Thanks, Abba and Ojo.
You make the debate truly challenging.
I will respond to Abba first and to Ojo in another post.
Response to Abba
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Abba <abba2007@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Toyin,Thank you for, yet another, nice scholarly response. I disagree with most of it. My comments are interspersed in yours (in bold font).The Nigerian writer and social activist Wole Soyinka's insistence that the terrorism of Boko Haram is the unanticipated outcome of Nigerian support for Islamic extremism in Northern Nigeria as well as the direct expression of the ambitions of some disgruntled Northern politicians has sparked various kinds of response. Some of these have been dismissive, particularly coming from some commentators from Northern Nigeria.
I must say that this part is a little misleading. I never, for example, condemned Soyinka for his stance on Boko Haram (BH). To the contrary, he and I share the same view of utter condemnation for what the atrocities committed by the BH thugs. So, I think it is important you place things in proper context. You cannot prove that I condemned Soyinka for what he said about BH. Hence, somehow invoking my name (as you did below) in this context seems inappropriate.One such, by Abba Gummel, dismisses Soyinka's 1986 Nobel Prize for Literature on the grounds of literature and the arts as being of little value in building modern societies, particularly in the face of the development challenges faced by Nigeria, arguing that modern societies are built on the foundations of science and technology.
This is where the problem with your piece is. There is a clear disconnect between your central premise (Soyinka's view on BH) and what you are attributing to me now (my comment on his Nobel Prize vis-a-vis Nigeria's science-inspired development). The two issues are totaally unrelated. Regardless of what Soyinka would say about BH, my views about Nobel Prizes on things that don't matter (such as his own prize) remain the same. I hope you can update your piece accordingly (I noticed it is already published in the web)...I feel misrepresented (and I do not think that's your intention; nonetheless, I feel it is always better if things are put in proper context and people are properly reperesented...if you have to include my name in the piece, I feel it is only fair you do so in the context within which my contribution on the subject was made). I said the above not as a criticism, but as a reminder (in a collegial spirit) that people should always be quoted within proper context.Another issue is that the debate on whether or not arts had any role in science and technology was not a regional one (your first paragraph seems to suggest that only people from the North are against Soyinka and the value of his prize...I think if you follow the thread carefully, you would see that some from the South also share my view that modern nations are built based on excellence in science and technology). In anycase, your opening paragraph has all sorts of problems in my view...and I hope you can fix it (a scholarly writeup should be free of such misrepresentations in my view).
No society has ever been built primarily on science and technology.I bet to differ on this. How did the Asian Tiger nations, for instance, transform from being poverty-stricken to the robust (and respected) economies they are today? How did the G8 nations develop their economies? Take away science and technology, will the US be the global super power she is today? The answer is a resounding no. I can stop the debate right here...because I think I made my case already..but I will carry on to do justice to your comprehensive response.
To claim that modern society is built on science and technology is to demonstrate a superstitious attitude to science.I disagree. Modern societies have a number of things in common, one of which is excellence in science and technology (this is something at their core; they never joke with it; they invest heavily on it). Others are quality services, education, infrastructure, healthcare etc. Modern nations manufacture things. Modern nations greatly invest in science and technology (there is a reason why their school curricula always emphasize science and math). Modern nations value and strive on innovation. Modern nations create enabling atmosphere to attract foreign direct investments.To argue that what African countries need to become modern societies is advances in science and technology is to demonstrate a superstitious reverence for science, rather than an understanding of the role of science in building societies.
You keep saying this without giving a single reason to support your claim. Asian Tigers built their economies based on science and technology (I lived in one of such nations and saw things with my own eyes). Africa needs to do same in order to develop.
Such superstitious attitudes, based on ignorance on the nature of Western social management and modernity may be partly responsible for African backwardness, even in the face of long standing misguided reverence for science.
You keep using the term ``supersititious" without actually justifying it. Let's see what your definition of ``Western social management and modernity" is.
