Freire defined “the term, conscientização [as] learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 17). Freire stated that instead of destroying their world, conscientização “enrolls them (the oppressed) in the search for self-affirmation and thus avoid fanaticism” (p. 18).
It is interesting to me that Freire links Christians and Marxists together in the same group as the ones who would be the most open to his ideas. He stated that although “they may disagree with me . . . [they] will continue reading to the end” (p. 19). The explanation that he suggested is that these two groups are both in agreement with human liberation and recognize that man is presently being oppressed. In this definition, Freire describes both of these groups as radical. “The radical, committed to human liberation, does not become the prisoner of a ‘circle of certainty’ within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better he or she can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side. The pedagogy of the oppressed . . . is a task for radicals; it cannot be carried out by sectarians” (p. 21). Freire defined sectarianism as “any quarter, [which] is an obstacle to the emancipation of mankind” (p. 19).
I was surprised by Freire’s statement that the oppressors do not have the power or “strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves . . . only [the] power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free [them] both” (p. 26). It is almost Biblical in nature; in our weakness, we are strong. As he explained, “who can better understand the necessity of liberation?” (p. 27). Freire further challenged the oppressed to not turn and become oppressors themselves after freeing themselves, but choose to become “restorers of the humanity of both” (p. 26).
What then is the role of the oppressor in this liberation? Freire stated that “the oppressor is solidary with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor—when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love . . . to affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free” (p. 32).
I can understand the power of what Freire achieved in Brazil because he not only taught peasants to read, his word and his philosophy empowered them to become their own liberators. They were the ones who “recognize or begin to recognize themselves as oppressed [and they] must be among the developers of the pedagogy” (pp. 35-36). The pedagogy “cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors”; it needs to be far away from any “models from among the oppressors” (p. 36).
Freire quoted Memmi in describing the contradiction of feelings that the oppressed have about the oppressor. The oppressed have a “colonized mentality” where they at the same time hate the oppressor and yet want to be just like him (Memmi, 1967, p. x). The solution that Freire found to counter this emotional contraction was conscientização, which would lead to “transformation” (p. 49).
Another concept that Freire tackled was the philosophy of education. He viewed the whole concept of tabula rasa as another type of oppression; He defined this type of thinking as the “banking concept of education” where teachers are depositing knowledge into empty “receptacles” (p. 53). The problem with this type of educational philosophy is that the teacher is viewed as the only holder of the power of education and the students are seen as completely ignorant; the students “never discover that they educate the teacher” (p. 53). Freire despairingly called these teachers as “bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that they are serving only to dehumanize” (p. 56).
The type of education that Freire suggested was problem-posing education, which differs from the banking type of education because it “breaks the vertical patterns . . . through dialogue” (p. 61). “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogues with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (p. 61).
Freire’s defined action research as cultural action which consisted of “action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world” p. 106). “Cultural action is always a systematic and deliberate form of action which operates upon the social structure . . . either serves domination (consciously or unconsciously) or it serves the liberation of men and women” (p. 160).
What was Freire's legacy...he changed lives in Brazil and the thinking of his students at Harvard, but what is his enduring effect? I went on-line and looked for any evidence. I found the website www.freireproject.org which has complete description of what Freire did, but also what others who joined him continue to do. This organization has established educational entities in over 20 countries world wide and 23 of the 50 states here in the U.S. The foundations for critical pedagogy is directly related to this work that has been done by Freire, McLaren, Kincheloe and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment