Here you go guys! Enjoy!
www.suburbdad.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed
There were several interesting aspects in Freire's book, many of which I felt directly connected to some of the other theorists we have read so far. I was really interested by Freire's ideas of the fear of freedom. "Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift" (47).
Freedom can be a scary thing, and it is something that perhaps even I take for granted. There are several different levels of freedom, and there seems to be a hint of anarchy in total autonomy (or maybe that was just V For Vendetta influencing me from over the weekend). But for many students, not just low class or working class, listening and agreeing to the main agenda has been ingrained with them. As many of us mentioned last week with the children of working class v. children of middle class, listening and respect differed. The children of the lower class often didn't question their parents or authority, and I feel that this barrels over into adulthood and taking control of their own life, including their own education. Therefore they stay with the status quo, only free in ignorance, but not of their own selves (if that makes any sense)
However, Freire notes that some of them are aware of the situation they are, who, "have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they incapable of running the risks it requires" (47). This feeling of resignation I feel comes the sense that they cannot change anything in their life, and as mentioned above, they fear change. So I wonder what is worse.... fear of change, or resignation to the situation you are in.
Like Freire mentions, the liberation the oppressed must go through is like a painful childbirth, ideally giving birth to their own new self. In order to do this they need teachers who believe in "liberating education consist[ing] in acts of cognition, not transferals of information" (79).This is akin to being a teacher that dumps the information in their students and expects them to spit it back out, rather than a teacher who inspires students to think on their own. Freire deems this "banking education" and unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of old school teachers in the U.S (80). Of course, I understand not all teachers are like this, and some may have even started out one way to end another. However, there is a new generation of teachers, one who "is no longer merely the one w ho teachers, but who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach" (80).
This was a particularly wonderful passage to read because last semester I had the opportunity to read Ira Shor's When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy last semester. Ira Shor was a student of critical and cultural pedagogy who took Freire's idea into the classroom with tremendous results. It was powerful to actually read the passages that may have inspired Shor's experiment, almost as if I was looking back on the "primary source."
Freedom can be a scary thing, and it is something that perhaps even I take for granted. There are several different levels of freedom, and there seems to be a hint of anarchy in total autonomy (or maybe that was just V For Vendetta influencing me from over the weekend). But for many students, not just low class or working class, listening and agreeing to the main agenda has been ingrained with them. As many of us mentioned last week with the children of working class v. children of middle class, listening and respect differed. The children of the lower class often didn't question their parents or authority, and I feel that this barrels over into adulthood and taking control of their own life, including their own education. Therefore they stay with the status quo, only free in ignorance, but not of their own selves (if that makes any sense)
However, Freire notes that some of them are aware of the situation they are, who, "have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they incapable of running the risks it requires" (47). This feeling of resignation I feel comes the sense that they cannot change anything in their life, and as mentioned above, they fear change. So I wonder what is worse.... fear of change, or resignation to the situation you are in.
Like Freire mentions, the liberation the oppressed must go through is like a painful childbirth, ideally giving birth to their own new self. In order to do this they need teachers who believe in "liberating education consist[ing] in acts of cognition, not transferals of information" (79).This is akin to being a teacher that dumps the information in their students and expects them to spit it back out, rather than a teacher who inspires students to think on their own. Freire deems this "banking education" and unfortunately, this seems to be the majority of old school teachers in the U.S (80). Of course, I understand not all teachers are like this, and some may have even started out one way to end another. However, there is a new generation of teachers, one who "is no longer merely the one w ho teachers, but who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach" (80).
This was a particularly wonderful passage to read because last semester I had the opportunity to read Ira Shor's When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy last semester. Ira Shor was a student of critical and cultural pedagogy who took Freire's idea into the classroom with tremendous results. It was powerful to actually read the passages that may have inspired Shor's experiment, almost as if I was looking back on the "primary source."
