Re: peddabAlaSiksha bashing...continued!
Bapa Rao (brao@usc.edu)
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:48:36 -0700
Prasad Chodavarapu wrote:
> read this section and tell me what you think. esp. those marked with a
> *.
>
> *ADuvAri* alavaraNalu
> --------------------
>
> AhvAnamu laeni choeTuku arudencharAdu
> alavi kAnichoeTa adhikula manarAdu
> *vIdhi vADalandu tirugarAdu
> *adhikamugA navvuTa gantulu vaeyuTa tagadu
> *KhALIgA kUrchoni kALLu Uparaadu
> tana kunnantaloe konta dharmamu chaeyavalenu
> *Sukra, SanivAramulandu SudhdhigA nunDumu (!!aitE migatA rOjullO?)
> naDamantrapu siri galigenani garvapaDakumu
> panulunnappuDu baddhakinchaka SraddhagA chaeyuchunDumu
> dhanikulanu chUchi Irshya paDakumu
> bIdalanu chUchi haeLana chaeyavaddu
> gadi madhyaloe kUrchoni EDvarAdu, bhOjanamuchaeyarAdu
> annadammulanu, puTTininTinI agaurava parachavaddu
> *bharta tappuchaesinanU tallivale kshaminchumu
> dIpamu nIDalO kUrchonarAdu
> naDachu nappuDu bhUmi adararAdu
> *bharta valadanna pani talapeTTarAdu
> santoesha samayamuna viragabaDi navvarAdu
> gandhamutIyu sAnanu, gaDapanu kAlitO tannarAdu
> *puTTinillu enta goppadainanU adhikamuga nachaTikipoerAdu
> *talavAkiTa nilabaDi tala duvvukonaraadu
>
Just some disjointed comments:
I am not really all that familiar with PBS, though I have seen & heard
some of the rules. [ BTW, "alavaraNa" is a new word to me ]
I am going to deliberately ignore the sexist aspect for the moment, though
that may have been your focus.
It may be that the "karta" tried to boil down the imparting of a complex
and evolved value system to a few arbitrary-sounding rules; without some
kind of context, this list (starred as well as non-starred) sounds silly
and random. I think that part of the problem of our educational system is
that there isn't sufficient context for the things we are trained to do.
So, I think PBS can be criticized for not giving sufficient importance to
promoting the creative and ratiocinating aspects, instead focussing on
producing unthinking robotlike boys and girls.
In principle, the contents of the starred items are probably not too
different in spirit from admonitions to young ladies in Western "finishing
schools" where they learn to become proper society ladies, or the training
manual used by a drill sergeant in boot camp. There is an underlying
concept of discipline, deportment and deference to authority (class-wise
superiors, military superiors, men in the family etc.) . So, it means that
PBS doesn't need to be singled out in this regard with respect to being a
bunch of seemingly oppressive rules, rather we should recognize it as
(among other things) representing a particular didactic approach--the
rigid, rules-based one, contrasted with a more free-learning approach that
is increasingly favored nowadays. (I guess that these approaches would map
to the classic Theory X and Theory Y of management).
Coming to the sexist content, there is very little to debate: yes, of
course the thing is sexist. But I wonder how many children today are
raised with PBS as the sole or dominating influence in their lives, is the
number significant enough for us to bother? I don't know.
In any case, we should consider that (these days anyway) children receive
a variety of contradictory messages, and the value formation (whether the
values are that of a traditional patriarchal society or something else)
process becomes quite problematic as a result. In my view, it is more
important to teach the skills of negotiating and reconciling the
contradictory value-based messages (e.g., PBS values versus, let's say,
values of free sex) in such a way that the children still emerge at the
end of the process with a coherent set of core values that are relevant to
their lives. I really prefer to see energies spent in exploring this
problem rather than tilting at particular offensive texts because
focussing on the latter is likely to be (a) irrelevant and/or (b)
insufficient.
My personal views.Bapa Rao