It’s 25th December. You see a group of villagers in colourful clothes making a beeline for a modest, peach-coloured building. They take off their shoes before entering. You also hear songs in the local dialect, being sung in the typical lilting, tribal tunes, accompanied by the typical rhythmic drumbeats, they are famous for dancing to. What are they doing? Where are they?
It’s members of the Santhal tribe who have congregated at their local church to attend Christmas Mass! Outside the church building, there are statues. One is of a heavily garlanded Christ on the Cross; another has Mary standing inside a white conch shell (it’s a grotto), and there are more sculptures depicting scenes from the Passion of Christ.
While the structural touchpoints remain intact, what happens within that structure is completely unfamiliar – no holly, no mistletoe, no red-green-white, no Christmas carols, no hats, scarves, coats or even shoes. This makes me think of the theories in Intercultural Studies that emanated from the Western world, usually referred to as WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) theories. Just like Christianity that has originated in alien lands, so have these theories. But they have already arrived on Indian shores. So, what are Indian educators doing with them?
Are they following them as closely as some Indians follow the White Christmas theme? Or are they localizing them the way the Santhals conduct Christmas Mass? Or are they falling somewhere in-between? Last month, we had paused with the thought - do concepts and ideas from alien lands strike a chord with Indians? This month, we’ll try to explore some answers to it.
Do Indian educators know about WEIRD theories?
The answer is pretty much ‘Yes’. According to the BCFAI survey, a fairly large number of educators are familiar with existing scholarship on intercultural studies - 13.2% of the respondents are very familiar, 28.9% are familiar, 44.7% are not so familiar and 13.2% are not familiar at all. Now that we know that about 42% are familiar, which are the popular ones? Well, the winners are Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, Milton Bennett’s DMIS, Trompenaars and Hampden Turner’s Dilemma Theory.
What do educators think about WEIRD theories?
The main reason educators are using these theories, frameworks and models to inform learning material is because they help to build the skeleton of the course, which is then fleshed out with local realities. The two following comments capture what many respondents express in different ways: “Helps to provide a structure to navigate through the topic”, “To have broad understanding of intercultural competence”. The key words here are ‘structure’ and ‘broad’. Respondents consider this the starting point because “To be honest, they are helpful only if you connect them with concrete daily situations.”
As educators see it, the primary challenge of relying solely on existing models, frameworks and theories without tying them up to lived learner experiences leads to decontextualized and sterile learning. The challenge lies in “The abstract language and viewpoints, many are conceptual and involve too many words.”.
A more serious concern expressed by some educators is that sticking too closely to the established intercultural theories restricts and skews perspectives - “Many theories (particularly Hofstede's) are Western-oriented and present a constricted, narrow view of non-Western cultures.”
To sum up, we can say that while almost all those familiar with intercultural scholarship, acknowledge that WEIRD theories are not sufficiently nuanced to capture the full complexity of Indian reality, there are some who still find value in them. They find them flexible and adaptable; hence they localize and use them in their classrooms. The rest, on the other hand, find less value in them. Some have serious objections. They don’t believe that it’s just a matter of lack in nuance but rather a rigid, narrow perspective that goes against the basic tenets of interculturism – a blindness towards cultures that are different from their own.
Those who use theories and those who don’t
These positions explain why there is no clear-cut schism between those who know about theories and use them versus those who are not familiar and don’t use them. There are educators who are very familiar with them, that choose to leave it out of the Indian classroom because they feel that it is not applicable. There are some who are not so familiar with existing scholarship but still choose to pick certain models or frameworks because they find them relevant in their context. Hence, there is no perfect overlap between those who are familiar with existing scholarship and those who use it in classrooms.
In my opinion, at the moment, India is just about starting to get familiar with this strange creature called intercultural understanding; Indian educators have just about started introducing intercultural content, formally or informally, into classrooms. This subject is at a nascent stage. And the biggest favour we can do to it, is to let every opinion and practice exist; allow the churn to take its time; allow the way forward to emerge organically through its own experiences. It is not time yet time to stamp out any of the opinions – neither those who praise the use of WEIRD theories in Indian classrooms nor those who criticize them.
Reflections
There are more questions than answers at this stage. Questions are being asked by educators in India and outside of it. Why are Indian educators importing WEIRD theories? Why are educators not dipping into post-colonial theories instead? Why are they not dipping into the age-old wisdom of ancient India?
Are educators dipping into scholarship from the West because it is easier to find existing learning material that can be used in class? Or do they genuinely believe that it fits with what India needs? Are educators making an informed choice where WEIRD theories are concerned or is it a default setting? Or are they just catering to learners who want quick fixes, who want to understand how one engages Western counterparts in practical, tangible, business situations?
There are hardened positions at both ends of the spectrum. Some who swear by them while some who vociferously protest that till such time as WEIRD theories are not rooted out of Indian classrooms, the Indian education system cannot be decolonized.
My own take on this is based on the Christmas theme again. Christianity has been around for over a thousand years and has had time to percolate into the Indian sensibility. For those who practise the faith in India, I’m sure it has fulfilled some need within those people. I don’t suppose it represents foreign domination or colonial violence to them, anymore. Would it be fair to root it out of them by force, or should they be allowed to make the choice based on what they feel responds best to their needs?
The WEIRD theories are less than 100 years old. They have not had time to be either fully integrated nor rejected by the Indian system. During this process, wouldn’t it be best to leave them alone to work organically? The system will digest what it finds relevant and spit out the rest.
Coming up
To understand the process better while it churns, it is important to examine two simple factors. In India, who are the learners? And what do they expect to achieve while learning about intercultural understanding? Next month, that’s exactly what we will try to find out.
Comments