Should Public
Money be Spent on Knowledge?
If asked like this, most educated Pakistanis will probably say: ‘yes’. Ours is a society where much, mostly hypocritical, lip service is paid to the desirability of education in general and few people would say, at least in public, that public money should not be spent on knowledge. If asked whether public money should be spent on academics, whether scientists or others, to enable them to enjoy themselves by playing intellectual games resulting in the writing of research papers, theses, books etc the answer would be a less resounding and somewhat reluctant ‘yes’. If asked whether the money should be spent on the production of useless knowledge, knowledge irrelevant for the soceity, only to gratify the intellectual curiosity of, and give pleasure to, the researcher, the answer will mostly be: ‘No’.
The idea among Pakistani decision-makers, and the educated public, is that we should promote ‘socially useful knowledge’ which, in practice, is identified as technology, business studies, engineering, medicine, accountancy and science. This is the idea which is the basis of the discimination against the social sciences and ‘humanities’ or ‘arts’ as they are variously called. One manifestation of this was an attempt by some educational authorities to close down the ‘arts’ faculties in colleges. The other one is to give a Ph.D allowance of Rs. 5000 for the natural sciences and only Rs. 1500 for the other subjects.
The problem is that this idea, in one form or the other, is supported by almost everybody. Its major supporters have always been the religious establishment which believed that only religious knowledge is worthwhile. The rest is more or less peripheral while some may be dangerous for the soul. When religion declined in power and control of employment, the states’ bureaucracy became the greatest supporter of the concept of utilitarian knowledge. The bureaucracy wanted certain skills---based upon numeracy and literacy---and knowledge was a badge of status. Thus the Chinese mandarins were recruited after tough examination as was the Indian Civil Service during British rule in India. The common people studied in order to get jobs from which came money, power and prestige. The people knew that education was the key to empowerment. The bureaucracy’s ultimate aim was to strengthen the power of its paymasters and knowledge was to be pursued to the degree its could be useful to realise that goal. The industry is still another supporter of the concept of ‘useful knowledge’. Its influence is tremendous, especially in American academia, where research is funded by the industry. This funding confers high and low status to disciplines of knowledge with ‘useful knowledge’ coming up very high. The military is still another player with its massive support to knowledge which is useful in war i.e. that of weapon systems, communication systems, psychological warfare, foreign languages etc. Moreover, NGOs etc too support ‘socially useful knowledge’ in the name of solving the problems of a world suffering from overpopulation,, environmental damage, crime, gender issues and poverty. On top of all these powerful pressure groups, there are the common educated people who also find it absurd that they should be asked to shell out their hard earned money to some bald-pated scholars to write reams upon reams of papers on something not even remotely related to their lives.
In short, while I will be supported by the non-science Ph.Ds and aspring Ph.Ds when I say that all Ph.D allowances should be the same, I will not be supported even by this small group if I say that public money should be spent on knowledge whether it is socially useful or not. Yet, as I have already argued, the basis of this discrimination lies in the belief that knowledge is not an end in itself; it is the means to an end.
Once, when I spoke on a similar issue, I pointed out that Milman Parry’s research on Homer’s poetry led to the insight that the logical process of pre-modern oral societies is quite different from that of modern societies. Also that the genius Ramanujan’s mathematical work can be used for making plastics. Plastics have molecular units combining in various ways. Ramanujan’s work is on partition i.e how smaller numbers combine to form larger ones. Thus, it can be used for making plastics. It can also be used for telephone cables, blast furnaces and even cancer research. My point was that it was intellectual curosity which was the basis of all true research. If a society did not value this curosity then it killed the goose which laid the golden egg because it actually discriminated between fields of knowledge and, therefore, curbed real research.
Those who oppose me said that research like Ramanujan’, or Einstein’s for that matter, could be supported because of this very fact---that it could be used for practical things. They paid no heed to my argument that this knowledge was born because knowledge, all kinds of knowledge, was supported by public money. At that time its uses were not known and above all, the researcher did not have to justify his work with reference to utility. Above all, the researcher enjoyed his work and his desire to gratify his curiosity was given respect and funded by the state.
Ramanujan, for instance, did not have any of these applications in his mind when he did his work. He did it for the pleasure of it; for that inexprissible delight which genuine research, artists, poets, writers and sculptors find when they come up with something new. It is possibly like giving birth to a child. It is an immensely pleasureable and exhilarating experience. One feels that one has triumphed over something and created a new thought or product which can be valued by one’s peers. The comparison is smoewhat belittling but it is the only one available---the pleasure is that of play. We all know how important play is to our well being. All animals play. We all enjoy games in childhood, whether organized ones or not. Is it any wonder, then, that those with un-usually developed minds, or maybe certain types of minds, take delight in games of the mind? Such games are not only chess and card games. They are also poetry, mathematics, natural science, social sciences, medical research, painting, sculptoring and music. Yet, when one says that the public should not mind spending money on supporting creative artists and researchers simply because they enjoy their work, all kinds of champions of the ‘public’ kick up a row. How can they support some self-indulgent intellectuals? How can public money be wasted only to allow some people to play mental games? How can public funds be used to support academics living retired lives in the ivory tower and writing absolutely irrelevant staff only because they enjoy writing it? Pillars of society are horrified at this obscene demand. They do not mind paying for blowing up the planet earth twenty times over; they do not mind paying for making rich men richer; they love paying for reports which nobody ever reads---yes, these are practical matters; utilitarian concerns. These they will pay for: but not for useless research only because somebody is perverse enough to be thrilled by it.
This does not prevent academics from pursuing their intellectual games. The only difference is that they underplay the pleasure part and overplay the ‘social usefulness’ story. They disguise their real interest---which might just be intellectual curiosity---behind cliches like; ‘it is in the national interest’, ‘it helps us reform such and such system’ and so on. The more sophisticated social scientists use my Milman Parry example to suggest that knowledge is interconnected at the high levels. Moreover, if research as a whole is to be encouraged, all forms of research must be encouraged. A galaxy of thinkers, including Noam Chomsky, argue that division and compartmentalization of knowledge is actually counter-productive. Knowledge is really inter-disciplinary and some of the best minds of the world have had interest in many intellectual disciplines.
All these arguments are perfectly true. I myself have advanced all of them. Indeed, in the context of Pakistan the arguments which really makes them quiet are very pragmatic. They are that Pakistanis do not dominate world academia. Also, we do not have competent philosophers, archaeologists, historians, sociologists, linguists etc. If we strengthen the social sciences then our academics will counter the Indian dominant share (among South Asians) of world academia. Moreover, we will produce our own knowledge and it will not only be foreigners who write on our society, history, languages etc. These arguments make people sit up and produce some mock noises about the importance of the social sciences.
However, in this article I do not want to play on the wicket of my opponents. I will not repeat any of the pragmatic arguments I have given before and which are, as I said, perfectly relevant in a pragmatic way. Instead I will assert that the creative mind is to be valued for itself. This mind has produced the modern civilization which can blow up the planet and threaten the ecology. However, it is the only thing which gives us the power to bring us back from the brink of destruction. This is itself is a pragmatic argument but, if we concede that we ought to exist as a species, then we must value the intellectual mind, the overdeveloped cognitive abilities and other abilities, of the scholar and the artist. And if we do value this mind then we must pay for providing it with the opportunity for playing. This means that our universities must attract and support the best minds, the most creative minds, of the age. Paying those who teach subjects which cater only to the market in degree-giving factories insults the genuine researcher and ensures that we will never produce ideas of our own because we are strangling them at birth. Whatever kind of research academics and genuine intellectuals want to do must be supported by laboratory equipment, libraries, field trips, foreign travel for research and conferences, secretarial assistance and so on. Incentives, such as payment per piece for every standard publication, must be made available. Above all, if we value all knowledge, we will not let the market force out subjects like philosophy, literature and history. We will spend public funds to nourish them and to begin doing this Pakistani universities, at least those in the public sector, must pay all academics well and if any discrimination in payment is to be made it should be on the basis of work produced rather than the subject in which it is produced.
Dr.
Tariq Rahman