FOR too long, our culture has remained persistent in striving for conformity, where nodding signifies the virtue of respect, and the proper manner in approaching knowledge is to be in solidarity with ideas presented to you. At least, these were the guidelines handed down to me through the passage of time and tradition. But the question is, are we handing down the proper cognitive tools to our successors in this seemingly endless pursuit of knowledge?
For 14 years of my life, I went out in pursuit of knowledge, through formal education, equipped with the tools handed down to me, or perhaps, acquired by my uninformed self, through latent nuances in social interactions around me. I found that period of time rather empty and monotonous, not due to the lack of input, but rather because of the absence of output.
Then, at 15, I began to develop a deep interest in history, philosophy and literature.
When I began to read from extracurricular sources and found myself actively engaging in discourses with my History and English teachers, lessons became more of a two-way exchange of insights rather than a one-way delivery.
The reason that I began to challenge what was taught in textbooks was because I had forsaken the cloak of conformity that I wore earlier in my scavenging for knowledge; it gave me multiple insights and allowed me to roam further while handling the information given to me in classrooms.
From then on, I lived my life a sceptic, embracing things that were taught to me with a new toolkit, one of scrutiny and questions. For the next four years, this year being the fourth year, I can safely say that I found my everyday learning experience enriching and humbling as I had my ideas forwarded and challenged, and was involved in discussions that were beyond my scope of knowledge. These were the kind of experiences that intellectual dissent had led me to.
Now then, what should we do? We need to scrutinise our long established culture of standing by what has been decided (borrowing the legal doctrine of stare decisis) and the seemingly high value of conformity, because, for one to effectively approach knowledge, one must be able to challenge the ideas available as this is a crucial factor in allowing debates and discourses in academia to flourish and ultimately, open the door to an even deeper understanding of existing doctrines, information and concepts.
Bear also in mind that the act of questioning is not necessarily done in a provocative and rude manner. As with all matters in human communication, civility, sensibility, courtesy and empathy are the vehicles in which dissent should be mobilised.
So in our pursuit of knowledge, let us embrace the culture of intellectual dissent and move forward as a society refreshed.
Ijlal Hannan Hafeedz, Alor Star, Kedah