27 Captive Mind : Syed Hussein Alatas

Gitanjali Joshua

1.  Introduction 

The phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ is best understood in the historical context from which it emerges.  This historical context involves colonialism but does not run parallel to it. Colonialism as it is conventionally understood did involve political and economic domination and exploitation of indegenous (and typically non-western) populations by external agents, usually people of Western origin. Though, most ‘colonies’ gained their independance from their colonial masters around the time of the Second World War the consequences of colonialism are still with us today. One of these consequences is what Syed Hussein Alatas describes as the ‘captive mind’. He uses this term to describe an uncritical acceptance and imitation of Western forms of thought and knowledge by scholars from the non-West. (Alatas, S.H., 1974).

2.  Who is Syed Hussein Alatas? 

Syed Hussein Alatas was a Malaysian sociologist and politician. His academic work focussed on themes of corruption, imperialism, colonialism and post-colonialism in the context of which he developed the concept of the ‘captive mind’. Syed Hussein Alatas was the Vice Chancellor at the University of Malaya. His most famous work was ‘The Myth of the Lazy Native’ which dealt with the western colonial stereotype about the fabled laziness of native Malaysians.

He is also well known as one of the founders and an active member of the political party known as the ‘Gerekan’. He later left the ‘Gerekan’ to start another party called the ‘Pekemas’ based on broadly similar concerns of social justice as the ‘Gerekan’ had been.

(http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1486897.Syed_Hussein_Alatas,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hussein_Alatas)

3.  The context of colonization 

The expansion of the empires of various parts of the Western world through colonization of the non-West took place from around 1500 A.D and ended roughly in the mid-1900s. While colonization involved economic and political exploitation of the colonized groups, usually indegenous populations, by their colonial masters, it was only towards the end of the colonial periods that the foundation for the more lasting effects of colonialism were laid. These more lasting effects are hard to recognise as they were not directly imposed by visibly exploitative ‘other’s, but were embraced by the local populations in their bid to convince themselves and their colonizers of their own merit. Key among these is the insidious malaise of academia that Syed Hussein Alatas captured in his phrase, ‘captive mind’, arising in the context of what he calls ‘intellectual imperialism’ (Alatas, S.H., 2000).

As part of the enterprise that the newly independant former colonial territories undertook in attempting to set up autonomous governments which would answer to their own cultural norms as well as the standards of their erstwhile colonizers, the ‘intellectuals’ among them took their places in public life, universities and  other positions of power. These intellectuals were most often trained in the universities and traditions of the West. Their understanding of history was shaped by Western paradigms. Their very concept of knowledge was organized according to the scheme of Western knowledge. Their knowledge was also applied in institutions which had been shaped and often created by the colonial encounter. Their professional lives were lived in universities modelled on Western universities. Thus, it is not surprising, that much scholarly thought was built on western premises.

Writing from the context of Malaysia, Syed Hussein Alatas speaks of ‘captive minds’ or uncritical imitative thinkers who are overly dependant on the Western scholarly edifice as opposed to scholars who possess the critical acumen to distinguish universal aspects of their subject from the specifics of European culture which they are entwined with. The assumption that all or most legitimate forms of knowledge originated in the West is part of this problem. It springs in part from scholars’ educational backgrounds as well as the modelling of legal-institutional apparatus and centres of learning along the lines of Western models. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

While the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ appears amongst practitioners in all scholarly disciplines,  Alatas’ focus is on ‘captive minds’ within the social sciences and humanities. We shall also limit our exploration of the concept to these domains, though this is not to suggest that the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ does not manifest in the natural sciences as well.

4. Characteristics of the ‘captive mind’ 

As Syed Hussein Alatas describes in his seminal essay ‘The Captive Mind and Creative Development’, a ‘captive mind’ is “the product of higher institutions of learning, either at home or abroad, whose way of thinking is dominated by Western thought in an imitative and uncritical manner” (Alatas, S.H., 2004: 83)

He answers the question ‘What is a captive mind?’ by enumerating its characteristics as follows (Alatas, S.H., 2000):

1. It is a product of higher institutions of learning at home or abroad whose way of thinking imitates, and is dominated by Western thought in an uncritical manner.

2. It is uncreative and incapable of raising original problems.

3. It’s method of thinking depends on current stereotypes.

4. It is incapable of separating the particular from the universal and consequently fails to adapt the universally valid corpus of knowledge to the particular local situations.

