Education in Asia is a contested terrain, with its own contextual peculiarities. This useful volume edited by Marie Lall and Edward Vickers analyzes education as a tool for the political socialization of the population in nine Asian countries. Based on the political dynamics of the countries concerned, Education as a Political Tool in Asia argues that both nationalism and internationalism, with their own “ideological correctness,” are driving the education sector in the region. With this orientation, the book raises perfectly the Asian dilemma of whether to blindly follow the established policy ideals of the international community or to stick to indigenous models of education in the name of nationalism. For this reason, it is interesting to learn through the essays in this well-written volume that the countries in the region are extremely diverse in adopting international policy paradigms.
In his introductory essay, Vickers puts the overall orientation of the volume in these terms: “The focus throughout this volume is on the role played by schooling in the construction of political identities, and, through that, in the broader process of state formation” (p. 10). The education policies and theories of nine Asian countries are analyzed in this volume, with a macro policy perspective on education. There are chapters on Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The book adopts a broad view of the education system as a political tool in Asia. In this way, the discussion aspires to identify commonalities as well as differences across the countries in the region. The volume is valuable because it offers a comparative perspective, as each country's contexts and experiences are discussed in detail. The national undercurrents in the formation of curricular frameworks and pedagogic ideals are brilliantly analyzed.
The chapters highlight the different approaches to education by the countries in the region. For instance, education in China and Vietnam is intended mainly for the political indoctrination of state-centric patriotism. In contrast, policy ideals in Singapore and Hong Kong are mostly pro-Western, aiming to make their national economies competitive in the world. The contrast between the uncritical state-centric patriotism and pro-Western neoliberalism is therefore the central policy dilemma in the region. The chapters signal the changing policy direction toward the “individualist rather than collectivist ethos” at present.
Overall, the authors consistently maintain the common analytical thread of treating education as a political tool in the region in all the chapters. The authors' caveat about the distinct trajectories of development and culture in the region is quite persuasive. The essays display an impressive and enlightening degree of analytical rigor.
In spite of the analytical merits of the volume, there are some shortcomings. For instance, although the bibliography provided in the volume is quite useful, there are a few avoidable errors in the text, including occasional incomplete references (e.g., pp. 16, 25, 29, 154, 100, 182, and 195). Furthermore, the chapter on India misses some essential readings in its analyses. The scholarly works of Sarada Balagopalan and Veronique Benei on the role of education in India are not discussed. Furthermore, the chapter regrettably fails to refer to Krishna Kumar's important and pertinent book, Political Agenda of Education: A Study of Colonialist and Nationalist Ideas (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991), in its analysis. Although the chapter is detailed and focused, it would have been even more useful if it had included discussion of these important contributions. These shortcomings, however, do not obscure the importance of the volume. Given the fact that it vividly captures the process of education as state-sponsored socialization, it will attract a wide readership.
