the day.  Not so, definitely!  Further, in spite of the psychological and socio-psychological nature of the problem, both psychologists and sociologists with whom I talked were not cognizant of the fact that a significant part of the problem falls into their domain, thus that it is their responsibility as well to find a solution to the problem. This failure in turn led me to delve into psychology, and also sociology, which effort paid handsome dividends. 

It began to be clear that our problem has much deeper roots than it appears.  More specifically, it became clear that the problem, although much aggravated by specialized education, is fundamentally rooted in the way the human mind works.  Given that what is in the 3rd & 4th paragraphs above can be generalized further to state that humans make sense of the world based on the information bases in their brains (and how that information is conceptualized) the implications at societal/global level become staggering.  Not only are we born into very different cultures and sub/microcultures with wide variations among them and thus with different information bases due to them alone, each one of us is also different by virtue of our brains being structurally unique in spite of many broad similarities.  These structural differences in turn lead to truly unique experiences; no two person’s subjective experiences of a given event are thus likely to be exactly the same.  And such subjective experiences in their turn become an integral part of one’s information base, and so on ...  The variations among the information bases arising from these processes lead to unique human beings, thus to unbridgeable mental gaps among people.  I can think of no way to at least partly counter the downsides arising from these mental gaps (dwelt-on in the writings I sent you earlier) than to equip people with tools for narrowing those gaps in their daily encounters with fellow humans – that is, to teach them the basics of communication and associated psychology.  (These are two sides of the same coin.) 

4 - Reason for Sending the Writings to World Academics

Boxed below is an excerpt from an email I sent to an emeritus professor and relates to the writings I sent you earlier (that is, sent by email to world academics). 

The excerpt will shed further light on the reasons for sending my writings in which I suggested the partial solution of incorporating the methodology of effective communication and the associated psychology at all levels of education systems aimed at countering the multitude of societal/global problems that result from their lack, which those writings elaborate in some detail. 

At all levels because on the one hand an “attitude to communicate with empathy,” like other such attitudes, can be formed only while we are small children but at which stage we are not geared to understand theory, and on the other hand, teaching theory when we are older will not be effective since without the correct attitudes instilled in us to begin with, what we study will be compartmentalized in a corner in our brains and will have questionable impact on our behaviour.  Both approaches in isolation – either to only instil attitude without the scope for theory or to teach theory without instilling the right attitude – will defeat the purpose. 

The dilemma I was faced with is that while I have some basic theoretical knowledge about these issues, I do not have the in-depth knowledge about the relevant areas – education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and communication – to be able to come up with a viable solution.  Thus my writings were meant to be a wake-up call for world academics and to create awareness about the immensity of the global problem and the devastating impacts arising thereof so that they can discuss the problem among themselves and come up with a viable, practical solution.  But since none of those specialized in any one area are likely to have a command of the comprehensive subject matter to be able to singly come up with such a solution, I sent the writings to the academics in all areas, hoping that the emeriti and the older among them (being the most experienced and thus the most likely to grasp the full significance of what I'm talking about) would generate the necessary leadership to propel the process in the right direction, towards an effective solution.  Hence the many urgings (in "Introduction") to discuss the problem among themselves both locally and internationally. 

The writings reflect the outcomes of my endeavours over the past 30 years of interactions with politicians and colleagues with college degrees in the Maldives, particularly since my efforts over the past 15 years to discuss our problem with them have come to nought, which in turn led me to become increasingly aware that much of societal problems globally are of a psychological nature, as the writings I sent you earlier will attest.  The concurrent PDF page labelled “Further Illumination” provides a more comprehensive picture of how the root causes of this psychological side arise in the first place.  

It should be abundantly clear now that in order to make the efforts to improve the human condition, which is the ultimate goal of education, more effective than it is the case currently worldwide, we have to take into account the multi-faceted nature of this psychological side, which is sadly not the case at present.  It would be a safe bet to say that most educators globally are not even aware that there is such a psychological side, let alone take account of it – they just go about their usual business of “teaching” and don’t pay much attention to purpose and thus effectiveness. 

Rifat Afeef (from the Maldives)  

6 - Integrative Planning

PLANNING AS AN INTEGRATIVE MECHANISM

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MALDIVES ⁽¹⁾

Although this article was originally written with a local audience in mind, it essentially deals with the fragmented nature of the output of the world’s education system and its inevitable outcome.  

Two fundamental aspects can be identified that call for planning to play a coordinative and integrative role. One relates to how our education system's set-up functions to hinder both the societal performance and the development process.  The other relates to the fast changing nature of today's world and the consequent need for responsive adjustments to accommodate these pervasive changes in order to survive.  We can see that both these aspects are directly related to the way the society functions, and thus are highly inter-related.  And both aspects can be significantly improved towards desired ends through an integrative planning mechanism that has the capacity to effectively counter the main thrust of present damaging outcomes and produce positive results.

The first aspect relates to how the ineffectiveness of both our societal performance and planning efforts that are directed at enhancing that performance is at least a partial outcome of the set-up of our education system -- in fact, the world education system, since we are closely integrated into it.  The signifi-cance of education arises from the fact that development planning is a broad-scope process that calls for an all-encompassing understanding of interrelated issues, yet the current education system greatly narrows down the breadth of knowledge one gains.

As students go higher in the school system, the scope of knowledge they gain becomes progressively narrower.  This results directly from the need for an increasingly higher order of specialized knowledge.  By the time they finish basic college degrees, the scope of their thinking, thus their world views, are made so narrow that they become by and large oblivious, and practically ignorant, of most of what is beyond their narrow, specialized knowledge bases. [See attached quote from Professor Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy.]

This may sound crazy, since we implicitly assume and perhaps take it for granted that specialized college degrees make people “educated.”  But the mental process works in such a way that in most cases, pumping a narrow range of specialized knowledge into the mind makes this knowledge base to loom larger while simul-taneously the rest recedes into background, and is “filtered” or “masked” out.  This is perhaps a survival mechanism built into our biological system and activated as a reaction to what has come to be known as “information overload.” 

An illustrative example of the resulting situation is the story of seven blind men who try to describe an elephant after each one touches only one part of the elephant.  The man who touches its legs, for example, perceives it to be like a tree trunk; the one who touches the tail perceives it to be like a snake; he who touches its side perceives it to be like a soft wall; and so on.  None of them are completely wrong, but none are completely right either.  But each one genuinely believes, and as a result insists and is adamant, that the elephant is only like the part he has touched and thus has knowledge about.  There is no basis for understanding what the whole elephant is like.  People who get high levels of specialized knowledge and engage in the development planning process are not very much unlike these seven blind men.  And in the context of the Maldives, the situation is perpetuated, and over time made progressively worse, by the societal system that in sum total works to suppress obtaining a complete picture. 

This is by no means a criticism of, let alone a judgment on, specialization; this is only a situation assessment.  In fact, specialization is a necessary prerequisite for a higher level of economic output, and is a basic defining characteristic of an advanced economy.  But an inherent basic component of an advanced economy is a macroframework that works to benefit from high levels of specialization.  Thus in a “good” advanced economy, specialization works to enhance increasingly higher output levels. 

But a similar integrative mechanism is not inherent in a less developed economy.  Thus when such an economy, especially a small one like ours, imports a system naturally well-suited to a large, advanced economy and plants it in its midst hoping to achieve better societal performance, ie, development, the outcome is less than desired.  The result is an assortment of people with specialized knowledge whose disjointed, narrow knowledge-bases do not contribute to the formulation of an integrated whole (as it would be in a “good” advanced economy) and thus remain fragmented, by and large.  The increasingly large numbers of degree holders who cannot earn a decent living with their specialized knowledge, and increasingly cannot even find work in their respective fields of specialization, is compelling evidence of this phenomenon. 

A more dangerous outcome than the mere fact of fragmented knowledge and the resulting waste is the enormous and pervasive impact of destructive behaviour that is mostly unconsciously generated (primarily as an outcome of these limitations) and over time tends to get ingrained in us. 

Needless to say, there are factors other than the set-up of the education system that hinder the effectiveness of societal performance.  But given that the way the set-up of education system would most likely form the biggest and most easily discernible of such factors, my comments here have targeted the education system alone.

The circumstances created as a result of this educational set-up, and the destructive effects arising as a result, can be at least partially avoided by making the planning process more effective.  Towards this end, I have been suggesting the establishment of an integrative planning framework.  But by an integrative framework, I do not mean another bureaucratic organization.  What is meant is more a way of thinking and working than anything else. 

In fact, an integrative framework as this is a necessary condition for any complex organization such as a society.  As an organization moves from simplicity to complexity by creating an increasing array of specialized functions, the need increasingly arises for coordination among the fragmented specialties in order that the organization continues to achieve its desired goals.  If such coordination is not forthcoming for any reason, results anticipated of the organization will not materialize.  In addition, under the burden of an ever increasing range of internal stresses resulting from movement of the organization towards ever increasing complexity (arising from the desire for a higher output) it will finally collapse, unless effective measures are adopted to counter and reverse the situation, achievable by using effective planning, which can be realized only thru a coordinative mechanism with the capacity to pull together disjointed talents arising from specialized knowledge and create a system that can function as an integrated whole.

The second aspect that calls for an effective integrative planning framework relates to the pressures arising from the fast pace of change that we currently experience in virtually every facet of our lives.  This aspect has been treated at length in some of my earlier writings.  It was pointed out that the fast pace of change we encounter in the world today renders the way we have been doing things in the past unsuitable as current practices.  This is also partly an outcome of, and is aggravated by, the pressures for development we are nowadays constantly drowned in. 

To respond to the mounting pressures for change and meet the new demands arising from newer circumstances, we are in urgent and great need to reinvent or reformulate new ways of doing things.  The nature of today's problems are different, hence the solutions, and behaviour, suited for problems of the past are no longer applicable to today's situations.  Moreover, today's problems are complex and cut across various disciplines.  Thus no one person knowledgeable in one area has the answers to today's complex problems.  This is the most compelling reason why development of solutions to today's problems need an integ-rative framework that has the capacity to tap into fragmented knowledge bases referred, and create coherent synthesis. 

As has been explained in my earlier writings, the process of devising new solutions in response to newer demands of a changing world constitute what can be loosely called “strategic planning.”  This concept is most widely used in the business world.  There, strategic planning implies alignment of an organization to its business environment, which constitutes the main source of pressure for change and is mostly external to it. But for a much more complex entity like a society, the impetus for change arises from factors rooted in both internal and external sources.  In reality, for a small open economy like ours the interface between them is a very blurred one. 

Irrespective of the origin of the sources of the pressure for change, a society that, for any reason, cannot adapt to the changing world will disintegrate, just as an organization that cannot regain its competitiveness in its business environment will go bankrupt.  It does not take a very fertile imagination to figure out the dynamics of societal disintegration; we have to only open our eyes and see what is going on in the world around us.⁽²⁾  Also, it can be clearly seen that such outcomes have little to do with material progress; for those societal orders that are disintegrating are neither that poor nor their income distributions that uneven.  Moreover, while virtually all these countries the collapse of whose societal order we are witnessing are large enough and thus self-sufficient enough to achieve a degree of insulation from the outside world, the small Maldives, with its heavy reliance on the external world for survival (some 85% of its GDP goes for imports, for example) just cannot retain its stability indefinitely without realigning itself to the demands of changing circumstances.  And as suggested, an integrative planning framework is the effective means to this end. 

In order to fully understand how the planning process can act as an integrative mechanism, it is necessary to have some notion of what effective planning is.  On a number of earlier occasions I have defined planning simply as sum total of a series of tech-niques aimed at achieving   a given set of goals or objectives in a given time frame. 

It can be seen from this definition that the ability of tech-niques to achieve goals depends on our understanding of how the techniques we choose can lead to the goals we desire, or the relationship of intended action to results sought.  This relationship can be described as “theory.”

Simply stated, “theory” is basically a generalized body of knowledge applicable to similar situations as a guide to action aimed at achieving desired results.  Obviously, a “theory” would be “good” to the extent to which it is applicable to similar situations to help achieve desired outcomes.  Equally, the more situations to which a theory is effectively applicable, the more powerful it would be. 