5. It is fragmented in outlook.

6. It is alienated from the major issues of society.

7.  It is separated from its own intellectual pursuit.

8. It is unconscious of its own captivity and its conditioning factors.

9. It cannot be studied in a quantitative manner but can be studied through empirical observation.

10. It is the result of Western dominance upon the rest of the world

5.  Related Phenomena 

5.1  The hegemony of institutions 

It is virtually impossible for a mind to be called ‘captive’ unless it has been systematically conditioned in a certain way. One excellent site for conditioning is the educational apparatus, and especially the apparatus of higher education. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

For decades, since the nations of the non-west recieved their formal independance from their respective colonial masters, scholars have sought high quality education in Europe and America. In India especially, this has been the case for several years even before independance, as European systems and Indian systems modelled along the same lines as theirs had been seen as emancipatory instruments from the oppression of the caste system. As ‘higher’ learning had traditionally been associated with a certain caste, the non-caste- specific availability of western education held great appeal. Western education was originally opened to Indians in a bid to train sufficient numbers to carry out the duties of minor offices in the civil service, under colonial rule. Thus education could also be seen as a pathway to responsibility and social standing. The nature of education these institutions provided was, naturally based on western systems of governance and privileged western values and modes of thought. It sometimes consciously and other times unconsciously devalued indegenous Indian traditions of knowledge. The more competitive among the Indian scholars often managed to go to the source of this intellectual tradition- the parent colonial country- to recieve a better quality of education.

It is likely that a similar attraction to western education played an analogous part in other non-western nations’ intellectual history. This altered understanding of academic excellence as originating solely from the West and its intellectual traditions is a great contributor to the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’. And this understanding is sytematically inculcated through our education systems.

While there may be much universal value to the western tradition of systematic knowledge, there is a danger in accepting as universal many aspects of western thought which masquerade as being universal, though they are in fact particular to the situation in which they were concieved of. Higher educational institutions across the world usually train scholars in Western modes of thought. It is only in recent times that these mainstream institutions have begun to be aware of the dangers of an uncritical acceptance of Western modes of thought  as universal. Accordingly attempts are made to expose students to non-western modes of thought. However, these are still presented as alternatives to the dominant and by far more developed modes of thought. Further non-western thought is reconstructed, in most cases, as there is rarely a continuous tradition of it that has survived the colonial encounter. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

In any case, it remains true that academic institutions of higher learning by and large serve to reinforce western knowledge as the most acceptable form of knowledge, complicit with the global systems of power today. This is a large factor in the proliferation and predominance of the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’.

5.2  Imitative thinking 

In his article on ‘The Captive Mind and Creative Development’, Syed Hussein Alatas clarifies that his quarrel is not with imitation per se, but with the particular uncritical manifestation of it that plagues academia in the non-West. He makes a distinction between ‘constructive imitation’ and ‘negative imitation’ and insists that no society can progress purely through its own inventions, without adopting and assimilating useful aspects of other societies and cultures. Thus, imitation is not only necessary, but also desirable, so long as it is constructive. (Alatas, S.H., 2004: 85)

He also speaks of negative imitation as paralleling Duesenberry’s demonstration effect, a theory in economics. “The main drive in the assimilation of social science knowledge from the West is the belief in its utility and superiority. The assimilation of this knowledge and technique exhibits parallel traits to those of the demonstration effect. They are (a) frequency of contact; (b) weakening or breakdown of previous knowledge or habit; (c) prestige attaching to the new knowledge; and (d) that it is not necessarily rational  and utilitarian.” (Alatas, S.H., 1972: 11)

Alatas enumerates the characteristics of healthy creative imitation as

• being based on conscious rational choice
• supporting existing sound values
• considering problems surrounding the adoption of the innovation in question in a cultural context different from the one in which it originated
• not adopting it would be detrimental to society
• deepening the understanding of surrounding phenomena
• not disruptive of other more valued aspects of social life
• not creating tensions and strains which would undermine the purpose of its own adoption
• entering the collective value system and being recognized as valuable by large groups of the population
• not being caused by external manipulation

In contrast, negative imitation is unhealthy and detrimental for the academic community, and society at large. (Alatas, S.H., 2004: 85)

The negative imitation which Alatas objects to is specifically uncritical imitation. It is thus not a reflexive process involving the characteristics of creative imitation, but a blind borrowing of concepts and methodology which does not take into account the specificities of the situation to which it is being applied.

For instance, the concept of religion has certain contours when applied to religions that exist predominantly in the West, such as Christianity and Judaism. These features may to an extent be analogous to features of Islam. However when dealing with religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the definition of religion breaks down (Alatas, S.H., 2000). Buddhism does not necessarily involve a conception of God or a supreme being, and Hinduism is not centrally organized as most branches of the Christian church are. Hinduism, further has no agreed upon central tenets of religion. Clearly the concept of religion must be redefined if it is to fit religions like Hinduism and Buddhism within its frame. Alternatively, such philosophies need not be classified as ‘religions’, and a new term can be created for them. Either of these theoretical choices display a certain creativity in imitation of the concept of religion, which is according to several scholars not native to India. A blind acceptance of these philosophical traditions as religions coupled with a lack of initiative to redefine the concept of religion would constitute an uncritical adoption of the concept of religion – in other words, negative imitation.

The selection of problems for analysis is an important marker of the level of creativity in thought. Often scholars chose to study aspects of their societies which are of interest in the social context of the west, but may not be of as much significance in their home countries. While this may at times be a conscious choice made in order to bring attention to hitherto ignored aspects of their cultures, it is often merely an imitation of the kind of thought they are trained in, without critical reflection. When this is the case, it results in largely pointless research which ignores significant issues in the home culture.(Alatas S.H, 2004)

Thus, imitative thinking is a feature of the intellectual enterprise which must be handled with care. While creative imitation is necessary for the progress of human thought, negative imitation is merely a necessary condition for the reproduction of captive minds. Selection of research problems is an important aspect of scholarly thought, which reflects the degree of creativity in imitation.

5.3 Relationship between the universal and the particular 

Though most bodies of knowledge had origins outside the Western world as well as within it, the history of domination of the non-west by the west has rendered many meaningful contributions of non-western intellectuals before colonialism, invisible. In the discipline of sociology, for example, the earliest recorded attempt to systematically understand society was undertaken by Ibn Khaldun. (Alatas, S.H., 2006)

Ibn Khaldun was a 14th century Arab historian, sociologist and philosopher. His work is one of the earliest available recorded systematic attempts to study history and society. Khaldun’s work is what may be termed ‘autonomous’ as it evolved outside the frame of colonial domination and exploitation. His methodology developed independant of external hegemonic domination. Despite his brilliant intellectual contributions to the human search for knowledge, however, Khaldun’s work was not widely known until it was ‘discovered’ by western scholars and lauded by them.

Western intellectual traditions are similarly autonomous, as they arose from within their own historical contexts. Today’s non-western scholars on the other hand, trace their intellectual heritage to European roots. While there is much to be learned from these intellectual traditions, it is imperative that elements which are specific to the European context be recognised as such and not treated as universal.

Today’s non-western scholars are trained in Western methodology and trace the history of their disciplines to Western roots. Additionally they have trouble separating the universal aspects of the subjects they study  from the particular historical context in which the concepts arose. This is particularly significant in the social sciences and humanities. (Alatas, S.H., 2006)

Syed Hussein Alatas clarifies this point by talking about what he considers the universal aspects of social science which form the bedrock of the discipline. These include such concepts as ‘culture’, ‘values’, ‘religion’, ‘group’, ‘social stratification’ and so on (Alatas, S.H., 2006: 8). The form of each of these categories is particular to the context in which it is applied. ‘Culture’ in Tamil Nadu refers to something very different from ‘culture’ in Tokyo. However, the word refers to an aspect of human life and society that exists across borders. These concepts are thus, universally valid while their manifestation is particular to space, time and historical context. They themselves come together in different ways in different contexts.

It is when scholars do not distinguish between the particularities of their situation and the universal aspects of theory, that the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ becomes evident. (Alatas, S.H., 2004) For instance, a sociologist seeking to understand inequality in an Indian context will be unable to glean any useful insights unless s/he uses the organizing factor of caste – a concept specific to the Indian context-, rather than depending on class and gender alone, as s/he might have learnt to, in a Western context. Further, s/he must explore the interrelations of caste and religion to class in India and recognise the complexities of gender which also play a part in shaping these structures of inequality, as these factors which are considered universal play an important part in the Indian context as well.

While this may seem a simple and even simplistic error to guard against, it is easy to make. Most high- achieving scholars in the non-West today, seek to educate themselves in institutions abroad (usually Europe and America). Naturally, instruction in such institutions is in idioms that are common to western culture. Even when there is much effort taken to include perspectives from populations from the non-west who have emigrated there, western categories are still assumed to be universal, with the particulars of non-western instances of these categories being seen as departures from the norm. Premier national universities and institutions are often staffed by faculty who are celebrated for having studied in renowned western institutions. Their instruction, are often similarly biased. This systematically reproduced way of viewing the world contributes in large part to the malaise of the ‘captive mind’. (Alatas, S.H., 1972)

Syed Hussein Alatas cites an example from Malaysian history to illustrate the dangers of being unable to separate the universal from the particular in one’s discipline. “It is the general view that, no matter what negative effects Western colonialism had on Southeast Asia, it introduced modern science and technology to the area. A historian with a captive mind does not challenge this presupposition. He takes it as axiomatic. However, my own research into the history of sociology of colonialism in Southeast Asia revealed that colonialism was a retarding factor in the assimilation of modern science and technology from the West.” (Alatas, S.H., 2004 :85)

He clearly illustrates here, the difference between making a mistake in terms of facts, which can be easily corrected, and in terms of adopting a paradigm or what he calls the ‘fundamental presuppositions of historical interpretation’. The phenomena of the ‘captive mind’ is a case of accepting hegemony in the latter.

5.4  Science, Indegeneity and Autonomy 

Alatas has great respect for science and scientific knowledge and considers such knowledge to be universal and unimpeachable. This is not to say that he is not sensitive to errors in the application of the scientific method. The ‘captive mind’ is one phenomena which causes errors in otherwise scientific knowledge, according to Alatas. And it is one of the more subtle distortions existing in the fabric of knowledge. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

In his laying bare of the phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ Alatas explicitly states that his intention is not to politicize the ground of knowledge creation. He further insists that his categorization of territories as   Western and non-western is non perjorative and entirely for purposes of description. While his analysis can be interpreted in politically significant ways critical of western colonialism and knowledge production, as per his own remarks, his intentions are far from political. He insists that the direction of progress in the social sciences is along the western tradition of social sciences. He merely argues for greater criticality in the acceptance and use of methods and concepts. (Alatas, S.H., 2006 :10)

An indegenous tradition of knowledge is one that has evolved locally, free from external interferance. It is no longer possible (if it ever was) to evolve such traditions, given the level of interlinking between peoples in today’s world. Even if it were possible, it is probably not advisable. As indicated before there is something to be said for creative imitation, in terms of the progress of knowledge. One merely has to guard against the negative brand of imitation. Alatas celebrates science as being universal and argues that the indegenization   of science (he considers social science to be a scientific pursuit) is not possible. He suggests that it is merely possible and necessary in the application of science (Alatas, S.H., 2004). And as discussed before it is important to distinguish between the universal aspects of a theory and its particulars which are products of its time and space of origin.

Autonomy of thought and scholarly tradition is a concept subtly yet significantly different from indegeneity. An autonomous scientific tradition does not seek to separate itself from existing traditions and develop independantly. Rather, it incorporates existing knowledge and applies it critically, where appropriate, to local phenomena. Autonomous social science further seeks to add to the universal body of social scientific thought, rather than merely apply western ategories to non-western contexts indiscriminately. (Alatas, S.H., 2006 : 10)

Syed Hussein Alatas advocates an autonomous tradition of academic thought as the answer to the malaise of the ‘captive mind’.

5.5  Alientation 

A ‘captive mind’ according to Syed Hussein Alatas is alienated both from the major issues as well as the intellectual tradition of its society. As we have explored earlier, uncritical imitation of western modes of thought shapes not only the methodology used to explore a problem as well as the paradigm and assumptions that inform the exploration, but also the choice of the problem itself. Thus, a ‘captive mind’ would not recognise and be interested in studying the major issues of the society s/he lives in. This is not to be confused with conscious scholarly interest in problems which have been ignored in one’s own society but gained much interest in international circles. A conscious decision to study a much ignored aspect of one’s own society. The important factor here is the consciousness of the choice and the existence of critical reasons for it. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

Similarly, a ‘captive mind’ is likely to be unaware of the scholarly traditions of his/her home country (assuming of course, that such traditions exist). An uncritical acceptance of celebrated western modes of thought, promoted by institutions of higher learning, may condition scholars to ignore or even devalue the work of their colleagues and predecessors. As with Ibn Khaldun, it is at times only with Western ‘discovery’ of scholarly work and its recognition and celebration in the West, that scholars in the home country learn of the existence of their own intellectual heritage. In such a situtaion, it is hardly likely that there will be continuity of these intellectual traditions as they are rediscovered and reconstructed after much disuse. (Alatas, S.H., 2006)

These two types of alienation, both from issues and problems as well as intellectual traditions, are characteristic of the ‘captive mind’, with its uncritical celebration of all that is western. Such alientation indicates an ignorance of such scholars, though they may be well read in theories that are western in origin. Naturally such scholarship as they produce is hardly likely to be of great worth.