“There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes ‘the practice of freedom,’ the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”(34)
Therefore, no matter the subject, the teacher’s purpose is to teach within the context of critical literacy. This isn’t to say that teaching does not provide new information when doing away with the banking method. Instead of positioning themselves as the primary source for information, teachers become facilitators that empower students in the realization of their ability to access knowledge as well as any teacher. To teach children as objects wielded for the purposes of others, or objects merely meant to receive information, is to deny them their critical consciousness, the ability to access and draw conclusions about information. This would be a failure in attempting to teach true literacy. I was always disturbed by the notion that functional literacy was considered all-important. Yet, functional literacy seems to be the kind which re-orients students to the world of dominant ideologies shaped by those that would objectify the students for their own gains. Here instead is a literacy based on liberation and interaction, not from a position of superiority on either end, but collaboration.
However, we can’t ignore that the oppressed often do not become free, but become the oppressor because of the internalization of the oppressor’s consciousness. I believe this is the function of functional literacy. Education asks students of the lower classes to subscribe to the consciousness of the upper class in order to succeed, to the point of making the rewards of such a change seem necessary. The cycle of an oppressive minority dominating an oppressed majority may then continue with limited allowances of access to those who can both overcome cultural boundaries and succeed through “prescription”(48).
This can only be fought by reinventing the priorities of millions of people. Friere says a new human must emerge. This new human would have to be free of capitalist greed, willing to have less in order not to exploit the unseen. This is difficult when even the unseen want more, even at the expense of others like themselves. Is critical consciousness powerful enough to overcome commercialism and materialism in a country like ours?
Therefore, no matter the subject, the teacher’s purpose is to teach within the context of critical literacy. This isn’t to say that teaching does not provide new information when doing away with the banking method. Instead of positioning themselves as the primary source for information, teachers become facilitators that empower students in the realization of their ability to access knowledge as well as any teacher. To teach children as objects wielded for the purposes of others, or objects merely meant to receive information, is to deny them their critical consciousness, the ability to access and draw conclusions about information. This would be a failure in attempting to teach true literacy. I was always disturbed by the notion that functional literacy was considered all-important. Yet, functional literacy seems to be the kind which re-orients students to the world of dominant ideologies shaped by those that would objectify the students for their own gains. Here instead is a literacy based on liberation and interaction, not from a position of superiority on either end, but collaboration.
However, we can’t ignore that the oppressed often do not become free, but become the oppressor because of the internalization of the oppressor’s consciousness. I believe this is the function of functional literacy. Education asks students of the lower classes to subscribe to the consciousness of the upper class in order to succeed, to the point of making the rewards of such a change seem necessary. The cycle of an oppressive minority dominating an oppressed majority may then continue with limited allowances of access to those who can both overcome cultural boundaries and succeed through “prescription”(48).
This can only be fought by reinventing the priorities of millions of people. Friere says a new human must emerge. This new human would have to be free of capitalist greed, willing to have less in order not to exploit the unseen. This is difficult when even the unseen want more, even at the expense of others like themselves. Is critical consciousness powerful enough to overcome commercialism and materialism in a country like ours?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Foreign Language Anyone? (Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed)
First, let me say that Paulo Freire, along with Donaldo Macedo and Richard Shaull, have reaffirmed my imposter status. It is now officially true that I am, in fact, an imposter who only plays a teacher on television. Seriously. I must confess I struggled to understand much of what they wrote. I have always struggled with philosophical ideas and concepts, and I guess I need those concrete examples to fully secure meaning of abstract ideas. And, I have a weakness when it comes to Marxist jargon, which I didn’t fully appreciate till I began to read Macedo’s Introduction. I actually didn’t pinpoint what my problem was until one of Macedo’s colleagues asked about his and Freire’s use of Marxist jargon (20). I chuckled—not only because she hit the nail on the head, but because I finally realized why I was having such a difficult time trying to comprehend. And I’m happy I am not the only one who finds Freire’s writing “too difficult and cumbersome” as the professor of graduate students explained on page 23. Maybe someday I’ll even learn Portuguese and French so that I can fully appreciate what Freire has to offer!
Anyway, I think I do understand the crux of Freire’s ideology in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and I find it ironic that, although he uses scads of Marxist jargon, his message is far from my understanding of communist ideals where people do, in a sense, become machines for the dictatorship and lose their humanity and freedom. Those under communist rule have been brainwashed after years of their banking approach to education. What I can’t seem to envision is how Freire’s proposals would actually work. He says that the oppressors cannot fully understand the oppressed, and that the oppressed must be the ones to effect a change. How, then, can the oppressed even begin to understand their condition without first learning or hearing of it from an oppressor? And with regard to the pedagogy of the oppressed, how can Freire’s problem-posing approach only truly provide the education necessary for the oppressed to transform oppressive society? As I ponder Freire’s theories and proposals, I can only imagine anarchy, at least until the transformation would be complete.
As Freire discussed the “banking notion of consciousness,” whereby education “becomes the act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teachers are the depositors,” I couldn’t help but remember Julie’s discussion of the word educate and what its root, educe, really signifies (72). Most of us have been dogmatized to believe that knowledge needs to be deposited by an all-knowing entity, the standard for American education. But Freire, in his liberating philosophy and reasoning, admonishes us teachers to stay with the spirit of the word educate, advocating teachers becoming students and students becoming teachers and the two becoming partners in their education. I’m not sure this is possible all the time, but I think this is where class discussion/communication and modeling for our students comes into play.
Before I conclude this blog, I need to share a revelation. As I was driving to work this morning, thinking about Freire and what I was going to write in my blog, Supertramp’s “The Logical Song” came on the radio (yeah, I like to listen to the oldies for you youngsters out there). I began singing along when all of a sudden I realized that this song closely parallels Freire’s educational philosophy. Check it out:
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won’t you sign up your name, we’d like to feel you’re
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!
At night, when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Anyway, I think I do understand the crux of Freire’s ideology in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and I find it ironic that, although he uses scads of Marxist jargon, his message is far from my understanding of communist ideals where people do, in a sense, become machines for the dictatorship and lose their humanity and freedom. Those under communist rule have been brainwashed after years of their banking approach to education. What I can’t seem to envision is how Freire’s proposals would actually work. He says that the oppressors cannot fully understand the oppressed, and that the oppressed must be the ones to effect a change. How, then, can the oppressed even begin to understand their condition without first learning or hearing of it from an oppressor? And with regard to the pedagogy of the oppressed, how can Freire’s problem-posing approach only truly provide the education necessary for the oppressed to transform oppressive society? As I ponder Freire’s theories and proposals, I can only imagine anarchy, at least until the transformation would be complete.
As Freire discussed the “banking notion of consciousness,” whereby education “becomes the act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teachers are the depositors,” I couldn’t help but remember Julie’s discussion of the word educate and what its root, educe, really signifies (72). Most of us have been dogmatized to believe that knowledge needs to be deposited by an all-knowing entity, the standard for American education. But Freire, in his liberating philosophy and reasoning, admonishes us teachers to stay with the spirit of the word educate, advocating teachers becoming students and students becoming teachers and the two becoming partners in their education. I’m not sure this is possible all the time, but I think this is where class discussion/communication and modeling for our students comes into play.
Before I conclude this blog, I need to share a revelation. As I was driving to work this morning, thinking about Freire and what I was going to write in my blog, Supertramp’s “The Logical Song” came on the radio (yeah, I like to listen to the oldies for you youngsters out there). I began singing along when all of a sudden I realized that this song closely parallels Freire’s educational philosophy. Check it out:
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won’t you sign up your name, we’d like to feel you’re
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!
At night, when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Friere
I have never looked up so many words in one sitting. Lots of -isms -icals and certain isms causing castration.