The fact is that modern societies are based partly on the management of science and technology not on science and technology.I am not sure I understand you. Will there be anything to ``manage" if there was no ``science and technology" in the first place? I totally disagree with this.
The narrow sense involves the study of the physical character of the universe using methods that can be replicated and assessed by others adequately skilled to do so. In that sense, we have sciences that deal with living and non-living systems, such as physics, chemistry and biology, as well as sciences that straddle both, such as mathematics.
I can accept the above as a definition of the word ``science". What makes it ``narrow" is something I cannot understand. The above is (generally) what science is. Can you provide suitable references (accepted by scientists) that support your characterization of the the above (standard definition of science) as a ``narrow" definition?
I expect Abba is referring to the narrow meaning in his focus on physics, chemistry and medicine.My focus was not just on physics chemistry and medicine, but other important natural and engineering sciences such as biology, engineering and math. I said Physics, Chemistry and Medicine because they are the non-arts discilpines awarded prizes by the Nobel Committee (I added Economics too).
The essential scientific character of such disciplines is not in their subject matter but in the manner in which they address that subject matter, as Dominic Ogbonna observed in this debate.I do not agree. Are you saying the essential nature of Chemistry is not Chemistry but how Chemistry addresses some aspects of Chemistry? This is unclear to me... I do not expect any scientists to agree with you on this and the ``narror definition" claim. I assume you are not a scientist (if you are, sorry for my wrong assumption). If this is the case, shouldn't you be using the definition used by scientists? Do you really have to tell others what they are...particularly when what you say differ from what they say they are?Over the centuries and even now, various disciplines engage with those same subjects without being understood as scientific.
This is unclear. Please give us some specific examples.
The broad understanding of science is in the adaptation of critical methods associated with science to other disciplines.I do not understand what you mean here. What are ``critical methods"? So, ``science" is about using scientific ``methods" in other (presumably non-scientific) disciplines? Let me understand this correctly. It is ``science" if I, for instance, use the method of designing a vaccine in one of Soyinka's plays, but it is not science if I actually design a vaccine? I do not understand....applying science to other areas is science but doing science itself is not science? Am I missing something? I totally disagree with this ``broad definition". This is surely not accepted within the scientific community. This is (I think) a classical case of non-scientists defining what science is or isn't.In doing that, however, it is vital to observe broad variations between the character of living and non-living systems , and broad variations within the character of living systems. Along the lines of adapting scientific methods to a broader range of disciplines, there exist the social sciences of economics and sociology, and even linguistics, described as the scientific study of language.Science is science. Applying science to other disciplines is still science. For examples, people in Chemistry apply their work sometimes in biology....does that make their Chemistry not Chemistry? Those in math apply their work almost everywhere...does that make their math not mathematics? One of the beauties of most of the sciences is that they can be applied in many different scenarios...there are some that are not really applicable anywhere (those in mathematical sciences, for example, know what I mean), but focus on building the theoretical (rigorous) foundation of the discipline/science.
This broad understanding is better understood, not as science, but as the adoption of a critical method to the study pf phenomena.You have not justified your ``broad definition". You have not given any supporting references (accepted by scientists). You have not given any specific examples. I would be curious to see if any serious scientist would agree with you on this.The success of modern Western society is in the adoption of critical methods, not on science, in terms of the physical sciences like physics, or the biological sciences like human biology.So, Apple or Microsoft were not built based on hardcore science (engineering, computer science, math etc.) but somehow on the adoptation of scientific methods into other areas? I do not understand this at all.The more specific physical and biological sciences and the more general sciences like mathematics are adapted within a social system based on critical understanding of phenomena, particularly the large scale social systems represented by societies.I do not understand all these. It matters not where science is applied (or to what system it is applied). Science is, and will always be, science. You seems to be speaking in tongues....maybe our readers will benefit some more if you give specific examples.The success of modern Western society is a demonstration of skilled social management, among other factors that made this quality of social management possible in the first place.I disagree. Further, you did not define what ``social management" is.
