India and Germany are much different places. Their economies, religions, linguistic properties, geographies, demographics, labor markets, social structures, etc., seem so much different, in fact, that one could rightly question the plausibility of a comparison of their approaches to secondary education. The comparison at hand, however, gains viability by and through the historical and contemporary similarities – or family resemblances7 – of the countries and their education systems. Both nation-states have liberal constitutions, just as both are nominally democratic and capitalistic. History bequeathed both places a tremendous opportunity to remake their societies by, among other things, remaking their education systems in the wake of oppressive and violent eras, namely colonialism and nazism.
As will be seen, neither nation-state took full advantage of this opportunity, meaning the historical-educational structures of the eras of oppression were able to persist. Important to note here is that neither Germany in 1945 nor India in 1947 truly represented a tabula rasa.
7 Ludwig Wittgenstein’s (2009) concept provides a great deal more depth in a comparison by referring to intersections of different kinds of similarities. Two family members, for example, may speak, act and look differently, yet they may share a similar gait (Wittgenstein 2009: 36).
7
Priorities had to be set, populations needed to be reassured that they would receive basic services and, to put it bluntly, there were more important things to do than reconfigure education systems from the ground up. Solutions were improvised, and the resultant improvisations most generally followed the lines of the path of least resistance. This is symptomatic of a larger hiccough in thinking: people, up to and including policymakers, attempt to make sense of the present and reassure themselves about an unknowable future by relying on that which they already know. From an educational-social-historical perspective, this could be referred to as unintended conservatism.
The point of the comparison of the respective postwar and post-independence approaches to secondary education and the ways in which these approaches have worked to reproduce social inequalities is not to arrive at a tidy universalism regarding how inequalities are reproduced via education in all places and at all times. Instead, the theory sections (Chapters 3 and 4), in which attempts are made to fuse classical, post-colonial, critical theoretical and historiographical approaches, will provide an opening for understanding the generic character of historical-educational reproduction in both countries. This generic character of historical-educational reproduction is tied to a general educational conservatism, a widespread yet latent perspective that inhibits people from imagining a different school system and, with that, a different world.
The research steps involved in this particular project are as follows: first, recognizing a social problem (the reproduction of social inequalities through secondary education);
second, identifying critical junctures that have given rise to or exacerbated the problem; third, arriving at a suitable methodological approach (Chapter 2); fourth, developing an appropriate and critical theory which is broad enough to be applied to the objects of inquiry in question (Chapters 3 and 4); fifth, comparing the objects of inquiry (Chapters 5 and 6); and sixth, pointing the discussion in new directions (Chapter 7). This approach is certainly replicable for secondary education systems in other countries, provided these marginal conditions are met: the countries have liberal constitutions, are nominally democratic and capitalistic and have encountered critical junctures during which the opportunity to reform the given education system wholesale presented itself. While the timeframe for a historical comparison would need to be geared toward a different critical juncture, the theory outlined in this dissertation could be applied with only minor adjustments to different nation-states’ education systems and reform endeavors.
8
These points will be methodologically and theoretically substantiated later on, but important here is the idea that knowledge can be gained from analyzing both similarities and differences. The temporal similarities of the critical junctures in India and Germany are significant in that there were really but two choices as to which top-down shapes the societies would take, although Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) deftly tried to navigate a third way for India. While larger political-economic structures shaped decisions made during the critical juncture from without, this was not really the case in the realm of education. Just how important critical junctures are and have been in shaping the trajectory of educational reform can be learned via a comparison of Germany and India. The inertia of national education systems is a tremendous force. Before this inertia can be overcome, it must be understood. In other words, the particular roots of educational conservatism must be critically comprehended before one can start in on the work of imagining what particular foundation should be set for an approach to education which has a good life (Rehbein 2015: 130) – and not function by means of violence or oppression – as its objective. Education need not foster social reproduction. This study attempts to show why and how education has persisted in doing so in two distant and distinct places.
More generally, it seems India and Germany have a lot to learn from each other when it comes to education and society. For example, as Germany becomes more heterogeneous in terms of religion, language, culture, etc., it can learn something from India about how education can contribute meaningfully to a secular, multilingual and truly multicultural society. While sectarian violence persists in India and rightfully grabs the headlines when it transpires, it is a phenomenon with which India has lived since at least partition; furthermore, it seems, at least for now, to be one the wane. In Germany, the case is much different, as 2015 saw over one thousand attacks on asylum-seeker housing, a five-fold increase over the previous year (Deutsche Welle 2016). Germany has not really had to deal with large-scale violence along ethnic, racial or religious lines since capitulation. India, for example, could learn from Germany’s rich educational heritage when it comes to the extension of education to all and its impressive historical literacy rates. Vital here is the idea that the learning process is not and never should be a one-way street.
9