As I read, I kept thinking...these are his thoughts about peoples' thoughts and his own thoughts. They're deep. He really used his time in exile to figure all this out. I couldn't help but wonder if this book would have ever been written had he not been in exile and observed and heard and talked about the things that made those experiences important. Was this already something he had swirling in his head but just could not articulate? Or that he was just waiting for the right experiences and people to say the right words or just figure it out for himself? I don't know. It was almost like a lecture, but not in the boring-stop-acting-like-a-philospher way. I found myself going in circles in my head..."Well, I didn't know I was afraid of freedom. Wait...or is that because I've been TOLD I'm not supposed to be afraid or is it that I am and I just won't admit it or is it that I just accept this so-called freedom as my right but it's really not freedom at all? Are we all really just being controlled?" I had to stop doing that or I would have been on the same 2 pages for 3 hours. And the same with the next 2 pages. I could have driven myself nuts. And then I saw the words sectarianism and fanaticism (21) and I thought of my mother, but I think that's getting off topic.
It is not me to be overly philosophical and over analyze these types of books in their entirety. I almost feel like it's over my head...almost. I just don't have the energy to argue with this guy, or as he asks (21) "....point out aspects I have not perceived." I don't know that I can do that. I am still trying to let all that he believes and his perception of his thoughts and experiences sink in.
On one hand, I feel like I understand his perceptions in terms of education as the oppressor. I completed a study on the education in Brazil in the spring. The short of it--kids are not required to go to secondary schools. Their primary education is sorely lacking. Families that are poor keep their kids out of school to help make money. Families that are not poor---those kids move up and get into college. The latter families are and remain literate. The government spends only 2.4% of their GNP on education which is half of what it was almost 30 years ago...and only *half* of that goes to education, and most of that half is spent on universities, not basic education. So, in a nutshell, the poor and illiterate stay poor and illiterate...and oppressed. The financially better off stay better off and become successful in business or whatever they choose to do. It's the poor that are oppressed because the government seems to keep their thumb on the very system that should help the poor become, well, less poor at the very least...by giving them the opportunity to become educated. It appears that it's the same cycle in many countries. This doesn't even include the people in countries with more educational opportunities who make it part of their thought process that there is no way out, so they don't even try. Here's the "freedom" part. (29, 30) This page talks in circles to me and I'm still trying to figure out if I have it right. How can they become unoppressed...what needs to change in their minds...or maybe it's...they are afraid of becoming unoppressed so how can they get out of it if they don't realize they are oppressed. ? I was going ot write my thoughts about chapter two (namely a line on page 53), but now I don't know what I really think. This guy is like Kramer's (Seinfeld) psychiatrist...like a non-evil svengali. I just don't have the energy to argue Friere's circular points. This book should make for interesting discussion in class...
As I read, I kept thinking...these are his thoughts about peoples' thoughts and his own thoughts. They're deep. He really used his time in exile to figure all this out. I couldn't help but wonder if this book would have ever been written had he not been in exile and observed and heard and talked about the things that made those experiences important. Was this already something he had swirling in his head but just could not articulate? Or that he was just waiting for the right experiences and people to say the right words or just figure it out for himself? I don't know. It was almost like a lecture, but not in the boring-stop-acting-like-a-philospher way. I found myself going in circles in my head..."Well, I didn't know I was afraid of freedom. Wait...or is that because I've been TOLD I'm not supposed to be afraid or is it that I am and I just won't admit it or is it that I just accept this so-called freedom as my right but it's really not freedom at all? Are we all really just being controlled?" I had to stop doing that or I would have been on the same 2 pages for 3 hours. And the same with the next 2 pages. I could have driven myself nuts. And then I saw the words sectarianism and fanaticism (21) and I thought of my mother, but I think that's getting off topic.
It is not me to be overly philosophical and over analyze these types of books in their entirety. I almost feel like it's over my head...almost. I just don't have the energy to argue with this guy, or as he asks (21) "....point out aspects I have not perceived." I don't know that I can do that. I am still trying to let all that he believes and his perception of his thoughts and experiences sink in.
On one hand, I feel like I understand his perceptions in terms of education as the oppressor. I completed a study on the education in Brazil in the spring. The short of it--kids are not required to go to secondary schools. Their primary education is sorely lacking. Families that are poor keep their kids out of school to help make money. Families that are not poor---those kids move up and get into college. The latter families are and remain literate. The government spends only 2.4% of their GNP on education which is half of what it was almost 30 years ago...and only *half* of that goes to education, and most of that half is spent on universities, not basic education. So, in a nutshell, the poor and illiterate stay poor and illiterate...and oppressed. The financially better off stay better off and become successful in business or whatever they choose to do. It's the poor that are oppressed because the government seems to keep their thumb on the very system that should help the poor become, well, less poor at the very least...by giving them the opportunity to become educated. It appears that it's the same cycle in many countries. This doesn't even include the people in countries with more educational opportunities who make it part of their thought process that there is no way out, so they don't even try. Here's the "freedom" part. (29, 30) This page talks in circles to me and I'm still trying to figure out if I have it right. How can they become unoppressed...what needs to change in their minds...or maybe it's...they are afraid of becoming unoppressed so how can they get out of it if they don't realize they are oppressed. ? I was going ot write my thoughts about chapter two (namely a line on page 53), but now I don't know what I really think. This guy is like Kramer's (Seinfeld) psychiatrist...like a non-evil svengali. I just don't have the energy to argue Friere's circular points. This book should make for interesting discussion in class...
No one is perfect...
"Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invetion, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquire human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other" (72) I believe Freire tries to show the importance of words as actions. By offering an alternative he questions the canon of academic reason for being and elitism but he offers an alternative.
That alternative centers around the importance of words in Pedagogy of the Oppressed allows for the possibility of changing history. The sections on Euphanisms, Jargon, and Pegagogy of the Oppressed vs. Pedagogy of the Disenfranchized show the power of the word not only to the oppressed-but to the oppressor. Words can minimize the results or make invisible "things" we do not want to see in our lives and in our relationships with others. Words can give a face to the oppressor and the oppressed. Which becomes more important the word or how it relates to action?
Freire proposes that "in problem-solving education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves...not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation"(83). But I believe he acknowledges the difficulties between reality and utopia as a lack of knowledge for whatever reason. Given the importance he places on dialogue, there has to be time and words for dialogue. There must concrete possibilities for self-improvement. Pedagogy of the Oppressed becomes one way of re-inventing the world outside the old structure. Sorry, I must post having computer issues that I am afraid will wipe out all my work-will try to address later.
That alternative centers around the importance of words in Pedagogy of the Oppressed allows for the possibility of changing history. The sections on Euphanisms, Jargon, and Pegagogy of the Oppressed vs. Pedagogy of the Disenfranchized show the power of the word not only to the oppressed-but to the oppressor. Words can minimize the results or make invisible "things" we do not want to see in our lives and in our relationships with others. Words can give a face to the oppressor and the oppressed. Which becomes more important the word or how it relates to action?
Freire proposes that "in problem-solving education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves...not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation"(83). But I believe he acknowledges the difficulties between reality and utopia as a lack of knowledge for whatever reason. Given the importance he places on dialogue, there has to be time and words for dialogue. There must concrete possibilities for self-improvement. Pedagogy of the Oppressed becomes one way of re-inventing the world outside the old structure. Sorry, I must post having computer issues that I am afraid will wipe out all my work-will try to address later.
Monday, September 22, 2008
conscientizacao.. or fanaticism?
I receive lots of e-mail from a conservative relative of mine who seeks to convert me and has yet to give up. This election season in particular seems to be a goldmine for conservative propaganda. As I was reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed over the weekend, I kept thinking about one particular video called Wake up America! that was sent to me. I've retrieved it from the trash and am providing a link right here: http://www.usawakeup.org/. Please be warned that this video is extremely anti-Muslim and it is not my intent to offend anyone. I do not support the views of the video - I am merely sharing it as a tool for dialogue. I hope that you will take the time to watch it because I am really curious what you think.
The rest of my blog is in reference to that video.... Friere talks at great length about the conscientizacao taking action against oppression. I am stuck on his sentences about sectarianism and radicalization (Friere, p. 37). Obviously the video portrays all followers of Islam as sectarianists who are fed by fanaticism and alienated from the mainstream by choice. Yet, the flip side is the side of the oppressed... are Muslims just trying to criticize and liberate as a rite of radicalization? Are Muslims only trying to become responsible Subjects looking for self-affirmation?