One could describe technology also in a narrow and a broad sense. In the narrow sense, it can be described as the practical application of science, particularly in the creation of instruments.Again, what makes this ``narrow"? Can you give any references (accepted by engineers) to justify your definition?
The narrow sense involves the metaphorical adaptation of the idea to involve management of knowledge in general.I do not what this means.
I expect Abba is referring to the narrow meaning in his focus on physics, chemistry and medicine.Technology, to me, is the application of scientific/engineering methods for practical purposes. It entails the creation/building of things for the benefit of the society (e.g., airplanes, computers, TVs, phones, automobiles, spoons, chairs etc.).
Abba insists that African societies, particularly Nigeria, need to be based on science and technology in order to succeed.Absolutely.
Let us run through contemporary Nigerian social/ development challenges and try to see what role science and technology could play in addressing them. My argument will be that science and technology are useful but as methods and insights managed by social managers, not always using the tools and knowledge of the sciences in their core sense. Such social management is not based on physics or mathematics, or biology and medicine, but uses these disciplines to achieve the overarching goal of social management. I also also compare and contrast the Nigerian institutions represented by the oil industry, banking and Nollywood, the Nigerian film industry.Again, you have not defined what ``social management" is and what the ``social managers" will actually be ``managing". Will the ``social managers" be in business if there was not real science in the first place?
A central challenge in contemporary Nigeria is security of life and property on account of the presence of terrorism, primarily from Boko Haram but also from MEND. Also critical in security challenges is the scourge of kidnapping.This is the only area you and I agree on...so far.
The progress made against Boko Haram so far has been though information sourcing and tracking of their members. The role played by science in the sense of the specialized skills of particular scientific disciplines has been in the use of electronic tracking technology through which the terrorists' phones were tracked. Technology also played a role in the weapons used in battling the members of the sect.Good. Remote sensing, GIS and other wireless tracking processes and devices were (reportedly/presumably) used by our intelligence people, in conjunction with the fine men and women working at the National Communications Commissions (a Commission that is based largely on advances in electrical/telecommunication engineering, computer science, quantum computing/physics,nanotechnology etc.) Do you see ``arts" playing any role here? Do you see any ``social managers" playing any role here? It is a clear demonstration of excellence science and technology at its best.
Does the use of technology in these two forms imply that these successes are due to the use of science and technology?Of course, except if we do not believe what the law enforcement people say (they claimed that the suspects were tracked and apprehended based on using these...scientific...methods). Intelligence and law enforcement officers have other means as well...but it was clear (at least if the law enforcement people were to be believed) that science and technology played the most important role in making the arrest possible.Only partly so, beceause the anti-Boko Haram operation necessarily involves a broad range of methods of which the use of electronic tracking technology and physical weapons are two factors.How comes then the leaders were not captured much earlier? You can resolve this question by asking the law enforcement people if they would have been able to capture Abul qaga (or whatever his name is) without the use of technology. I have stated that law enforcement people have tons of arsenal (methods) at their disposal...however, it just turns out that, in this particular case, the use of technology was what made the arrest possible.I expect the operation involves information sourcing by word of mouth from informants among members of the communities where Boko Haram members live. If the fight against Boko Haram is to succeed, such intelligence gathering from within the community needs to be intensified. The fight against Boko Haram needs to won primarily in the hearts and minds of Nigerians, which is the core arena of the war the sect has unleashed on the nation. The sect is seeking to prove to Nigerians that it represents a parallel government that embodies the aspirations of Northern Nigeria. That effort will fail when Northerners can be decisively convinced that Boko Haram represents only themselves and the pauperisation of the North.You still did not disprove the fact that technology played the major role in the arrest of that BH individual...and you have also failed, up till this moment, to prove that science and technology is not the most important building brick/foundation for modern nations.
When people are convinced that they have more to lose than to gain by keeping silent about people suspected or known to be Boko Haram members, and that they are protected in revealing them to the government, then the fight is being won. Until then, even if this group is suppressed, another one might emerge in its place, as has been the pattern for some time in Northern Nigeria, from the pre-Maitasine era to Boko Haram.I think you digressed from the topic at hand.
