I commenced this discourse with philosophy as a discipline; I then enlarged the argument to embrace the humanities. With my town and gown lecture at Covenant University’s Faculty of the Social Sciences in April, I applied the disciplinary relevance dominant argument to the social sciences (which dominant arguments are paraphrased in this piece) and, at the UI department of political science public lecture in honour of professor emeriti Adekanye and Ayoade, I took on my specific domain, political science, as a discipline. This has simply been a strictly intellectual reflection to address concerns that are indeed global, but more relevantly, germane to Nigeria’s specific policy concern to address graduate unemployment and the gradual emasculation of the HSS and the great danger it portends for a nation that needs to hurry to achieve real development with sense.
The social sciences constitute the third in the disciplinary tripod consisting of the natural sciences and the humanities. Its fluid theoretical boundary allows it to straddle the natural science in terms of methodology and the humanities in terms of substantive issues relating to the study of man and the society. The social sciences evolved from the attempt to reproduce the methodological successes in the natural science to the study of the human society, institutions and social behaviour. Yet, like the humanities that we have had about three occasions to x-ray so far, the social sciences are equally caught in the predicament of pedagogical relevance, especially in a situation, like Nigeria’s, where all that seems to matter is getting a certificate.
At a recent Town and Gown Seminar at Covenant University, Sango Ota, I had an occasion to initiate a critical appraisal of the stature of the social sciences as an academic field, and their perceived role and relevance in national development in Nigeria. At that auspicious occasion, I argued that the endemic questioning of the relevance of the social sciences derives from a justified albeit jaundiced perception of their prospect in the formulation of life-plans and future purposes: What will you do with Sociology/History/Psychology/Geography/Political Science? How, for instance, in common sense reflection, can the discipline of political theory or anthropology enable me to make sense of my life in a manner that Accountancy, Engineering or Human Resource Management or Medicine can if I am not an academic? And indeed, how many graduates of the HSS can the academia retain? What income level can political science as professional calling generate in Nigeria? This questioning is only a manifestation of a deeper dynamics. There are two broad factors that are responsible for how others perceive our disciplinary integrity. (And in this connection and as an aside, the 60:40 funding ratio in favour of STEM – an acronym for the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics, in the dynamics of transition, makes some sense but is a point in our argument for emphasis.)
On the one hand, the field of the social sciences is incredibly and methodologically problematic. The first point of worry derives from the disciplinary desire for scientific methodology. As the philosophers would ask: How does one scientifically study, rather than interpret, human unpredictable behaviour? How is the analysis of social fact, for instance, modelled on the scientific study of natural fact? The second point of worry is the lack of methodological consensus on how the vast subjects and data of the social sciences ought to be studied. The diversity of methodologies ranges from Emile Durkheim to Max Weber to Vilfredo Pareto and then Karl Popper and Robert Dahl.
On the other hand, the social science disciplines, like the humanities, are confronted by a global curricular consensus which puts the social sciences into serious retreat. At the Covenant University Seminar, I alluded to the domineering influence of global capitalism on university management and pedagogical practices. Thus, the idea of management itself, rather than administration, has become the key to understanding the reason why only disciplines and programmes with cash values are recognised. This neo-liberal capitalist orientation has affected the way we perceive education and the role of universities, especially in national development. Consider, for instance, the rise and significance of the STEM fields. STEM is significant because it constitutes a kind of educational/curriculum philosophy motivated by laissez faire global competitiveness in terms of scientific and technological progress. Of course, the absence of the social sciences in the acronym speaks volume about the disciplinary invisibility of the social scientist.
In the face of all these challenges, we are confronted with a more troubling question: What is the unique stature of the social sciences in Nigeria? Claude Ake spoke about the social sciences as imperialism. This simply implies that Western social science disciplines—and anthropology readily comes to mind here—possess an ideological character which attempts to foist Western framework of scholarship on hapless third world countries like Nigeria.
This immediately raises the issue of what social science discourses and researches in Nigeria ought to pursue—a theoretically sound, dynamic and pragmatic framework of ideas, processes and recommendations that could orient national policy trajectory in education, healthcare, security, infrastructural development, public services, mental health and social formations. If I am asked, I will say that the social sciences evolved as a theoretical and practical means by which we can imagine what is possible in terms of our social structures and our relationship with them. This objective is all the more urgent within the context of the Nigerian state and our plural existence along religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Thus: How can the social sciences redefine our idea of what we are as Nigerians in manner that practically engages policy-makers?
Let me reiterate my earlier worry, especially with philosophers and other humanities scholars. No discipline within the postcolonial context of Nigeria is immune from the charge of relevance. The existence and significance of each discipline is bound up with how they are able and enabled to confront the Nigerian predicament and our collective resolve to reimagine the national project. This implies that, in spite of the fact that the Western social sciences wield enormous influence in terms of theories and ideas, the Nigerian social scientists must be wary of the imperial gaze of the West and the global dimensions. This should then translate into a concerted effort to locate all processes, methodologies, ideas and reflections of social research within the context of national rebirth and reconstruction.
Theories are not enough; the social scientists in Nigeria must facilitate the transition from theories to practical and pragmatic policy considerations. This, it seems to me, is the essence of the town and gown interaction that people like Simeon Adebo were part of in the early years of the Nigerian state. The social scientists must become theoretically adept and policy oriented. In this regard, the late Profs. Claude Ake, Ojetunji Aboyade and Sam Aluko and Prof. Akin Mabogunje, Bolaji Akinyemi, were exemplary, with many after them, the likes of Ademola Oyejide, Charles Soludo, Attahiru Jega – to name just a few – are no less eminent. But how many of them are there now?
Unfortunately, the problem now is that social scientists either pontificate in conference halls and seminars where their beautiful ideas are usually mostly lost in rapturous applause or publications in obscure journals which are soon forgotten in dusty libraries.
– Olaopa wrote in from Abuja.
Source: http://leadership.ng/
No comments:
Post a Comment