Watching the video made me wonder though - are Muslims oppressed in our country? Would Friere see them that way? Do they REALLY play paintball as a way to learn combat? Or are most Muslims living in America "sectarians of whatever persuasion, blinded by irrationality, [who do] not (or cannot) perceive the dynamic of reality - or else misinterprets it?" ( 38). Is this a social class issue? To what social class do most Muslims in America belong?
Leaving the video behind, I'm wondering if Friere sees any part of the educational system worth salvaging. Is there a place for the banking concept of education? When I go to professional conferences, all the presenters make "deposits" into my brain. How else do you deliver new content to 1000 people at a time? Colleges and universities use it all the time in mass lectures for 400 students at a clip. And, because we've trained students to use their minds as "banks," they EXPECT to be used as banks. They aren't creative. They want to be told what to think. They want to be told what to say. Is this a function of the banking concept at work?
I don't see the end in sight. With more emphasis on test scores and scripted teaching, our chances at turning students into thinkers are slipping away. What can we do? Would your students question the validity of the video Wake up America! or would they accept it as reality? It's scary. Really scary.
The rest of my blog is in reference to that video.... Friere talks at great length about the conscientizacao taking action against oppression. I am stuck on his sentences about sectarianism and radicalization (Friere, p. 37). Obviously the video portrays all followers of Islam as sectarianists who are fed by fanaticism and alienated from the mainstream by choice. Yet, the flip side is the side of the oppressed... are Muslims just trying to criticize and liberate as a rite of radicalization? Are Muslims only trying to become responsible Subjects looking for self-affirmation?
Watching the video made me wonder though - are Muslims oppressed in our country? Would Friere see them that way? Do they REALLY play paintball as a way to learn combat? Or are most Muslims living in America "sectarians of whatever persuasion, blinded by irrationality, [who do] not (or cannot) perceive the dynamic of reality - or else misinterprets it?" ( 38). Is this a social class issue? To what social class do most Muslims in America belong?
Leaving the video behind, I'm wondering if Friere sees any part of the educational system worth salvaging. Is there a place for the banking concept of education? When I go to professional conferences, all the presenters make "deposits" into my brain. How else do you deliver new content to 1000 people at a time? Colleges and universities use it all the time in mass lectures for 400 students at a clip. And, because we've trained students to use their minds as "banks," they EXPECT to be used as banks. They aren't creative. They want to be told what to think. They want to be told what to say. Is this a function of the banking concept at work?
I don't see the end in sight. With more emphasis on test scores and scripted teaching, our chances at turning students into thinkers are slipping away. What can we do? Would your students question the validity of the video Wake up America! or would they accept it as reality? It's scary. Really scary.
Nothing Whatever to do with Freire
For a quick look at a master of web literacy presentation go HERE. Warning: he does curse and use sexist humor, but usually for the purpose of insulting those who like it.
To Be Contuumed
Let me just say, by way of preface, that I can't wait to watch this page explode when everyone start's a-hootin' and a-hollerin' about Freire.
That said, I would like to start with a couple of odd little observational questionings.
First, did anyone else grab the Shaughnessy book by mistake? I've been looking and thinking about media, image, and packaging quite a bit lately and find the similar outward looks of the two books intriguing. Maybe there's something about the connotative web that is tapped by stark black lettering (blatant, clear, unignorable) set on a field of red (blood, fire, and outrage).
2nd, from the third page of the preface (I did read the whole thing, he just starts kicking it hard right away), "...so much reactionary 'blah.'...I am certain that Christians and Marxists, though they may disagree with me in part or in whole, will continue reading to the end." To quote that other great observer of the human condition, Jackie Gleason,"Slam, Bang, to the Moon!" Nevermind that Christianity and Marxism are as different in kind as Democracy and Marxism (go ahead, ask), to link the two in preparing us for the ideological kick in the you-guessed-where is a great filter to clear out the whiners and fence sitters. As the athletic slogan puts it--go hard or go home.
I may not ever be able to go home again.
