Beyond placements: The case for social sciences in IITs

NOT everybody, it seems, is happy with the departments of humanities and social sciences in the IITs. Or, is it that there is some fear that the kind of critical questions some professors and researchers from these departments are raising might unsettle the primary function of the 'brand' IIT — the production of skilled and efficient techno-managers, the establishment of a close affinity between the dissemination of knowledge and the needs of the industry, and hence, the urge to retain a depoliticised/ 'value-neutral' learning milieu? In recent times, we are witnessing this tension rather sharply.

Take, for instance, an international workshop on ‘South Asian Capitalism(s)’ in which IIT-Bombay's Centre for Liberal Education wanted to be a partner. However, because of the discomfort with the workshop flyer, particularly its critical symbolism, the IIT authorities asked the organisers to take down the flyer from all social media platforms and remove IIT-Bombay's name from everything to do with this event. No wonder, many 'nationalists' came forward, saw it as a conspiracy and began to allege that it was another attempt by the "left-liberal ecosystem" to take over the 'brand' IIT! Not solely that.

The active presence of the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle at IIT-Madras has also caused some embarrassment to those who want the IITs to be free from the culture of protest and resistance. Even the Vice-Chancellor of a leading public university in the national capital — a university known for its departments of social sciences and liberal arts — has warned of the presence of the "woke-jihadi complex" in the IITs.

A meaningful response to this tension, I believe, would require a reflection on the politics of knowledge. To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that an educational centre that nurtures a new generation of vibrant young minds ought to be oceanic. That is, it should be open to diverse epistemologies and multiple traditions of knowledge. British scientist and novelist CP Snow pleaded for it sharply in 1959 in his book The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. He warned us of the danger implicit in the growing division between sciences and humanities.

For evolving a more comprehensive understanding of the world, as Snow argued, we need to build a bridge between the two cultures of sciences and humanities. Snow's message has acquired special relevance in our times when the hegemonic techno-science is all-pervading, and there is growing devaluation of liberal arts and humanities.

Let us understand it through an example. Suppose you wish to be an engineer and you are pretty good in your specialised field. However, it is equally important for you to be aware of the political economy, or the social context of your work. It is important to be reflexive, and ask yourself whether the techno-capitalist system uses you as a mere 'resource', and as a result, the knowledge you have acquired fails to serve the downtrodden in this highly asymmetrical society. Even if you are good in physics, mathematics and engineering, a meaningful study of the likes of Gandhi and Marx will further expand your mental horizon, and enrich you as a politically aware/socially sensitive professional.

Instead of erecting the wall of separation between 'logical' science vs 'subjective' fiction, or 'useful' engineering vs 'philosophic' social sciences, we need to think of a more integral and holistic curriculum. Hence, it will be good if IIT students study a bit of critical theory and subaltern studies. There is nothing to worry. The books of George Orwell and Michel Foucault will not diminish their engineering skills; instead, they will become more open to alternative visions of the world.

It is equally important to assert that there are limits to a purely technocratic/ instrumental notion of education. Of course, the narratives of 'placements and salary packages', and the presence of the IIT alumni in all major corporations across the world are tempting. Yet, it will be suicidal, if in the name of neoliberal/ market-driven logic of 'productivity', we forget that the higher objective of education, as political philosopher Martha Nussbaum said, is also to nurture the ethos of democracy, ecology, peace and social justice.

Thus, it is important for an IIT product to alter his/her self-perception: from a hyper-competitive/ atomised/ self-centric careerist to a politically conscious citizen in search of democratic and egalitarian values.

Finally, I recall communications theorist Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992). Technopoly, he warned us, is "totalitarian technocracy". In fact, the logic of technical efficiency has become the unchallenged mechanism of progress. And technopoly eliminates all alternatives; the result is that we tend to lose our agency and creative thinking; we become the tools of tools.

Is it possible to resist this trend and create an alternative imagination of a meaningful life and our relationship with technology? As AI invades the collective imagination, it is important for scientists, thinkers, visionaries and educators to redefine the role of technology in our everyday life. We need the spirit of critical pedagogy; we need a mode of thinking that can see beyond the lure of every new technological innovation, redefine the philosophy of life, and imagine a world free from what we are witnessing today: techniques replacing creative imagination; 'development' intensifying the horrors of climate emergency; and the alliance of billionaire technocrats and neoliberal fascists becoming a new reality.

Can the IITs be wholly indifferent to these challenges?

Avijit Pathak is a sociologist.