5.6  Lack of consciousness of its own captivity and fragmented understanding of reality 

A captive mind is necessarily not conscious of its own captivity. Naturally if a scholar was conscious of his/her own lack of criticality they would have taken the first step towards reflexivity and cease to be ‘captive’. It is also this lack of consciousness which makes the ‘captive mind’ more difficult to recognise and do away with. (Alatas, S.H., 2006)

Further, a ‘captive mind’ is blind to the conditions which render it captive. Thus, it takes at face value the fact of the end of colonialism and fails to see the subtle structure of the continuing networks of power still arranged along similar lines to those established by colonialism. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

A ‘captive mind’ thus has a fragmented understanding of reality and fails to see the larger picture. A scholar with a captive mind recognises only classically accepted problems and concepts as legitimate areas of academic inquiry. S/he sees the world in terms of categories long established and taught in institutions of higher education. The interrelations between such concepts which often redefine the concepts themselves are invisible to such ‘captive minds’. This fragmented understanding of reality allows scholars with a ‘captive mind’ to remain unconscious of their condition and of the intellectualy domination of academia by western forms of knowledge due to the power structures set up through our colonial histories. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

5.7  Empirical manifestations 

The occurance or empirical manifestation of the phenomenon of the captive mind is near impossible to measure and thus not available for quantitative analysis. When an idea or a theory is put forward, it is impossible to know how each person who encounters it reacts to it – whether they accept it as is, or interpret it through their own experience, struggle with it reject parts and adapt it to fit their own context or reject it outright. Thus the occurance of the ‘captive mind’ is impossible to quantify. However, when such thought is detected it is imperative that it is challenged and the scholar is made aware of his/her lack of originality and relevance. (Alatas, S.H., 2004 : 86)

A qualitative study of ‘captive minds’ on the other hand is quite possible and easily achievable through the critical examination of scholarly output.

5.8  The captor mind 

Syed Hussein Alatas goes on to describe the counterpart to the ‘captive mind’, which he refers to as the ‘captor mind’. A ‘captor mind’ is merely a ‘captive mind’ which perpetuates the captivity. Thus, any scholar who imparts knowledge uncritically without adapting it to their own context is part of the edifice which perpetuates ‘captive minds’ and therefore functions as a ‘captor mind’. While this perpetuation may not be conscious, it does not make it any less dangerous to the academic enterprise. (Alatas, S.H., 2004 : 96)

As Alatas informs us, the main characteristic of a ‘captor mind’ is his/her ‘presentation of the sciences as not contextual, philosophical, relational and inter-cultural’. This highly damaging paradigm is an important vehicle for the maintainence of the world structures of power and intellectual hegemony. It is especially damaging when ‘captor minds’ exist not as self-preservation in a coercive regime, but unconscious of their function in the world structures of domination. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

6. Suggestions to counter the captive mind 

Syed Hussein Alatas suggests a few measures to combat the spread of ‘captive minds’. He does not see education abroad as distinctly different from education at home in terms of the perpetuation of the ‘captive mind’. His major suggestion is more of a guiding principle rather than a concrete action. He suggests that scholars be exposed to Western learning but ‘assimilate it in a selective and constuctive manner’. Syed Hussein Alatas also suggested that social scientists be specifically aware of and guard against bias at the levels of abstraction, generalization, conceptualization, problem-setting, explanation and the understanding and mastery of data, both in their research and in their teaching careers. According to him bias at the level of methodology is earier for scholars to recognize and accept, than questioning their own critical acumen. Therefore these levels pose a more insidious and dangerous challenge to knowledge production. (Alatas, S.H., 1972: 12)

Thus a more critical understanding is called for with a consciousness of which aspects of a theory form the universally valid structure and which are expressions of the particular context from which the theory arose. A more holistic view of the theory is required, with a consciousness of its relationship to other theories as well as a perspective on its place with relation to major issues of the scholars’ society and within the intellectual tradition that exists there.