Subjects, objects, dominators (I've always liked the word 'domitor' better, it sound more iron-fisted), dominated...I thought this was about teaching literacy; who let in Gramsci? And who is the oppressor? Bush? The Military-Industrial Complex? Microsoft? Me?
It's me, isn't it? That's what you're oh so eruditely implying, isn't it, Paulo? Because I've got a laptop and a Volkswagen, I must be an acolyte of the great god Market, unable to differentiate between having and being. That hurts, Paulo, it really does. And I think you're wrong, to boot. Sort of. Hence, my title for this entry. Draw a line, put "oppressor/owner" at one end and "oppressed/owned" at the other. Now put "Ray" somewhere in between (I'm not really sure how close to the middle is accurate). Here's my point--We can all claim to care, to have experienced or at least empathize with being oppressed, to a degree. The structure of our late capitalist social ideology, however, makes us automatically complicit in the oppression of others, a priori.
I hate to haul it back out for those who are sick of hearing it from me, but here comes the Althusser reference. Ideology obtains materially within practice. It is not escapable via belief. This is Freire's point about praxis. Thought in action, not thought in isolation. It isn't hopeless, but don't let's hide our collaboration with oppression from our own eyes. I like having things. That, because of how those things are produced, supports oppressive ideological apparatuses. Guess what? I still like those things, and the having. I also like treating people like people, not things. I'm not going to be able to dismantle 'the system' by not having a computer. I'm going to aid in transforming the world by facilitating other's transformation from intensities of object-ness to higher intensities of subject-ness.
That said, I would like to start with a couple of odd little observational questionings.
First, did anyone else grab the Shaughnessy book by mistake? I've been looking and thinking about media, image, and packaging quite a bit lately and find the similar outward looks of the two books intriguing. Maybe there's something about the connotative web that is tapped by stark black lettering (blatant, clear, unignorable) set on a field of red (blood, fire, and outrage).
2nd, from the third page of the preface (I did read the whole thing, he just starts kicking it hard right away), "...so much reactionary 'blah.'...I am certain that Christians and Marxists, though they may disagree with me in part or in whole, will continue reading to the end." To quote that other great observer of the human condition, Jackie Gleason,"Slam, Bang, to the Moon!" Nevermind that Christianity and Marxism are as different in kind as Democracy and Marxism (go ahead, ask), to link the two in preparing us for the ideological kick in the you-guessed-where is a great filter to clear out the whiners and fence sitters. As the athletic slogan puts it--go hard or go home.
I may not ever be able to go home again.
Subjects, objects, dominators (I've always liked the word 'domitor' better, it sound more iron-fisted), dominated...I thought this was about teaching literacy; who let in Gramsci? And who is the oppressor? Bush? The Military-Industrial Complex? Microsoft? Me?
It's me, isn't it? That's what you're oh so eruditely implying, isn't it, Paulo? Because I've got a laptop and a Volkswagen, I must be an acolyte of the great god Market, unable to differentiate between having and being. That hurts, Paulo, it really does. And I think you're wrong, to boot. Sort of. Hence, my title for this entry. Draw a line, put "oppressor/owner" at one end and "oppressed/owned" at the other. Now put "Ray" somewhere in between (I'm not really sure how close to the middle is accurate). Here's my point--We can all claim to care, to have experienced or at least empathize with being oppressed, to a degree. The structure of our late capitalist social ideology, however, makes us automatically complicit in the oppression of others, a priori.
I hate to haul it back out for those who are sick of hearing it from me, but here comes the Althusser reference. Ideology obtains materially within practice. It is not escapable via belief. This is Freire's point about praxis. Thought in action, not thought in isolation. It isn't hopeless, but don't let's hide our collaboration with oppression from our own eyes. I like having things. That, because of how those things are produced, supports oppressive ideological apparatuses. Guess what? I still like those things, and the having. I also like treating people like people, not things. I'm not going to be able to dismantle 'the system' by not having a computer. I'm going to aid in transforming the world by facilitating other's transformation from intensities of object-ness to higher intensities of subject-ness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
