The distinction/relationship between theory and practice is something that we in the humanities and social sciences are being required to engage with. The new forms/templates that we are being required to use in presenting new course syllabi for approval in the university makes a clear distinction between the theory component and the practical component of the courses; we are being required to indicate the exact number of hours dedicated to theory and the exact number of hours dedicated to ‘practicals’ for each course.
Distinction
The distinction between theory and practice in the areas of the humanities and social sciences needs to be unpacked. It is clear that the theory-practicals arrangement that is being forced on the humanities and social sciences is one that emerged in the hard sciences and has been part of those disciplines for valid and important reasons. This may be an oversimplification, but the theory-practicals distinction makes a lot of sense in the hard sciences. You learn the theory in the classroom setting and then you test/apply that theory in a laboratory or workshop setting. If I may use an example from my school days, we were taught about acidity and alkalinity in the classroom and we were also taught how litmus paper could be used to gauge the acidity/alkalinity of a liquid; then we took that knowledge to the laboratory, took a piece of litmus paper, dipped it in different types of liquid, and observed what happened. Similarly, we were introduced to convex lenses and concave lenses in the classroom; we copied down diagrams that illustrated what happens to light when it travels through those lenses; then we went to the laboratory with that knowledge, got hold of those lenses (which by the way were limited in number), and performed whatever the [limited] experiments we could perform within [the restrictions of] the [ill-equipped] laboratory. In a subject like that, it makes sense to draw a distinction between theory and practice; it also makes perfect sense to make the argument that one without the other is pointless.
The question is whether we could maintain the same distinction between theory and practice in the humanities and social sciences as well. Let me try to engage with this question using critical theory as an example. The choice of critical theory for the example is based on two factors. Firstly, critical theory cuts across the disciplinary boundaries within the humanities and social sciences, and many disciplines engage with critical theory to varying degrees for that reason. Secondly, critical theory is increasingly being seen as the outcast within the outcast, or, in simpler terms, the pariah within the pariah. It is often being viewed by parties not only outside but also within the humanities and social sciences as the refuge of the pessimists, the negative thinkers, and the trouble-makers. (In fact, the degree of hostility towards critical theory within the humanities and social sciences often reminds me of the degree and nature of hostility that Phillippe IV of France, and also the Vatican to a certain extent, harboured against the Knights Templars, which eventually lead to the unexpected annihilation of the Templars at the turn of the 14th Century. Let that be the topic for another article.)
Influence of Critical Theory
If we applied the current conceptualization of the theory-practicals arrangement to the courses in critical theory and also those subject-specific courses that are heavily influenced by critical theory we would need to teach critical theory in the lecture hall and then make the students take that theory to some context and apply it there. It sounds like something that is doable in theory, but there is an issue there. What a laboratory is to a scientist, what a workshop is to a production engineer, what a dissection room is to an anatomist, … society is to one in the humanities and social sciences. The one in the humanities and social sciences differs from the rest in one important way, and that is s/he herself/himself is very much part of the society where s/he is expected to put to test the knowledge that s/he has learnt in the classroom. There is no separate ‘mode’, like what could be called a ‘laboratory mode’ or ‘workshop mode’, which s/he needs to get into in order to carry out the practicals; s/he is always already in the social mode. In fact, the classroom setting in which the teaching of ‘theory’ takes place is very much part of the social mode. S/he herself/himself embodies the ‘life’, which critical theory applies to. S/he cannot really engage with critical theory without letting it run a scan on herself/himself. The students of critical theory often experience what, in my view, only the term ‘tremor’ aptly captures before they reach a point where they could apply such theory on a reality that is external to them. Most of the time, this ‘tremor’ continues well beyond the duration of the course, and sometimes it takes years to complete, but it certainly starts with their engagement with theory. This shows that a good part of the ‘practicals’ in the humanities and social sciences takes place in the classroom context itself, at the time the student ‘learns’ the theory. In such a setting, it makes no sense to try to conceptualize the delivery of the course in terms of a theory-practicals arrangement.
One could ask what the point in learning critical theory is. An associated question is if the time and effort of the students are not best spent acquiring skills that would give them an advantage in the world of work. In fact, these questions are widely being asked. Such questions are based on the rather problematic assumption that the theories that are learnt for the degree should be of the kind that can be immediately translated into practice; that it should be directly applicable to a predefined task or problem. They are also based on a rather superficial understanding of the idea of skills. Let me try to elaborate this point using Marxism as an example. One could claim—and some by the way actually do claim—that there’s no point in learning Marxism in the present context as Marxism is dead and gone. We may, and most definitely do, have different opinions about this claim, but even in a context where this claim is taken for granted, the question is whether that necessarily renders Marxism irrelevant. It may be true that one cannot apply the theory of Marxism in the world of work the same way one applies theories related to the idea of entrepreneurship. While the latter is increasingly seen as what is worth being learnt, the former is often dismissed as irrelevant and unproductive/counter-productive. Even in a context where we accept the premise, for the sake of argument, that accomplishing the broader goals set by Marxism is impossible in today’s world order, there are many ways in which an understanding of Marxism would become useful. It may not offer what the theories related to the idea of entrepreneurship have to offer, but the sensitivity that you have developed through your engagement with Marxism would propel you to do your part to ensure that the workplace becomes a space where discrimination is minimal and human dignity is upheld. You may not have done any explicit learning of what are called ‘problem-solving skills’, but if you as a student engaged with Marxism in a thorough manner there is no doubt that you have subconsciously acquired the kinds of skills that are necessary to solve problems. (Please note that I make a clear distinction between ‘problem-solving skills’ and the skills that are necessary to solve a problem.) You acquire those skills through a thorough and genuine engagement with Marxism or whatever the critical theory in question. You develop those skills when you debate such theory in your head and in the classroom. If you really think about it you will realize that the skills that are acquired that way give you an edge in the world of work.
A Caveat
I have a caveat to add here, though. If our teaching of critical theory takes the form of simply explaining the theory to the students without getting the students to engage with the theory directly, the whole purpose of critical theory is lost. The theories that come under critical theory are available in the form of reading materials, and therefore, there is no need for us to ‘teach’ the theory to the students. What is expected of us as teachers in the field is to get the students to actively engage with the texts. Our role should be to guide and moderate that engagement. To put it in the jargon that is popular today, what is expected of us is to create a truly student-centred learning environment in the classroom context, and also outside of it. If we forget this role and resort to simply teaching ‘facts’ about the theory the space for an active engagement with the theory on the part of the students will be lost. We cannot expect scholars with independent thinking to emerge out of learning contexts like those. Students coming out of such contexts may have ‘problem-solving skills’ provided that they have been explicitly taught those, but they will not have the skills that one needs to solve complex problems. Therefore, we as educators in the humanities and social sciences have a special role to play at this juncture.
Goal of Curriculum Revision
The goal of curriculum revision in these fields should not be to somehow incorporate soft skills at the expense of everything else but to ensure that the curriculum creates a setting where the special set of skills that the humanities and social sciences disciplines are historically expected to develop in the students. Promoting soft skills at the expense of those specific skills will only confirm the position of the graduates in those fields as weak competitors. We should rethink our teaching methods not to incorporate superficial changes to the way teaching is done but to ensure that our teaching methods help the students acquire the special set of skills that our disciplines have historically been called upon to develop in the students. That is the only way to ensure that the students in the humanities and social sciences become capable individuals armed with a unique set of skills, which will give them an edge over their counterparts in the rest of the disciplines. It is also the only way to ensure that the capable young women and men who choose disciplines in the humanities and social sciences get what they sign up for and most importantly that they are not pushed down to the level of late-developers.