Generally speaking, goodness or effectiveness of a theory is determined by three fundamental criteria -- the extent to which it can contribute to: 

### understanding of the nature of situation at hand;

### prediction of the outcome of intended action; and based on the understanding and predictability gained,

### control of the direction of intended action. 

Thus planning will be effective to the extent that understanding prevails, action adopted is successful in achieving the results predicted, and efforts can be kept focused on the predicted results.  Since these are ends realizable only via good theory, it follows that planning would be effective to the extent that it is backed by good theory. 

Conversely, efforts not backed by an understanding of the nature of the situation at hand, and given this lack, do not help the prediction of results the intended actions will generate, thus with little scope for control over the direction of the action taken, such efforts cannot be called planning. 

Once again, the way the world education system is set-up forms a significant barrier that impedes efforts to make development planning effective.  For to-date, there is no comprehensive body of theoretical knowledge that pulls together aspects of societal action, which form the arena for development planning.  Of the available theoretical foundations, three aspects are of parti-cular relevance to our purpose: the economic, the social, and the physical or spatial.

With little exaggeration it can be said that those with a background of economics are hardly aware of the scope and methodology of the other two sides -- their theoretical background being traditionally limited to manipulation of economic instruments (monetary and/or fiscal policy) and the economic dynamics of the “market” based on “rational decisions” of “economic person” is supposed to facilitate the way for all other societal needs.  But because such “market dynamics” frequently do not work the way they are anticipated by the economists, especially in the context of the less advanced economies, those with backgrounds in sociological and/or political science theory (who are not usually well-versed with economists’ preachings) rubbish the notion of “market dynamics”; for them radical action is the main thrust of the means for societal advancement.  And those grounded in physical or spatial planning are usually ill-equipped with aspects of both economic and social theory, and hence are naturally prone to understate the economic and social forces that shape the physical scape, which is the arena for socioeconomic action; thus traditionally, their focus is on colourful and nice “paper plans,” which do not much reflect the all-pervasive socioeconomic dynamics. 

This is just a sampling indicative of the output of the education system of the modern world and underscores its fragmented nature.  And while the example describes the three areas central to development planning, the concept could be easily generalized to include most other areas.  

Importantly, while the three areas mentioned are integral to the proper functioning of any society, just like the seven blind men who touched the specific parts of the elephant believed that the whole elephant is only (or mainly) like the part each one has touched, most of those grounded in any single area also tend to think that their specific field of expertise has answers to most of the problems that plague societies today. 

A foremost and critical task of effective planning is, there-fore, to overcome this mental perception of those engaged in the planning process.  As mentioned, the way to avoid the incalcu-lable damage caused by this state of affairs is via an integra-tive planning framework capable of bridging the gulfs arising from the fragmented knowledge bases that are the outputs of the world education system.  And such a framework will provide the necessary impetus for generating the much needed solutions for the increasing range of problems of a fast changing world.

A final insight that can help us understand the nature of planning and thus how it can act as an integrative framework as suggested, is to realize that the usual functions of planning can be grouped into allocative and innovative categories.  This is a direct outcome of the definition of planning given above.  Planning was defined as the sum total of techniques used to achieve a given set of goals.  Now, goals and techniques can be either known or unknown.  Thus if both elements are known, then planning would take a “bureaucratic” form in which existing rules/procedures prevail, the process largely involving the allocation of resources to anticipated demands.  This would thus represent the allocative function of planning.  On the other hand, if either or both of those two elements are unknown or unclear, as it would be in a fast changing world, then one has to begin by clarifying them.  If goals are not clear, the process would have a “negotiating and bargaining” characte-ristic; if techniques are not known, it will have a “research and development” characteristic; if both of them are unknown or unclear, the resulting process would have both negotiating-bargaining and research-development characteristics all at the same time.  Planning of this type in which the search for new goals and/or techniques is involved will, by its very nature, represent the innovative functions of planning.  

_____________________________________________________________

⁽¹⁾  Written in October 1997; edited February 2002 and October 2003. 

⁽²⁾  Refers to turmoil in the communist block following the demise of USSR. 
_____________________________________________________________

NOTE: The last paragraph was written after I read the following quote by Michael Crichton; characterizing labels of the four planning types in it: adopted from Dr Karen Christensen in "Coping with Uncertainty in Planning," Journal of American Planning Association, Winter 1985; definition of planning: based on undergraduate lectures in architecture, 1974-1975.