Even after this stage of terrorism in Northern Nigeria is addressed, what is to be done with the region's educational and other social problems that make it a flash point for recurrent social upheavals? There seems to be an educational crisis in Northern Nigeria, with the Islamic educational system favored by many being ill equipped to manage the transition to a modern society. How is that to be addressed? Such issues seem to me to be more in the realm of educational theory and practice and politics, than physics, chemistry, medicine or any of the traditional sciences.Again, this is not really in line with the topic at hand.
What about the issue of the marriage of very young girls, creating a ground for severe physical problems on account of the immaturity of the girls' bodies, removing them from the educational system and severely limiting their opportunities to operate productively in the work place, and ultimately swelling the ranks of the poor?This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating about.How is the religious background of this practice in the marriage of the prophet Muhammad to a pre-pubescent girl to be addressed?This is irrelevant; and I am actually taken aback that you could invoke it. We can have a debate on the marriages of the Prophet (pbuh) if you wish. What has ``marriage" and even ``education" (as you seem to be defining it) got to do with the debate of the role of science vs. arts in nation building?
Some have called for greater reliance on indigenous wealth generation, as different from depending on oil revenue from the central government. How is this economic transition to be managed? I don't get the impression that physics, chemistry, medicine or any of the traditional sciences is going to be the knowledge base to be used. They can be adapted to the task but those who run those systems must be competent in a range of knowledge and skills, from economics, to social psychology and politics.
You are mixing two things here. Politicians and other administrators do their (admin) thing, and scientists do their own thing as well. I separate the two. Administrators (the good ones I mean) play an important role by helping to create the right atmosphere for the scientists and engineers to do their work. I know what they did in Malaysia, for example. The administrators (starting from the Prime Minister Mahathir) sought out to attract large multinational corporations to come and invest in their country.... they provided them with the land, infrastructure and tax incentives. The rest is history. I am not saying scientists will do everything: science as well as management, administration and politics. No. Scientists do need some others to do some of the necessary (admin) chores. However, let there be no doubt who is most important. There is absolutely no development without science and technology. The managers will have nothing to manage if there is no science. Etc.
How do we address the kidnapping problem?
Part of the problem must be economic. Another could relate to a sense of injustice projected by an awareness of corruption. It is also crucial to identify and destroy the kidnapping networks.
How are people to be enabled to gain employment without unnecessary difficulty? How can the cost of living be significantly reduced to make life easier and crime less compelling? How can the corruption be reduced significantly and hopefully eliminated so that people are less prone to consider themselves justified in using desperate methods against a society they see as having betrayed them? How can the kidnapping networks be identified and destroyed?
Addressing these questions would span a broad range of skills that go beyond such sciences as physics, chemistry and medicine.You are digressing to social and security problems. I never claimed that science has all the answers to non-scientific problems. Science and tchnology, for me, is about builiding/manufacturing things. It is about building industries. It is about creating products for local and international markets. Etc.
Another challenge is energy, particularly the generation and distribution of electricity, this being critical to running a modern economy and society and to business and research in all fields.
Power generation is a demonstration of science and technology. Is Nigeria failing in achieving this basic task adequately because of a lack of scientists and engineers or because of inadequacies in the allocation of resources and their application to the task at hand? Can such failures of allocation and implementation be corrected by science and technology or do they operate in the more shadowy zone of political vision and commitment to the nation rather to political cliques?Again, science does not addres all social problems. Science does not solve our corruption and incompetence problem. What science can do, though, is to offer additional alternative energy generation methods...such as using solar power or even some agro-based products (eg ethanol)
I don't get the impression that having skilled scientists running the country or even running the power and steel ministry automatically translates into efficient management of these resources.No one says scientists have to run the country. Was the US, for example, led by scientists when they started their industrial revolution? It does not matter who runs the nation...as long as they understand the fact that modern nations are built based on knowledge-based economies rooted in advances in science and technology. Bush was the C-in-C for the USA for 8 agonizing years, for God's sake. Did he do anything to alter the deep-rooted mindset in America that science and technology is what builds nations? Did he mess up with Silicon Valley, for example? Did he mess up with university grants/funding? Did he cut the budget for science and technology research (NSF and related bodies)? Of course not. No self-respecting nation jokes with science and technology. It is, and will always be, the engine of the economy.Such skill is necessary but is it the absence of such skill that has led to the country not being able to account for the huge sums of money allocated to developing the refineries and to Nigeria being largely an importer rather than a processor of its own oil? What role does the county and its indigenised companies play in oil exploration and extraction? Are the limitations of the country in this area due more to lack of skilled personnel than to inadequate political will and planning to develop and equip such personnel in the first place?