He also recognises that “What is needed for the study of developing areas is not merely to point out the inadequacies of current models and analyses uncritically derived from Western scholars and social science. What we need are alternative models, methodologies and concepts to modify, supplement, or substitute those already available. This could and should be done by Asian scholars for strictly scientific reasons.” (Alatas, S.H., 1972: 20)

In terms of more specific institutional mechanisms, Alatas suggests the introduction of courses designed to promote such critical acumen and selective assimilation. He suggests that they specifically address uncritical imitation as ‘an aspect of the international movement of thought’. He further suggests that such courses be inter-disciplinary and be taught by instructors who are well versed in these matters and are not themselves ‘captive/captor minds’.

He outlines the necessary action for scholars from the non-West (though he is specifically concerned with Asian scholars) as follows (Alatas, S.H., 1972: 20 & 21):

To eliminate or restrict the intellectual demonstration effect so that it does not constitute a serious impediment.

To divert the demonstration effect into a process of selective and independent assimilation.

To attain a higher standard of scientific and intellectual consciousness by measuring Asian attainments with comparable disciplines in developed countries.

To sustain interest in comparative studies as part of the individual scholar’s preparation.

To interest government and public leaders in the development of a genuine and autonomous social science tradition in Asia.

To enlist the support of sympathetic foreign scholars.

To mount a fierce public attac~ of fallacious planning and the abuses of social science thought and methodology by selecting concrete local targets.

To awaken the consciousness of the social scientists in Asia to their own intellectual servitude. To discuss all these matters on campuses and in professional journals.

Alatas also comments on which country should be responsible for providing such courses. In cases where students are studying abroad, should it be the home country or the host country which is held responsible for such instruction? While it would be generous of the host country to offer such courses, Alatas suggests that the responsibility is that of the home country. For students studying in their home country, compulsory courses as part of the curriculum are important. For students abroad, Alatas suggests government funded summer courses on such topics. A careful selection of instructors and material is also extremely important. The contributions of non-western scholars should be highlighted during the course and journals and books on the subject of the ‘captive mind’ should be published and students exposed to such ideas. (Alatas, S.H., 2004)

7.  Conclusion 

The phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ as elaborated upon by Syed Hussein Alatas defies easy definition and classification. In this module we have discussed some major aspects of it in order to gain a sense of what the term means. These characteristics, however are hardly exhaustive.

Despite this, a relatively accurate sense of the condition has been put forward. The reasons why such a condition is dangerous to the intellectual enterprise of our times are obvious. Apart from distorting our existing base of knowledge, ‘captive minds’ serve to mask and entrench the global superstructure of power. Naturally such consequences are unwelcome. It is therefore imperative that we recognise manifestations of the ‘captive mind’ and confront them.

Syed Hussein Alatas’ contribution to scholarship everywhere through this attempt to enrich human thought by ridding it of a major inhibiting factor should be remembered for both its originality and critical thrust.

8.  Summary 

The phenomenon of the ‘captive mind’ was first described by Syed Hussein Alatas. He used the term to describe a condition which rendered scholars from the non-West uncritically accepting of Western thought and imitative of Western patterns of thinking.

The ‘captive mind’ arises in the context of colonialism and is recognizable through several characteristics, including being a product of higher institutions of learning, being uncreative, dependent on stereotypes, unable to distinguish between the particular and the universal, having a fragmented outlook, being alienated from the major issues of society, separated from its own intellectual pursuit and unconscious of its own captivity. It can be studied through empirical observation and is the result of Western dominance upon the rest of the world.

An understanding of the hegemony of institutions, imitative thinking, the inability to distinguish between the universal and the particular, science, indegeneity, autonomy, alienation and the captor mind can make the idea of the ‘captive mind’ clearer. In adition we should be aware of the captive mind’s lack of consciousness  of its own capacity, fragmented understanding of reality and empirical manifestations.

In order to counter the influence of the ‘captive mind’, the guiding principle is to be critical when receiving knowledge. Courses which engage with such issues should be taught and a critical engagement fostered. Scholars must use caution at the levels of abstraction, generalization, conceptualization, problem-setting, explanation and the understanding and mastery of data, both in research as well as in teaching. Ideally, the home nation of the scholars from the non-West should invest in these courses.

References

1. Alatas, Syed Hussein. ‘The Captive Mind in Development Studies’, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 24 (1) (1972)
2. Alatas, Syed Hussein ‘Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits and Problems’, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28(1): 23-45 (2000)
3. Alatas, Syed Hussein. ‘The Captive Mind and Creative Development’ in ‘Indigeneity and Universality in Social Science’ (2004) edited by Partha Nath Mukherji and Chandan Sengupta. Originally published in International Social Science Journal, Vol. 26 (4) (1974)