Reality is a contested issue. What people call a reality seems mere assumption when we try to generalise that in another context. If a reality is not true in all circumstances then we can't claim that as a reality. What was true in the past must be true at present and in future. What is true in Canada must be true in Nepal. Yes some of the assumptions are true such as "we drink water when we are thirsty" but how much thirsty one gets and how much water she needs for saturation is not the same. A question I would like to discuss here is how the 'reality' is defined? The definition of reality is also contested. I would like to be more specific on 'how reality is constructed' rather than defined because I am convinced at least for today is that reality is constructed not predetermined. Reality is fluid, dynamic and contextual. People in a particular social setting construct a reality, probably true for all the members at least for that particular situation.
To illustrate the concept, let me take an issue: 'development'. A serious question here would be 'what is development?'. Having more money, roads, vehicles, schools, hospitals, employment opportunities are the present assumption of development. We have called some western countries as developed ones because they were able to manage those facilities before the some of the Asian and African countries had achieved. Based on this definition of development we made categorization among the countries of the world hence some countries became developed, some became developing and some became least developed ones. To be developed in the same fashion as western countries, the developing countries also constructed roads, developed school systems, set up industries and so on. For doing so developed countries became donors and the others became receivers. The number of least developed countries remained the same because the developed countries remained always ahead in advancing those attributes of development. Are the countries in the global south not getting progress? It is definitely not, as far as I believe now, a lot of progresses have been done. For example people's level of thought has changed, people have different world views to view the world and so forth. Then where the problem is. The answer may not be easy and the answers may be many. But an inference I could easily make is the problem in defining the term development. The attributes given to 'development' was a socially constructed reality and the construction of that reality took place in the western world or the global north. The assumptions of accepting the definition of western reality as universal reality was the major problem. All countries and all societies are different. They have their own features and own ways of progression. One of the solutions could be disregard of western definition of development and accept that reality is socially constructed and value the reality that is constructed at individual social context. Nepal can never be Canada no matter how good the schools are, how good the roads are and how industrial the former wants to be. And we should never assume that Nepal is not developed and Canada is developed. Let's decide what counts good for Nepal and take its progression on its own way.
Reality changes on daily basis. Let me find an example to show how it changes. Before coming to Canada, I used to believe that Canada is a western country. Eurocentric beliefs, westernization, modernisation and other similar terms have some negative connotations in the discussion we used to have when I was in Nepal. I was assuming that those criticisms were not applicable in Canada because it is a western country and it believes on westernization, modernisation and all other ontologies based on western thoughts and beliefs. I was also thinking that I may put myself in a difficult situation because of my critical mind set towards those phenomena. But after I came to Canada and started to debate and discuss among scholars, mostly from western world I started hearing same argument we used to make in Nepal. We used to blame European colonisers for the oppression and hardships many developing countries are facing these days. We used to go against Eurocentric beliefs. My utter surprise now is that almost all of my colleagues are talking the same. Two days ago in an interuniversity research seminar a researcher who was Canadian by citizen and looked like an European by skin blamed colonization and appealed for the decolonization of scholarly research. My question was 'where is the WEST in this earth?' what are western countries, and actually what is westernisation? Now my reality of westernisation and westernism has changed. People in Canada are talking the same thing, they are blaming colonisation and westernisation.
The changing trend of my personal reality - probably it is my radical constructivist standpoint - has engendered another assumption and the assumption is that Canada was a colony and here are people suffering from Europeanisation. The issue of Indigenous or First Nations people is so pervasive. Yes this is the time for revitalisation of those values that were suppressed by the British and French colonisers in the past. Yes it is also the time for decolonisation of scholarly activities because we can't understand the reality following the epistemology developed by the western scholars or the colonisers themselves. But in terms of my definition of westernisation and the the question I raised in the seminar, I am wondering how those assumption would be dealt when I go to Europe and ask among the British scholars. Actually, I would like to ask them, we have assumed that 'you are, if not at least, your ancestors were, Europeans, they were colonisers, and the world was universalise on what you thought was true. You defined the word development and asked the world to be developed on the way you wanted to be but do you think this assumption is true? If you think these assumptions are wrong then tell me again where is the WEST and who are westerners, who are colonisers? See how my reality of westernisation and westernism has changed since I came to Canada. I am anticipating that when I go to Britain and have discussion with the British scholar my assumption of westernisation would change.
I may change this post in the future, but for now I would like to conclude that reality is socially and contextually constructed issue, it goes on changing as we find ourselves in changed context and circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment