Rich people have many myths to defend their privileged
position in life. The ancient Hindus believed in rigid castes. It was one’s
destiny to be born in a privileged caste and only by accepting one’s lot in
life one could hope to be born in a more privileged social position in another
life. Plato actually spoke of teaching people to believe that they had gold,
silver or baser metals in their souls. Thus, the argument was that one need not
do anything to change the status quo because that was one’s essential nature.
European medieval society believed in aristocrats having blue blood which, of
course, gave them innate moral and intellectual superiority over those whose
blood was red. The Indian Muslims, in order to protect their privileged position
in Hindu-dominated India, claimed ashraf
status. Being gentlemen (ashraf) they
were superior to the ajlaf (plebeians)
whether Muslim or Hindu. At one time, at least some of the U.P. ashraf, even asked for a vote of the ashraf alone so as to counter Hindu
domination.
These kind of claims are now considered bogus. Nobody
believes in blue blood or some innate ‘gentility’ (in the sense of moral and
intellectual superiority) or qualities in one’s nature etc. The philosophy of
democracy has demolished the more crude forms of such discriminatory ideas.
However, they continue to function as prejudices and they are justified in
other ways. Performing well in formal educational systems is one legitimate way
of discrimination. Saying that so-and-so is not ‘intelligent’ shuts the door of
earthly paradises upon him.
The concept of the intelligence quotient (IQ) is used for discriminating against
racial groups, socio-economic class groups etc. The IQ is calculated by counting
how many questions one answers correctly in a certain period of time. The average IQ score is
around 100 while scores below are those of less intelligent people while those
above are of more intelligent people. However, what is often ignored is that
the questions are biased. They are more about the kind of information which
modern, urban people in industrialized societies possess. A.R. Jensen’s book Bias in Mental Testing (1980) tells us a
lot about the way IQ tests can be biased. Other studies conclude that blacks
and working class children do not do well for a number of reasons. Bernstein,
for one, concluded that working-class children are not exposed to logical,
connected speech in their families. One thing which social scientists deny is
that poor people may actually lack cognitive abilities. Even to suggest this is
branded as being a fascist. However, this may be true and, if it is, it is the
fault of the society; it is a crime against the poor; it is absolutely unjust.
If the cognitive abilities of the brain are dependent on what a person gets to
eat and how much one’s mind is stimulated then societies which deprive people
of good nutrition and keep them in dull conditions are criminal societies. We shall
take up this argument in more detail later.
Let me begin by saying that
while I.Q tests as developed in Western societies may be biased, it is foolish
to deny that peoples’ cognitive abilities are not different. My point is that
these may be different but human beings should not be discriminated against
because of this reason. This means that our attitude towards the nature of people’s
jobs should change. We respect power which makes us defer to people who command
other human beings; dispose of goods and services and influence people’s lives.
We also respect whatever is dominating: great learning, good looks, great
talent in something, wealth etc. These qualities overawe us ordinary beings.
They oppress us simply by the fact that they exist in other people. And yet we
abase ourselves at their altar. We revere them and we look up to them. Dr Paul
Maclean, a researcher on the brain, has given the theory that the brain
developed according to an archaeological model. The most primitive part, which
MacLean calls the R-complex, is responsible for: ‘such human characteristics as
ritualism, awe for authority, social pecking orders’--etc-etc. (In The Brain (1979) by Richard M. Restak).
If this is true we cannot hope, as a species taken as a whole, to cease to be
impressed by power and what it creates (goods, services, deference, fame,
obedience among others, the capacity for doing good, the capacity to harm
etc.etc.). This being so we can balance our deference to power by distributing
it among individuals and not concentrating it among the few.
This radical distribution
begins by shattering the myths which justify inequality. And among these myths
is that of cognitive abilities and education. While not denying that some
people have more cognitive abilities than others; while not denying that
education confers skills needed in the modern world; while not denying that
society does need intelligent and educated people---one should vehemently deny
that human worth, human dignity, human significance is to be measured by
education and intelligence. This worth is to be measured by the capacity for
compassion and for spreading unselfish happiness. We need not give the
professorship of mathematics in a prestigious university to someone who does
not have the knowledge and the cognitive abilities needed for the position. But
we need not prevent the person who lacks both to interact with us as an equal
human being. Western countries, at least ostensibly, agree with this
egalitarian principle. In Pakistan, since education is indirectly connected
with state jobs and, hence, with power, the policeman disgraces the illiterate
tonga-wallah while deferring to the
educated (Parha likha) smart Alec
(especially if the Alec in question sports a green number plate or a uniform).
Another thing which we can
do is not to romanticize poverty. The Islamic mystics did preach the virtues of
poverty but they exist only if you can command the deference of people for your
piety or, being genuinely saintly, you live in a different world altogether.
Those if us who live in this world of power and money should not romanticize
poverty. The stories of some great man having studied books under the street
lamp does not mean that all children will succeed under such dire conditions.
Most will fail and so, instead of saying that studious people can study under
any circumstances, we should say that the state should create conditions
conducive for study for all children. Poor people live in crowded conditions
where there is too much noise and poor lighting. They have to work in the house
or outside it to help their parents. Their schools are ill-equipped, squalid
and bare. Their teachers are often cruel and believe in beating them. Their
self-confidence is shattered by the unjust social order they live in. This
makes them intellectually timid. Is it any wonder, then, that they cannot do as
well in studies as affluent children can?
And now I come to my major point---that poverty may kill off cognitive
abilities. Above all, one’s cognitive abilities depend to a great degree on
nutrition. According to scientists brain development is adversely affected by
malnutrition. Even if an adequate diet is introduced later, the effects of
deficiencies in diet in childhood are not reversed. Richard M. Restak gives a
statement which could have come straight out of a socialist tract. Here it is:
A civilized society cannot
tolerate a world situation where the majority are doomed never to reach their
genetic potential because some refuse to surrender even a small part of a
material legacy so huge they can never live long enough to deplete it.
I should add that those of
us in the non-Western world who point to the mountains of butter and cheese in
the West should also pause to note that the elite of our own country (in our
case, Pakistan) is much less egalitarian than Western elites are vis a vis
their own people. We do not give fruit, meat, poultry, nuts and wholesome food
products to our working class. In other words we probably cause the lack of
cognitive abilities in them of which we are so contemptuous later. We create
congenital defects and then we make them worse by terrible living conditions
and an environment of indifference to studies etc.
Another thing poor homes and
schools lack is stimulation. All psychobiological studies on the development of
the brain tell us that stimulation plays a very crucial role. But the poorer
our people the less stimulating their environment. The parents do not answer
their questions except in cliches; the school teachers actually punish them for
questioning anything; the books have to be memorized and there are no toys or
projects or things to do. Such stimulation-deficient environment cannot but
dull the mind. Moreover, such is the hold of tradition and narrow
interpretation of religion, that poor children cannot ask any really probing
kind of question if they want to. In such drab, strict, humourless homes and
schools the cognitive abilities of children must definitely be suffering. Is it
justified then to ask poor children to perform as well in tests as rich children?
No, it is not. We assume that if people are allowed to compete in an
examination and no cheating of any kind is allowed then we have the right to
reject those who do not perform well. We have no such right. Even if we did
feed people well; even if we did give them adequate stimulation; even if we did
provide them comfortable homes and schools; and even if we did provide them
stimulating bocks etc---even then we would not have the right to hold people in
contempt or starve them if they lack cognitive abilities of a certain kind and,
hence, do not do well in formal educational systems. Crimes in the name of
education are as reprehensible as crimes in the name of blue blood.