by
Zakariyya Muhammad SarkiI read Dr Yusuf Adamu’s article, “For the return of geography”, which appeared in The Weekly Trust twice – first, in the 10th April, 2010 edition and second, in the 19th February, 2011 edition - with great deal of interest. The interest I developed in the article, firstly, was because the article talked about geography as a subject and I love geography. Secondly, I know the writer, personally, as a serious and dedicated scholar. Although as a science student during my secondary school days, geography was compulsory, the subject, at the same time, happened to be one of my best subjects. To me, geography was among the best subjects because of some very interesting and useful theoretical arguments the course puts forward, like “the earth is spherical” and many other aspects of the course like map reading. Human geography is also very interesting and useful. Generally, in my understanding, knowledge of weather which largely influences policy and planning in transportation, agriculture, housing, health etc. is obtained through geography. It is the geographers that study rainfall, earthquakes, volcanoes, rocks, winds and their impact on environment and human activities. To sum it up, no human society can survive without the knowledge of geography. Thus, Dr Adamu has done a great job if only by informing us that by learning geography alongside history, people become “open minded, tolerant and wise”, the things that we need to move our country forward. Hence, I support the return of geography.
However, let me state that there some arguments in Dr. Adamu’s article that call for responses, if alone to further shed light on their contents. For instance, in the article Dr. Adamu botched to recognize the reason for the decision to merge geography, not “to dump” as he said, with other subjects like history and religion to ‘create’ social studies, a subject, not just “something”. The reason for the merger, I believe, was because man influences the whole gamut of his environment (i.e. physical, social, political, economic etc.) and he is influenced by them, just as he also influences science and technology and they also influence him. In other words, one cannot study and understand human activities by studying physical environment or social environment alone without studying the other types of environment at the same time. For instance, one cannot study geography and said he knows man as he cannot study history and said he knows man; rather, he has to study both in addition to many other subjects. Perhaps, this could have been the reason why we have something like social SCIENCES (plural).
Thus, social studies came in order to give us the opportunity to ‘know’ man and his environment, by drawing from geography, history, religion, sociology, civics and even science and technology. It “is concerned with the way man lives in and interacts with his social and physical environment and how science and technology help him to live well in those environment.” Really, social studies is not civics, economics, geography, history, religion, sociology, or any of the traditional school subjects. It does NOT seek to REPLACE them. Rather, because social studies deals with the total experiences of man in his environment, IT INTEGRATES these other traditional subjects. Therefore, by learning social studies at the junior level of education, one has foundational knowledge to study any one of political science, economics, geography, sociology or history at secondary or tertiary level as the case may be.
Social studies teaches us ways of life. It is a means by which people know what they ought to know and do what they ought to do as members of a society. Thus, if learnt and used very well, social studies makes people “open minded, tolerant and wise.” And, as we can see, it cannot therefore be “the beginning of our problem in Nigeria,” as Adamu insinuated. Moreover, with knowledge of social studies, children at junior school level need not to wait for more years to learn about their country. They will know, in social studies, what is social organization and institutions (sociology), man and his physical environment (geography) and, culture and identity (Anthropology/Sociology). They will also know the rights and duties of individuals in the country as well as the common traits in national symbols (Political Science), among many other things. Indeed, it helps us know our country. How then can it be the beginning of our problem?
With this, let me believe that no social science subject could survive without another. Sentiments apart, few, if anyone, can establish convincingly which subject or academic discipline is above others. Generally, the relationship among the academic subjects, in this case social science subjects, is a kind of ‘functionalism’.
However, let me state that there some arguments in Dr. Adamu’s article that call for responses, if alone to further shed light on their contents. For instance, in the article Dr. Adamu botched to recognize the reason for the decision to merge geography, not “to dump” as he said, with other subjects like history and religion to ‘create’ social studies, a subject, not just “something”. The reason for the merger, I believe, was because man influences the whole gamut of his environment (i.e. physical, social, political, economic etc.) and he is influenced by them, just as he also influences science and technology and they also influence him. In other words, one cannot study and understand human activities by studying physical environment or social environment alone without studying the other types of environment at the same time. For instance, one cannot study geography and said he knows man as he cannot study history and said he knows man; rather, he has to study both in addition to many other subjects. Perhaps, this could have been the reason why we have something like social SCIENCES (plural).
Thus, social studies came in order to give us the opportunity to ‘know’ man and his environment, by drawing from geography, history, religion, sociology, civics and even science and technology. It “is concerned with the way man lives in and interacts with his social and physical environment and how science and technology help him to live well in those environment.” Really, social studies is not civics, economics, geography, history, religion, sociology, or any of the traditional school subjects. It does NOT seek to REPLACE them. Rather, because social studies deals with the total experiences of man in his environment, IT INTEGRATES these other traditional subjects. Therefore, by learning social studies at the junior level of education, one has foundational knowledge to study any one of political science, economics, geography, sociology or history at secondary or tertiary level as the case may be.
Social studies teaches us ways of life. It is a means by which people know what they ought to know and do what they ought to do as members of a society. Thus, if learnt and used very well, social studies makes people “open minded, tolerant and wise.” And, as we can see, it cannot therefore be “the beginning of our problem in Nigeria,” as Adamu insinuated. Moreover, with knowledge of social studies, children at junior school level need not to wait for more years to learn about their country. They will know, in social studies, what is social organization and institutions (sociology), man and his physical environment (geography) and, culture and identity (Anthropology/Sociology). They will also know the rights and duties of individuals in the country as well as the common traits in national symbols (Political Science), among many other things. Indeed, it helps us know our country. How then can it be the beginning of our problem?
With this, let me believe that no social science subject could survive without another. Sentiments apart, few, if anyone, can establish convincingly which subject or academic discipline is above others. Generally, the relationship among the academic subjects, in this case social science subjects, is a kind of ‘functionalism’.
