After more than a decade of watching Britain’s Conservative party (generally) taking the position that the “culture war” (an inadequate phrase that doesn’t really do justice to a series of only occasionally overlapping issues) was beneath it, it was no great surprise to read this in an article by John Armstrong in the Spectator:
Mathematicians in British universities are now being asked to “decolonise” the curriculum. This autumn, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) — an independent charity which reviews university courses — launched a consultation that urged universities to teach a “decolonised view” of mathematics.
The whole article (paywalled) is well worth a read by those who can get access. Among other points, Armstrong makes clear just how condescending, and indeed even racist, the premise of “decolonization” in this context really is:
The fact is that colonialism is irrelevant to the validity [of] mathematics. The Mayan civilisation was doing sophisticated mathematics in the Americas long before Christopher Colombus arrived on the continent.
So where does the idea of “decolonising” maths come from? The academic theory of decoloniality states that as well as colonising the world physically, Europeans have dominated the world by promoting the “European paradigm of rational knowledge.”
The irony is that this statement seems itself to be racist. There is nothing particularly European about rational knowledge. Maths has always been an astonishingly international pursuit. The digits 0123456789 we use today were first written in India and inspired by Chinese mathematics. They were popularised by Persian and Arab mathematicians and then made their way to Europe via the Moors’ conquest of Southern Spain. Admittedly the Moors’ conquest of Spain was a form of colonialism, but apparently not the type of colonialism we are meant to be interested in.
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Armstrong, such facts are not meant to be written down either. What were you thinking?
1984:
This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date.
But Armstrong extends some charity to the “decolonizers”:
Those who adhere to decoloniality don’t think they’re being racist. This is because, strange as it may seem, they don’t believe rational knowledge is superior to other kinds of knowledge. In this world view it is not insulting to suggest non-Europeans prefer “other ways of knowing” to rationality and science.
Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that quite a few of those who “adhere to decoloniality” (the word goes uncorrected in spellcheck, such are the times) know perfectly well that it is nonsense, and insulting nonsense at that. But they also know that is a pathway to power, influence, or at least a job. So they intone its doctrines, expel heretics who might be in their way, and reap the resulting rewards. It’s an old technique, and one that’s worked well for a long, long time.
But read on a bit to find this:
In New Zealand the school chemistry and biology syllabus has been decolonised and now invokes the concept of mauri, or life force, to give the atomic theory a new spiritual dimension. This is because of a central diktat that Maori knowledge must be given equal status to other forms of knowledge, including science.
Could such a thing happen in the land led by Jacinta Ardern, that secular saint, a believer, we have often been told, in #science?
Well, the link attached to the words “chemistry and biology” takes you to a document setting out some guidance for the studying for New Zealand’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). NCEA is a national qualification for senior secondary school students.
But first go here to read that NCEA is being transformed “into a more robust and inclusive qualification”.
Before clicking on that link to “chemistry and biology,” keep in mind Armstrong’s definition of mauri (“life force”), and pause to check how New Zealand’s government describes the way this concept is understood:
Mauri is the life principle or vital spark. All people and things have mauri.
Something tells me that this is a belief that owes more to religion (or “spirituality”) than to #science. To teach it (or any other religious or spiritual idea or theory), particularly given its connections to New Zealand’s heritage, is, of course, not only fine, but desirable. To study a culture without attempting to understand the religious or spiritual beliefs that may have shaped it is, in fact, not to study a culture (something too often forgotten in the United States).
But to teach religious or spiritual beliefs in a national curriculum as objective truths to all children, particularly those of a different religious background or none, seems . . . troubling.
And so, click on that link:
The living world strand is about the mauri of living things and how they interact as part of the taiao [loosely, the environment, but it can mean much more than that].
Read on, to come to this:
To understand the world, ākonga [students] must understand the intricate interconnections within the taiao, including between themselves, other living things and the environment. Any change in a balance of these interconnections will resultantly impact the mauri of everything in the system, be it an ecosystem or a living organism.
Somehow, I thought that something like that was coming, and this too:
To understand the world, ākonga must understand the intricate interconnections within the taiao, including between themselves, other living things and the environment. Any change in a balance of these interconnections will resultantly impact the mauri of everything in the system, be it an ecosystem or a living organism.
Whakapapa describes these interconnections and allows ākonga to see their place as part of the taiao, not separate or superior to ecosystems, flora, and fauna. This understanding will allow ākonga to see the link between the mauri of the taiao and their own wellbeing. They will identify why kaitiakitanga of other organisms and the environment is important, and how they can engage with kaitiakitanga [very roughly, something akin, perhaps, to what some see as the Christian notion of ‘stewardship’].
All interesting stuff, to me, anyway, and, in the right place, well worth studying. To be clear, I wouldn’t claim anything other than the most superficial understanding of these beliefs, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that they don’t belong in a science class.
And how, uh, interesting to see (yet again) the intertwining of religious or spiritual beliefs with environmentalism.