As it is, the only Nigerian industry in which its citizens demonstrate originality that enables them stand out as group in the global community and earn significant income for the nation on that basis is is Nollywood, an example of the very story telling that Abba derides as not being central to developing a modern society. This is the only industry in which Nigerians as a group demonstrate originality.Science and technology is at the core of what Nollywood does. Will there be Nollywood if film and camera were not invented, for example? Who invented these things...storytellers or scientists and engineers? The arts industry in Nigeria (and anywhere else in the world) will be essentially non-existent if you take away advances in science and technology. This is, of course, very obvious.It is also the most visible original export of the nation. I expect it is the highest foreign exchange earner of the nation from any original achievement of its citizens.The Nigerian oil industry, as far as I know, is largely a buying and selling industry. Selling crude oil, buying processed petroleum. The banking industry is not known for any particular innovations, to the best of my very limited knowledge of banking. I also doubt if Nigerian banks have a significant global reach.Will there be oil and/or banking industry without technology? I honestly do not understand why you are saying these things.To what degree are they engaged in economic activities outside Nigeria and to what degree do they contribute to driving development in Nigeria?This is not relevant. Will there be banking and oil industry if we had no technology? Will arts contribute at all in the development of oil and banking industries in Nigeria? This is the crux of the matter. Maybe you do not understand what I am arguing about. For me, modern nations are built based on science. There will, simply, be no oil industry if there was no technology. There won't be banking industry if there was no technology. There won't be Nollywood if there was no technology.Do they fund genuine claims to scientific and technological achievement in Nigeria? To what degree do they fund the obvious success of Nollywood so that the industry can move beyond sheer volume to greater quality that can penetrate global markets beyond what is likely to be its Black African fan base at home and abroad? The stupendous budgets, which allied with a dazzling array of skills, enables Hollywood to rule the global film world must be based to a significant degree on backing by financial institutions. What role are similar institutions in Nigeria playing in this crying need?
Digression.
In sum, to describe any society as based on science and technology in the narrow sense of the physical and the biological sciences, talk less of claiming that African societies need to be based on science and technology to achieve modernity, is a very limited understanding of science and technology as well as of social development and management, talk less of the development of civilizations.I totally disagree. You have not made a case for this at all.
It is accurate, instead, to describe modern societies as based on critical thinking, based on evidence and aspiration to social ideals that empower as many people as possible.Good science is based on critical thinking and evidence (rigour)...there can be no innovation without such.Science also, in general, addresses the needs of society. So, what you say in this case is in line with what science is. It is merely a basic, not ``accurate", component of what constitutes good science.These approaches are focused on rather than on speculation or religious faith. Within this context, science and technology are harnessed in concert with other disciplines in building and running these societies.I absolutely have no idea what you mean here. Science has no connection with religion. I cannot see the connection. Science applied to other (non-science) disciplines is still science. What are you saying here?
To describe the role of the arts in Nigeria, and particularly of story telling, as very limited or irrelevant in relation to building a modern society is to ignore the facts of history, as demonstrated spectacularly in the economic and larger social impact of Nollywood, the most significant industry in Nigeria in terms of originality in relation to global reach.Like I stated above, there will be no Nollywood without science and technology. Prove me wrong.Abba
__._,_.___![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment