Social science is governed by many truths

As educational institutions opened in full swing following the COVID-19 attack, the news of the Common University Entrance Test came. Unfortunately, measurable indices for elimination and selection are becoming increasingly dependent on accuracy and objectivity, which is of great concern to the social sciences.

in gray, indistinct areas

Not that there is a lack of qualifying tests across the country to maintain the rat race of ‘competition success’. Not that the pathetic and obsessive glorification of ‘toppers’ needs top-ups. Yet, our education policy makers often forget that the binary of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ is not an almighty sacred truth. Social science discourses are often placed in the middle – in the very famous gray and fuzzy areas that are, literally and metaphorically, the frontier between ‘true’ and ‘false’. While information such as dates, facts or events can be placed in a binary of true or false, the role of a higher educational institution is not to catalog or reproduce the information or to train students to do so. Textbooks, Google, and myriad education-apps do this anyway.

The mandate of higher education is to nurture critical thinking that includes questioning; Including a plurality of ideas; And, most importantly, it provides a plurality of choice which is not limited to two to five objective type questions in Multiple Choice Type Question (MCQ) – Answering Scheme.

For example, whether we are ‘modern’ or not cannot be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. We live in a society where we imbibe modernity and tradition in every aspect of our daily lives. Modernization of tradition and deep presence of traditional in our modern life is a living experience. The forces of modernity have not turned tradition into obsolescence. Sometimes, in some regions, there is a peaceful dialogue and dialogue between tradition and modernity. Or, in some other areas, they are engaged in conflicting negotiations. How can this subtle and complex dialectic be expressed by marking it as ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

open space

Social science deals with complex social facts and it tries to make sense of them through observation, analytical and reasoning skills. This is why nothing can be distilled into a game like the quiz of ‘truth’ or ‘false’.

The foundation of colleges and universities is based on encouraging a multiplicity of questions, multiple modes of observation, multiple methods of analysis, and a sense of coexistence of multiple arguments and counterarguments. Such diversity opens up spaces for the existence of diverse schools of thought, different interpretations and interventions, and multiple perspectives – each of which is valid in its own context.

one’s position on any social issue—whether it is on caste-based—reservation; On cutting down trees to make way for a highway, or on religious fundamentalism – defined by a skepticism of perspectives and contexts. One is free, as a reader or as a scholar, not to agree with each other’s claims and arguments. One is free to read another person’s text and disagree with its interpretation—provided it is supported by reason. The freedom to disagree is a gift of living in a modern world and practicing the social sciences – where the world is no less bound by the ‘true’ or the ‘false’. And that’s how new ideas get their basis and recognition.

going beyond the curriculum

And that is why – and so on – the experience of a university is fundamentally different from the experience of a school. A good university constantly encourages its students to go beyond the curriculum. A good university advises its students to ask questions all the time instead of restricting them to a finite set of binary answers. A good university allows its students to question everything instead of expecting them to fall in line. In a good university the text can be questioned. You can ask each other questions. One can ask oneself. One may question one’s social conditions. One can question the architecture and operational structure of the university itself. One can question their teachers and all kinds of injustice and discrimination. And can also question the idea of ​​questioning. The production of knowledge in institutions of excellence around the world is based on inquiry and criticism.

Doubts, disagreements and disagreements are central to higher education in any field, especially in the social sciences. Choosing the right answer from a limited number of options is not only self-defeating, but also goes against the spirit of critical thinking, and does not do justice to the nuances of social issues.

Social science deals with many truths. Like dialects, these truths change depending on the individual’s point of view and geographic location. Just as each quote is dominant in its specific location (and there are no good or bad bids) each perspective is valid in its own context and goes beyond the simple ‘true’/’false’ binary.

The social sciences have immense potential to assimilate those differences and differences. As students, we learn much more by choosing to disagree, be distracted, and criticize. We learn little or almost nothing from ticking or telling or remembering factual correctness. While preparing for entrance exams without much thought, we often forget to check the fact that social science project is inherently associated with ‘subjectivity’ and ‘reflection’. Reducing all topics to ‘True’ or ‘False’, we often forget that the purpose of a multiple-choice question is neither pro-multiple nor pro-choice or pro-query.

Sridip Bhattacharya is a sociologist at Shiv Nadar University