- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 4477
None ever had a university position!
‘Free-ranging thinkers of earlier times, unconfined by university appointments, reflected on whatever they felt like’
'The philosopher John Stuart Mill never held an academic posiition,
but in the 19th century that was the rule not the exception.’-Photo:inquiriesjournal.com
‘…It may seem surprising that a philosopher whose works are now taught at universities throughout the world never held an academic position, but in this Mill was the rule, not the exception. In having no academic post Mill followed his mentor Jeremy Bentham, and the earlier philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley, who pursued their fundamental work outside the university system. And this was the path also taken, inadvertently, by David Hume, who was turned down for chairs at both Edinburgh and Glasgow.’
Jeremy Bentham.-Photo:famousphilosophers.org
‘…It is striking that the free-ranging thinkers of earlier times, unconfined by university appointments, reflected on whatever they felt like. Mill wrote about philosophy, politics and economics. Bentham discussed everything from pure logic to whether prisoners should be provided with hempen or flaxen sheets. Hume, read now in philosophy departments, was known in his lifetime as a historian and essayist. Locke was a physician and philosopher, and Berkeley's interests extended beyond philosophy and religion to the recommendation of "tar-water" as a cure for most ailments.’
John Locke.-Photo:famousphilosophers.org
‘…It was only in the 20th century that, by acquiring a university position, it became possible in England to pursue a scholarly career if you were not of independent wealth, or a church minister, or prepared to make huge personal sacrifices. Teaching and scholarship could be rolled into salaried employment. I would be the last person to find fault with this very convenient arrangement, but still, we can ask whether it has come with a cost.’
‘…When academic leaders proclaim that the problems of the modern world are too complex for traditional disciplines, and that we have to move to a "new paradigm" of inter-disciplinary thought, a polite cough may be the appropriate response. Arguably, disciplinary specialisation is an artifact of how universities have chosen to organise themselves. Despite their claims to be breaking down barriers, virtually every university is still designed around the idea that universities teach in single-subject disciplines and must, as a first priority, employ the staff to deliver the undergraduate curriculum.
‘Even combined and modular programmes are superimposed on to a structure of departments that developed in the 19th century and has moved on only through increasing specialisation and fragmentation since.’
George Berkeley.-Photo:famousphilosophers.org
‘Could it be that rather than regarding single-discipline scholarship as a tradition that needs to be broken, history will instead view it merely as an unfortunate passing phase? No doubt it has brought order and rigour to what was once fluid and confusing. Could now be time to recapture our sense of disorder, mobility, a little confusion, and a lot of excitement?’
*The above excerpts are taken from an excellent article by Prof. Jonathan Wolff which was originally published in the Guardian on 23 September 2014:
Universities need scholarship that is more confusing – and more exciting | Education | The Guardian
**A view from Kamran Mofid on the need for Inter/multi-disciplinary studies: Creating a Culture of Collaboration and Cooperation for the Common Good
Complex problems require interdisciplinary teams to solve them, but neo-liberalism promotes specialisation and isolation. How can we then develop a cross-discipline culture?
In the past couple of decades, there has been great endeavours to bring about a dialogue of civilizations, cultures, religions and peoples. However, there is a very serious void here: there has not been a concurrent attempt to bring about a fruitful and rewarding dialogue between different and at the same time, interdependent, academic disciplines and values.
For example, there was a time when economics was regarded as a branch of theology, philosophy and ethics. Economic factors were intimately linked to what was regarded as just or right and these in their turn were shaped by spiritual and moral understanding of the common good. From the eighteenth century onwards economics became an autonomous discipline, divorced and separated from its original roots. This engineered separation has brought us all a very bitter harvest. In the end economics is about human well-being in society and this cannot be separated from moral, philosophical, theological, and spiritual considerations. The idea of an economics which is value-free is totally spurious. Nothing in this life is morally neutral.
The same of course can be said about other disciplines, such as business, commerce, management, education, medicine, psychology, engineering, IT and much more.
I firmly believe that we should encourage a way of working together and forming a place where such dialogical conversations can be encouraged, nurtured, developed and supported by bringing together a group of noted scholars, researchers, students and professionals from all contexts and backgrounds who share this vision and appreciate the exciting potential of having the chance to talk, and engage in a dialogue of ideas, visions and values with people from a broad array of backgrounds and disciplines.
There are major benefits to such an interdisciplinary dialogue and encounter, amongst them: it nurtures critical thinking; it encourages the recognition of diverse perspectives; it increases tolerance for ambiguity; and it improves sensitivity to a wide spectrum of ethical issues.
I am committed to the view that inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary work is a very positive and credible way forward in a rapidly changing world. It is my firm belief that a dialogue of values, ideas, and visions, supported by a meaningful dialogue of interrelated academic disciplines, will be very positive for a successful and rewarding path to a better and more harmonious world.
At Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI) we are grateful to be contributing to that vision of a better world, given the goals and objectives that we have been championing since 2002. For that we are most grateful to all our friends and supporters that have made this possible.
'In order to focus on life’s bigger picture and guided by the principles of hard work, commitment, volunteerism and service; with a great passion for dialogue of cultures, civilisations, religions, ideas and visions, at an international conference in Oxford in 2002 the Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI) and the GCGI Annual International Conference Series were founded.'
Read more:
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 4582
Photo: kosmosjournal.org
This week, we, the people of the world, will witness a key test of whether we will betray our children, grandchildren and future generations through a lack of ambition and will. This week at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York on Thursday we can listen to more than 120 world political leaders outlining how they intend to tackle the growing risks from environmental degradation and climate change.
The summit has been called by the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to try to build high-level support for efforts to reach an international agreement to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, which is due to be signed in Paris in December 2015.
The ambition is that countries will outline how they intend to stop and reverse, within the next 10 years, the growth in annual emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and put us on a path towards zero emissions by the second half of this century.
Without a treaty, it will be hard for the world to avoid the potentially catastrophic impacts of the global average temperature rising by more than 2C degrees above its pre-industrial level.
The consequences of creating a climate not seen on Earth for millions of years will not be suffered primarily by us but by those who will be here next century. By then, if the climate has warmed by three degrees or more, the Earth is likely to have passed a number of tipping points, such as irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to gradually accelerating and potentially irreversible disruption of lives and livelihoods.
A pertinent question surely must be: What is to be done to avoid this coming catastrophe?
In 2012 at the 10th Anniversary Session of the World Public Forum, Dialogue of Civilisation, Rhodes Forum (3-8 October 2012), I was honoured to Chair and Moderate a Plenary Panel on Ecology with the theme of “Visions of a New Earth: Responding to the Ecological Challenge”:
‘The panel was composed of a broad array of academics, researchers, representatives and former representatives of NGO’s, social entrepreneurs, business people, and politicians, amongst others. These diverse perspectives focused on the common theme of the environment, how it is being ravaged and what can be done to alter course. All agreed that the environment is indeed drastically endangered by a host of human activities which emanate from the global economic system.
The speakers commonly cited the need for a change in perspective on the part of individuals and the need for a greater commitment to protect the earth. Several speakers cited the example of the spiritual wisdom found in the spiritual traditions of indigenous and aboriginal peoples, that such wisdom is truly necessary to safeguard the earth on which we all depend for life. Other speakers mentioned the role that could potentially be played by religions and faith communities as well as arts and aesthetics in fostering greater respect for the environment and the construction of an environmental ethic based upon stewardship. Whether the source was religious, spiritual or secular the need for a change in consciousness and personal engagement was recognized by all speakers.
Most of the speakers on the panel agreed with the sentiment that individuals can not accomplish the needed environmental change alone, that common actions need to be taken, and that usually such actions require changes in laws, regulations, institutions, and structures. It was acknowledge that powerful interests such as corporate profit interests, who make great income off of ravaging the environment, are quite willing to pay the price to serve as obstacles to environmental progress in order to protect their profits. There exists therefore the need to translate ideas into concrete actions to affect change, in order to organize and become a countervailing power.
Another common theme among many speakers was the need for a greater sharing of the world’s resources. The bulk of the people on earth are in desperate need of greater economic security today. Economic Security is increasingly undermined by governments across the globe, almost regardless of party affiliation, in the name of austerity the social contract is in tatters. The trend of increasing inequality both harms the environment and makes solutions to the environmental crisis more difficult. Inequality will be lessened through a greater sharing of the world’s resources, as well as a more extensive restructuring of the global economic and social system. Austerity works in the opposite direction.
In addition to enhanced regulation and changes in law at both the national and global level, several speakers cited the need for greater social responsibility on the part of corporations. The example of the auto industry was used by one speaker. Global Media and Mass Communications were mentioned by several other speakers as being representative of technologies which can be harnessed in environmentally conscious ways for the better of people, the planet, and other species. Conceptions of land and land ownership were cited by some which in turn could be used or not to better protect the environment. Finally the mayor of the capital city of Estonia offered the example of free wireless internet and free public transport for city residents as a splendid example of how governments at the local level could take bold action to safeguard the environment and to become more effectively green.’…
I very much believe that the words and sentiments, the vision and recommendations we made on that day at the 2012 Rhodes Forum stands the test of time and can be a path for the common good to build a better, greener world, and to save Mother Earth from harm and destruction.
Read the full report:
Visions of a New Earth: Responding to the Ecological Challenge
Read more:
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 6378
In the wake of the global financial crisis, many students in economics have expressed their discontent with their education. The GCGI supports the aims presented by the International Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics (ISIPE), which now has gathered 65 student groups demanding pluralism in economics education.
Part I- Why GCGI is supporting the ISIPE?
Perhaps the best way I can demonstrate this is by quoting a passage from an Open Letter I wrote to the editor of the Financial Times. I was prompted to write this letter in a response to an editorial which was published on 13 November 2013, under the title of “The new economics: Teaching of discipline needs to rely less on abstract models”.
…“And now a note from Kamran Mofid to the Editor of Financial Times:
Sir, I have read your editorial ‘A new economics’ with much interest. You conclude your piece by asking the economics profession to substitute a little humility for pretension as the first step to a new economics: I wholeheartedly agree.
However, may I respectfully ask you to let me know if you had ever written an editorial in similar vein before the crash of September 2008? Had you ever encouraged your readers to think about economic pluralism? Have you ever encouraged a dialogue of disciplines, ideas and visions in the study and practice of economics: a dialogue between economics, ethics, philosophy, spirituality, and the common good? Have you ever encouraged the wealth-creators that read your paper to reflect on ‘Why’ and ‘How’ wealth is produced and, more importantly, when wealth is created, ‘What’ it is going to be used for?
Knowing how busy you are, may I share with you a short passage on the subject from a book I wrote in 2005, well before the crash of September 2008:
‘From 1980 onwards, for the next twenty years, I taught economics in universities, enthusiastically demonstrating how economic theories provided answers to problems of all sorts. I got quite carried away by the beauty, the sophisticated elegance, of complicated mathematical models and theories. But gradually I started to have an empty feeling.
‘I began to ask fundamental questions of myself. Why did I never talk to my students about compassion, dignity, comradeship, solidarity, happiness, spirituality – about the meaning of life? We never debated the biggest questions. Who are we? Where have we come from? Where are we going to?
‘I told them to create wealth, but I did not tell them for what reason. I told them about scarcity and competition, but not about abundance and co-operation. I told them about free trade, but not about fair trade; about GNP – Gross National Product – but not about GNH – Gross National Happiness. I told them about profit maximisation and cost minimisation, about the highest returns to the shareholders, but not about social consciousness, accountability to the community, sustainability and respect for creation and the creator. I did not tell them that, without humanity, economics is a house of cards built on shifting sands.
‘These conflicts caused me much frustration and alienation, leading to heartache and despair. I needed to rediscover myself and real-life economics. After a proud twenty-year or so academic career, I became a student all over again. I would study theology, philosophy and ethics, disciplines nobody had taught me when I was a student of economics and I did not teach my own students when I became a teacher of economics.
‘It was at this difficult time that I came to understand that I needed to bring spirituality, compassion, ethics and morality back into economics itself, to make this dismal science once again relevant to and concerned with the common good.’
I then went on to found the Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative to work towards this.”…
A comment on a Financial Times editorial (November 12, 2013)
Part II- ISIPE: Vision and Aims- An Executive Summary
The ISIPE group claims that theoretical pluralism should exist amongst the different traditions of economics; methodological pluralism between quantitative and qualitative methods as well as towards reflexive sub-disciplines of economics such as history of economic thought and economic epistemology; and, pluralism towards the other social sciences that is interdisciplinary.
GCGI supports ISIPE’s members that strongly believe that pluralism will give students in economics the tools to deal with challenges of the twenty-first century that education in economics does not currently address. Better adequacy between the education and the students’ environment, which provide interdisciplinary and transferrable skills, are core to GCGI’s fight for better quality education. GCGI encourages all values-led academics, students, business leaders and members of society to show their support to the ISIPE’s initiative by joining the movement or by signing up to it on its website http://www.isipe.net/supportus/
Students’ discontentment in economics education is not new, from the Australian 1970s movement for political economy to the French movement for a post-autistic economics in the early 2000s (In Praise of the Economic Students at the Sorbonne: The Class of 2000 ) that quickly spread in other countries such as UK, USA and Germany, economics education have always been controversial. The crisis has made such disenchantment bigger than ever and students soon realised they were not taught the right tools to understand the current economic environment and were not able to respond correctly to the economic crisis.
