Decolonization(s) and Education - Daniel Maul Studia Educationis Historica

Скачать книгу

from the more ambivalent strategies of colonial regimes.9 Changes in curriculum content were considerable10 as well as the re-arrangement of links between ethnic groups and schooling.11 Moreover, the orientation of many post-colonial polities towards the socialist countries promoted changes in structure and prioritization that clearly marked breaks with colonial policies. The combination of new policies and new orientations also motivated a shift of perspectives on educational cooperation and aid on behalf of the former metropoles12. Most importantly, it attracted the attention of new actors such as the United States, which began to take a keen interest in gaining ←11 | 12→influence in the education of the new post-colonial elites.13 Their educational choices were invariably informed by an anti-colonial impetus and, at the same time, influenced – either by deliberate choice or necessity – by outside influences. After the Second World War, the Cold war served as a powerful force in this regard but international organizations like UNESCO equally provided an (in itself politically contested) international yardstick.14

      Filling a gap, advancing an agenda? The contributions

      All contributions point to the complexity of decolonization, exposing the tension between a fundamental break with the past and the continuities transcending the transfer of power. They emphasize various shades of transformation, adaptation and resilience enacted in these processes. They also capture both internal and external contexts when addressing education as a means of construction and renewal of polities and men. Beyond these common traits, some of the contributions look particularly at the entanglements between the colonial and the post-colonial, whereas a second group puts more attention on specific meanings and strategies used by particular actors. We briefly introduce the individual contributions following a chronological approach.

      In his contribution about the discourse on ‘colonial education’ in 19th century Latin America, Marcelo Caruso shows the legitimizing role of the question of educational heritance in the decades after independence from Spanish colonial rule. In this earliest process of de-colonization, ‘colonial education’ became a common thread in public discourse in which at least two types of arguments were advanced. First, colonial education was added to the long list of colonial grievances that, in the view of the Latin Americans, made independence necessary and legitimate. Second, colonial education became a consistent argument when discussing why the new independent polities found such serious difficulties in consolidating a new political order. He concludes that this referencing to the educational past became a feature of scholarly and political discourses.

      Certainly, the roots of decolonial projects reach far back to the colonial policies and experiences, as two contributions on India show. Parimala Rao analyses the strong links between the colonial and the post-colonial in her analysis of the history of nationalist educational proposals. In her account, the emergence of the first nationalist educational discourses – particularly from Bal Gangadhar Tilak – appear as a re-elaboration of an ‘imperial idea’ that critically continued ←13 | 14→the practice of establishing modern education along the lines of class and gender hierarchization. The author shows that its underlying aim was the (re)construction of an imagined pre-colonial social order disrupted by British colonial rule. Moreover, Gandhi’s famous educational proposals represented the spiritualization of this very imperial idea and did not pose an emancipatory alternative with regard to the questions of hierarchy and discrimination. Rao’s contribution points to many key aspects of post-colonial education. It highlights its character as an elite project. Her argument about continuity directs our attention to the fact that anti-colonial movements as modern political forces partly resulted from the very educational schemes of colonial rule. Education constituted a primary tool in the fabric of independence and liberation. But this tool was still, following her reasoning, both imperial and socially conservative in outlook and purpose.

      Catriona Ellis’ contribution in turn addresses strategies and attached meanings in late colonial schooling through the lens of the autobiographical accounts of three different Southern Indian authors. Her analytical approach highlights the potential of autobiographical sources in recovering marginalized voices. Without ignoring the problematic side of this type of source, Ellis shows how self-testimonies, beyond simplistic concepts of authenticity, can help to open a ‘ground-level’ dimension of liberation struggles and decolonization. Within her sample of auto-biographies, Ellis’ careful analysis brings to light common traits as well as differences: the experience of late colonial schooling, including questions of discrimination, as well as the dichotomization of time - between ‘those days’ and the present - all appear as resources used by the authors to strategically position their narratives in the post-colonial context. Ellis proposes a double approach to these critical sources: accordingly, one should consider not only their referential value with regard to late colonial education. Rather, she convincingly argues that it is their character as carriers of meaning that defines their high strategic value as an indicator for educational discourses in a post-colonial context.

      Despite the diachronic view of decolonization taken in this volume, the end of World War II remains a unique turning point in many respects. This is certainly the case for countries like Korea, for which 1945 marked the end of a long period of Japanese colonial domination. Michael J. Seth presents the story of the run-up to the crucial Education Law in 1951, a landmark educational reference in the context of the emergence of a post-colonial South Korea. He depicts the key controversy between adherents of a single-track system and multi-track system as a reflection of a deeper-lying conflict. This conflict, Seth argues, pitched elitist/conservative ideas centered on basic education against progressive reformers inspired by American ideas of an educational system that promoted greater ←14 | 15→social mobility. As the author shows, decolonization featured prominently in these debates, in as much as the conflict played out in parts as a struggle for post-colonial legitimacy. One reason why the reformers eventually prevailed despite a parallel conservative and authoritarian turn in South Korean politics was that the elitist position was deeply tainted by many of its protagonists’ collaborationist past under Japanese rule. The additional fact that their ideas were perceived by many

Скачать книгу