Part III- ISIPE- Open Letter
An international student call for pluralism in economics
It is not only the world economy that is in crisis. The teaching of economics is in crisis too, and this crisis has consequences far beyond the university walls. What is taught shapes the minds of the next generation of policymakers, and therefore shapes the societies we live in. We, over 65 associations of economics students from over 30 different countries, believe it is time to reconsider the way economics is taught. We are dissatisfied with the dramatic narrowing of the curriculum that has taken place over the last couple of decades. This lack of intellectual diversity does not only restrain education and research. It limits our ability to contend with the multidimensional challenges of the 21st century - from financial stability, to food security and climate change. The real world should be brought back into the classroom, as well as debate and a pluralism of theories and methods. Such change will help renew the discipline and ultimately create a space in which solutions to society’s problems can be generated.
United across borders, we call for a change of course. We do not claim to have the perfect answer, but we have no doubt that economics students will profit from exposure to different perspectives and ideas. Pluralism will not only help to enrich teaching and research and reinvigorate the discipline. More than this, pluralism carries the promise of bringing economics back into the service of society. Three forms of pluralism must be at the core of curricula: theoretical, methodological and interdisciplinary.
Theoretical pluralism emphasizes the need to broaden the range of schools of thought represented in the curricula. It is not the particulars of any economic tradition we object to. Pluralism is not about choosing sides, but about encouraging intellectually rich debate and learning to critically contrast ideas. Where other disciplines embrace diversity and teach competing theories even when they are mutually incompatible, economics is often presented as a unified body of knowledge. Admittedly, the dominant tradition has internal variations. Yet, it is only one way of doing economics and of looking at the real world. Such uniformity is unheard of in other fields; nobody would take seriously a degree program in psychology that focuses only on Freudianism, or a politics program that focuses only on state socialism. An inclusive and comprehensive economics education should promote balanced exposure to a variety of theoretical perspectives, from the commonly taught neoclassically-based approaches to the largely excluded classical, post-Keynesian, institutional, ecological, feminist, Marxist and Austrian traditions - among others. Most economics students graduate without ever encountering such diverse perspectives in the classroom.
Furthermore, it is essential that core curricula include courses that provide context and foster reflexive thinking about economics and its methods per se, including philosophy of economics and the theory of knowledge. Also, because theories cannot be fully understood independently of the historical context in which they were formulated, students should be systematically exposed to the history of economic thought and to the classical literature on economics as well as to economic history. Currently, such courses are either non-existent or marginalized to the fringes of economics curricula.
Methodological pluralism stresses the need to broaden the range of tools economists employ to grapple with economic questions. It is clear that maths and statistics are crucial to our discipline. But all too often students learn to master quantitative methods without ever discussing if and why they should be used, the choice of assumptions and the applicability of results. Also, there are important aspects of economics which cannot be understood using exclusively quantitative methods: sound economic inquiry requires that quantitative methods are complemented by methods used by other social sciences. For instance, the understanding of institutions and culture could be greatly enhanced if qualitative analysis was given more attention in economics curricula. Nevertheless, most economics students never take a single class in qualitative methods.
Finally, economics education should include interdisciplinary approaches and allow students to engage with other social sciences and the humanities. Economics is a social science; complex economic phenomena can seldom be understood if presented in a vacuum, removed from their sociological, political, and historical contexts. To properly discuss economic policy, students should understand the broader social impacts and moral implications of economic decisions.
While approaches to implementing such forms of pluralism will vary from place to place, general ideas for implementation might include:
· * Hiring instructors and researchers who can bring theoretical and methodological diversity to economics programs;
· *Creating texts and other pedagogical tools needed to support pluralist course offerings;
· *Formalizing collaborations between social sciences and humanities departments or establishing special departments that could oversee interdisciplinary programs blending economics and other fields.
Change will be difficult - it always is. But it is already happening. Indeed, students across the world have already started creating change step by step. We have filled lecture theatres in weekly lectures by invited speakers on topics not included in the curriculum; we have organised reading groups, workshops, conferences; we have analysed current syllabuses and drafted alternative programs; we have started teaching ourselves and others the new courses we would like to be taught. We have founded university groups and built networks both nationally and internationally. Change must come from many places. So now we invite you - students, economists, and non-economists - to join us and create the critical mass needed for change. See Support us to show your support and connect with our growing networks. Ultimately, pluralism in economics education is essential for healthy public debate. It is a matter of democracy.
Open Letter — International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics