Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It's alright we know where you've been
You've been in the pipeline
Filling in time
Provided with toys and scouting for boys
You brought a guitar to punish your ma
And you didn't like school
And you know you're nobody's fool
So welcome to the machine
Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream
You dreamed of a big star
He played a mean gituar
He always ate in the Steak Bar
He loved to drive in his Jaguar
So welcome to the Machine
--Pink Floyd
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Welcome to our inauthentic world!
Apparently I only thought the first part of Friere was the most difficult thing I have ever read and tried to comprehend. This second part was undeniably challenging, and the only thing that saved me was his (finally) concrete examples toward the end of Chapter 3. Again, my dictionary (online and otherwise) got a workout, and even then the words weren’t so kind. So, let’s see if I understand Friere’s message.
Put your money where your mouth is! We shouldn’t just talk about action; we must be ready to participate. Haven’t we all seen this scenario? A group of people meet to discuss a matter and either it never gets resolved because people tend to just want to share their opinions, even at the expense of ignoring others’, (verbalism, as Friere puts it) without the commitment to make the solution work, or a resolution is easily found but no one wants to carry it out. But then, we can’t have action without dialogue for this is action for action’s sake or perhaps only one person’s solution to the problem. We cannot create without dialogue, and we cannot have dialogue among only a few. As Friere has consistently reminded us, dialogue is the right of everyone, but is that even possible?
I got a bit hung up with Friere’s discussion on the “naming of the world.” Was he referring to the necessity of dialogue to create and re-create the world as it needs to be to meet the needs of all? I would appreciate any insight on this. I did, agree, though (as I understand it) that love truly needs to be part of the dialogue process. If we do not love others, how can we act in their best interests? This is quite an obstacle—is it surmountable? Can we sincerely love others in whom we find very few redeeming qualities?
One quote that especially spoke to me is on page 91 when Friere discusses the necessary elements of dialogue and how these create trust. He writes, “To say one thing and do another—to take one’s own word lightly—cannot inspire trust. To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” This certainly brought to my mind two types of people. First is the unethical politician who takes his (I use the male pronouns for sake of brevity, but it can apply to either sex) own words so lightly, he forgets what he says or who he says it to. He wants everyone to believe he has their best interests at heart, but he doesn’t really care what his constituents want or say. Second is the religious zealot who professes he does God’s work, but not all people have equal footing in his world. He may preach pro-life, but sees nothing wrong with murdering doctors who perform abortions. He may preach that God loves everyone, but excludes those who “sin” from his circle. Hypocrisy is a valuable and effective tool used by oppressors everywhere. Buy some today!!!
I must be honest—when Friere began discussing generative themes, epochs and thematic universes, I struggled. I even went back to the beginning of Chapter 3 to see if perhaps I missed the light switch the first time around. I continued to read, hoping that eventually my brain could absorb and comprehend, but it all seemed a blur till I hit the concrete examples! When he addressed the need for the oppressed to address their own problems and create their own solutions, I couldn’t help but think of the California migrant camps in the 1930s. No one but those who lived in the camps could truly understand the unique culture. This was likely the reason they sought to govern themselves through democratic style meetings. They were poor and fought to exist (yes, I use that in Friere’s terminology), but only they themselves could recognize problems and formulate solutions. And each camp was different and had different rules; it just depended upon the themes (am I using this correctly?) of those who lived there. Then the government (among others) had to step in . . . .
I have just one more question: with regards to education, is Friere advocating that the students (teacher-students) come up with their own curriculum and their own time line? One page 108, I understood him to suggest that educators should not plan each day ahead, that they should see what each day brings. I can see how this would bring reluctant learners on board, but is it practical? Is it even possible? As much as I try to add flexibility into my plans, I would not be able to take everyone's wants and needs into consideration. I would go mad.
Put your money where your mouth is! We shouldn’t just talk about action; we must be ready to participate. Haven’t we all seen this scenario? A group of people meet to discuss a matter and either it never gets resolved because people tend to just want to share their opinions, even at the expense of ignoring others’, (verbalism, as Friere puts it) without the commitment to make the solution work, or a resolution is easily found but no one wants to carry it out. But then, we can’t have action without dialogue for this is action for action’s sake or perhaps only one person’s solution to the problem. We cannot create without dialogue, and we cannot have dialogue among only a few. As Friere has consistently reminded us, dialogue is the right of everyone, but is that even possible?
I got a bit hung up with Friere’s discussion on the “naming of the world.” Was he referring to the necessity of dialogue to create and re-create the world as it needs to be to meet the needs of all? I would appreciate any insight on this. I did, agree, though (as I understand it) that love truly needs to be part of the dialogue process. If we do not love others, how can we act in their best interests? This is quite an obstacle—is it surmountable? Can we sincerely love others in whom we find very few redeeming qualities?
One quote that especially spoke to me is on page 91 when Friere discusses the necessary elements of dialogue and how these create trust. He writes, “To say one thing and do another—to take one’s own word lightly—cannot inspire trust. To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” This certainly brought to my mind two types of people. First is the unethical politician who takes his (I use the male pronouns for sake of brevity, but it can apply to either sex) own words so lightly, he forgets what he says or who he says it to. He wants everyone to believe he has their best interests at heart, but he doesn’t really care what his constituents want or say. Second is the religious zealot who professes he does God’s work, but not all people have equal footing in his world. He may preach pro-life, but sees nothing wrong with murdering doctors who perform abortions. He may preach that God loves everyone, but excludes those who “sin” from his circle. Hypocrisy is a valuable and effective tool used by oppressors everywhere. Buy some today!!!
I must be honest—when Friere began discussing generative themes, epochs and thematic universes, I struggled. I even went back to the beginning of Chapter 3 to see if perhaps I missed the light switch the first time around. I continued to read, hoping that eventually my brain could absorb and comprehend, but it all seemed a blur till I hit the concrete examples! When he addressed the need for the oppressed to address their own problems and create their own solutions, I couldn’t help but think of the California migrant camps in the 1930s. No one but those who lived in the camps could truly understand the unique culture. This was likely the reason they sought to govern themselves through democratic style meetings. They were poor and fought to exist (yes, I use that in Friere’s terminology), but only they themselves could recognize problems and formulate solutions. And each camp was different and had different rules; it just depended upon the themes (am I using this correctly?) of those who lived there. Then the government (among others) had to step in . . . .
I have just one more question: with regards to education, is Friere advocating that the students (teacher-students) come up with their own curriculum and their own time line? One page 108, I understood him to suggest that educators should not plan each day ahead, that they should see what each day brings. I can see how this would bring reluctant learners on board, but is it practical? Is it even possible? As much as I try to add flexibility into my plans, I would not be able to take everyone's wants and needs into consideration. I would go mad.
Sometimes educators get stuck in the cycle of mystifications that depict students as incapable of thought before they hit the classroom, despite the best of intentions. We stereotype teenagers from all backgrounds as developmentally or culturally unprepared to face the realities of the world, but this discounts the existence of their lived experience. I believe this it what Freire is asking us to consider when rejecting the metaphor of a student as a empty receptacle waiting to be filled. Students already have consciousness, it is the “consciousness of consciousness”(79) that they lack. On the Friere handout, under the Glossary of Freirean Terms, is the definition of praxis. Included in the definition is its components, one of which is creativity. It is the creativity of the teacher as a sort of moderator in classroom dialogue, posing codifications that empower students to realize their pre-existing abilities for critical thinking in connection to their experience, or helping them to further develop critical thinking through consciousness of their own consciousness that demystifies student realities.
The most important of realizations I had while reading Freire was that I had to be completely honest with myself about my own mystifications. Do I understand the consequences as well as the benefits of liberation for everyone, starting from a capitalistic position? For all Freire’s talk of love, hope, and humanization, he makes it clear that the trade off will be materialism, giving up the “wants” we have been mystified into believing are our “needs”.
The education system is a microcosm of and a preparation for life within the social structure. A libratory education seeks to reform the economic and political structure of our world. However, our country has a history of demonizing, of mystifying, the political and economic structures that threaten the free market and promote equity and humanity across the board.
I love this guy.
The most important of realizations I had while reading Freire was that I had to be completely honest with myself about my own mystifications. Do I understand the consequences as well as the benefits of liberation for everyone, starting from a capitalistic position? For all Freire’s talk of love, hope, and humanization, he makes it clear that the trade off will be materialism, giving up the “wants” we have been mystified into believing are our “needs”.
The education system is a microcosm of and a preparation for life within the social structure. A libratory education seeks to reform the economic and political structure of our world. However, our country has a history of demonizing, of mystifying, the political and economic structures that threaten the free market and promote equity and humanity across the board.
I love this guy.
All you need is love.... and a little dialogue
I was fascinated by the relationship between dialogue and love that Freire brings up. Of course, after reading more closely, I realized how Freire defined love was far more complex than what I had been thinking of. Freire notes that "Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people...love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself...Because love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to others" (89).
If TRUE dialogue between two people is the way to break free from the chain of oppression, then really, what Friere is saying, love is a revolutionary force that causes it. In fact, in his footnotes, Freire tells us that even Guevara said revolution could not happen without "strong feelings of love." What I felt Freire was getting at here was the society of oppression is one without real strong feelings on anything. The teachers who don't engage in dialogue with their students (or any dominant/submissive relationship) because they don't want to give them power to think on their own. If people feel passionately about something, or get behind a cause they believe in, this may lead to revolutionary acts.
As I read the latter chapters of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I couldn't help but to think that after all this talk about the oppressor and oppressed, Friere really showed us how they are more alike than they may even realize. The sad part of all of this is that the oppressors don't really seem to get any true pleasure out of it, in fact, they are being oppressed themselves. Again, as pg 156 illustrates, it really boils down to fear: "To renounce invasion would mean ending their status as dominated and dominators. It would mean abandoning all the myths which nourish invasion, and starting to incarnate dialogical action...and so the fear of freedom takes hold of these men" It must be an interested place to be in, both oppressed and oppressor. But it also makes perfect sense. If people are in a position of power, perhaps not the highest one, but an influential one, such as teacher, then they are the oppressive force against those they are teaching. But they are also influenced by a higher agenda, one they know, that if they do not follow, will result in further oppression unto themselves. Like I said before, it must be a really sad place to be in...
Even the revolutionists must not reply on the banking style of knowledge, as Freire notes that, "Many political and education plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, never once taking into account the men in a situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed" (94). I couldn't help but to think about the PSSAs and such that we have been talking about, or teachers who teach what they want to teach not because its in the best interest of the student, but because the teacher feels this is whats important for them to learn.
If TRUE dialogue between two people is the way to break free from the chain of oppression, then really, what Friere is saying, love is a revolutionary force that causes it. In fact, in his footnotes, Freire tells us that even Guevara said revolution could not happen without "strong feelings of love." What I felt Freire was getting at here was the society of oppression is one without real strong feelings on anything. The teachers who don't engage in dialogue with their students (or any dominant/submissive relationship) because they don't want to give them power to think on their own. If people feel passionately about something, or get behind a cause they believe in, this may lead to revolutionary acts.
As I read the latter chapters of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I couldn't help but to think that after all this talk about the oppressor and oppressed, Friere really showed us how they are more alike than they may even realize. The sad part of all of this is that the oppressors don't really seem to get any true pleasure out of it, in fact, they are being oppressed themselves. Again, as pg 156 illustrates, it really boils down to fear: "To renounce invasion would mean ending their status as dominated and dominators. It would mean abandoning all the myths which nourish invasion, and starting to incarnate dialogical action...and so the fear of freedom takes hold of these men" It must be an interested place to be in, both oppressed and oppressor. But it also makes perfect sense. If people are in a position of power, perhaps not the highest one, but an influential one, such as teacher, then they are the oppressive force against those they are teaching. But they are also influenced by a higher agenda, one they know, that if they do not follow, will result in further oppression unto themselves. Like I said before, it must be a really sad place to be in...
Even the revolutionists must not reply on the banking style of knowledge, as Freire notes that, "Many political and education plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, never once taking into account the men in a situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed" (94). I couldn't help but to think about the PSSAs and such that we have been talking about, or teachers who teach what they want to teach not because its in the best interest of the student, but because the teacher feels this is whats important for them to learn.
Freire Part Two
First, it's not wonder that this book is not published in the United States. I can't help but see the political ramifications of Freire's theories and they don't exactly fit in with the capitalism gone mad in this country. This book made me ask some big questions. Do we really live in a free society? Do we have a representative government? Could our lawmakers be perceived as oppressors? Am I one of the oppressed? Am I an oppressor?
Freire says that dialogue with all parties is the most important element in revolution. If I consider this in my own little world, then for most of my teaching career has been spent at the mercy of decisions that have been forced upon me without any of my input. Decisions are made by the few and often negatively affect the many. New initiatives , paraded as pedagogy that's in our best interest, are established by administrators who are far removed from the classroom (the antithesis of Freire's theory of immersion) with little or not input from teachers or students. These decisions are made with our "best intentions" in mind. Often, however, major changes in the education system where I teach are made to pad a resume for an administrator who is working on his doctoral thesis. They're also made to pad a resume so he can move on to a higher paying job somewhere else. Just in the last five years changes have been made in curriculum, grading, and scheduling only to have the administrator move on to another district. We are then stuck trying to implement programs we don't want or need.
How is this different from government? We're stuck in a war that most people don't want, and the current president is soon leaving us the oppressed, stuck with paying 18 billion dollars a month for something we did not want in the first place. Was there ever a genuine dialogue?
My favorite line in this book comes from chapter one where Freire writes, "Within their inauthentic view of the world and of themselves, the oppressed feel like 'things' owned by the oppressor. For the latter, to be is to have, almost always at the expense of those who have nothing" 964-65). What's the impetus for change? Freire says that revolution only happens with the oppressed and the oppressors "...both acting together in unshakable solidarity. This solidarity is born only when the leaders witness it by their humble, loving, and courageous encounter with the people. Not all men and women have sufficient courage for this encounter - but when they avoid encounter they become inflexible and treat others as mere objects; instead of nurturing life, they kill it" (129). How can leaders have these humble and loving encounters when they have been born, to borrow Ann Richards' words, with a "silver spoon in their mouths"?
I enjoyed the end of the book where Freire summarizes how oppressors continue to oppress. I liked even more, however, the discussion of the means by which the oppressed together with the oppressors, can enact change. I love the part in the book where Freire says that change cannot happen FOR the oppressed, but WITH them. He reiterates it again when he writes, "No one can, however, unveil the world for another...the adherence of the people is made possible by this unveiling of the world and of themselves, in authentic praxis" (169). A dialogue must take place; total immersion has to happen. I suppose the good news is that this can happen on a small scale. I kept thinking about Mike Rose and his immersion into the lives of his students. In that relatively small world, he did enact change and we can too.
We're all oppressed!
I was really hoping that I would figure out how to work with children who are oppressed through the cycle of poverty. Although there are systems in place to help people (including children) learn how to break the cycle of poverty, I wanted Freire to inspire me or send me off in a different direction. He didn't. That's not a slam to him - I don't think Freire was targeting children (or even young adults) with this book - although he does discuss them towards the end.
I don't profess to be an expert on breaking the cycle of poverty at all. But, I do know that if a person wants to break to cycle of poverty, one of the first steps is recognizing the cycle and realizing that it exists. Freire talks about that concept - figuring out where one is and recognizing it as oppression. I've found that teenagers can do that. They can recognize the cycle and even explain how their family is sucked into it. And I do believe that his theory can work (well it has, hasn't it?)- but I am not sure that it would with teenagers for a few reasons.
One, brain development. On page 109 he talks about reflection upon situationality. "Critical thinking by means of which people discover each other to be "in a situation." Kids can discover that they are "in a situation."
But then on page 155 he talks about authentic rebellion. He says, "If children reared in an atmostphere of lovelessness and oppression, children whose potency has been frustrated, do not manage during their youth to take the path of authentic rebellion, they will either drift into total indeiffernce, aliented from reality by thte authorities and the myths the latter have used to 'shape' them: or they may engage in forms of destructive action." Well, how do you get them to the path of authentic rebellion? In his footnote (#30) he explains that youth opposition is a reult of minimized expressiveness and a hindrance of self-affirmation. I agree. And he says we shouldn't see this rebellion as accidental. I agree. Rather, that rebellion is a way for kids to denounce and condemn the unjust model of a society of domination. I agree.
As I re-read these pages, he does lay out a plan - referring to teachers as "well-intentioned professionals" whose patterns of domination are so entrenched within them that this renunciation(reouncing invasion) would become a threat to their own identities. " That's not how I see myself. I don't think I am threatened by my own identity at all. I realize that the educational system IS set up to be oppressive. That's purposeful. It's much easier to "manage" when all your ducks are in a row. Although I don't necessarily agree OR function that way, to change that system would require me to acknowledge the oppression I work under. And don't I know that! So, in my classroom I'll accept my oppressive behaviors - try to be more cognizant of them and work to pose more things as "problems" and less things as lectures. But to take on the institution as a whole and fight the oppression that teachers work under is an animal of a different color. Any takers?
But one last point...there is a difference between teaching HOW to do something and teaching content. The problem posing approach can obviously work for both (I think it's much easier to teach content this way personally) but the here's the rub - time is against us. Regardless of grade level, teachers are under great pressure to fill those vessels! I can teach a kid HOW to decode much easier by presenting the rules, showing him, guiding him, and releasing that responsibility to him. But that's not problem posing. Problem posing would take so much more time. First, the child would have to recognize there is a problem with the way he reads. For a 16-year-old in denial, that could take a year. And if I can teach that kid what he needs to know in that same span of a year, not only would he recognize that he did have a problem with reading, but he'd be a much better reader at that point. I'm not sure that problem posing is always the most effective or the most realistic. Maybe I'm just showing my oppressive roots.
I don't profess to be an expert on breaking the cycle of poverty at all. But, I do know that if a person wants to break to cycle of poverty, one of the first steps is recognizing the cycle and realizing that it exists. Freire talks about that concept - figuring out where one is and recognizing it as oppression. I've found that teenagers can do that. They can recognize the cycle and even explain how their family is sucked into it. And I do believe that his theory can work (well it has, hasn't it?)- but I am not sure that it would with teenagers for a few reasons.
One, brain development. On page 109 he talks about reflection upon situationality. "Critical thinking by means of which people discover each other to be "in a situation." Kids can discover that they are "in a situation."
But then on page 155 he talks about authentic rebellion. He says, "If children reared in an atmostphere of lovelessness and oppression, children whose potency has been frustrated, do not manage during their youth to take the path of authentic rebellion, they will either drift into total indeiffernce, aliented from reality by thte authorities and the myths the latter have used to 'shape' them: or they may engage in forms of destructive action." Well, how do you get them to the path of authentic rebellion? In his footnote (#30) he explains that youth opposition is a reult of minimized expressiveness and a hindrance of self-affirmation. I agree. And he says we shouldn't see this rebellion as accidental. I agree. Rather, that rebellion is a way for kids to denounce and condemn the unjust model of a society of domination. I agree.
As I re-read these pages, he does lay out a plan - referring to teachers as "well-intentioned professionals" whose patterns of domination are so entrenched within them that this renunciation(reouncing invasion) would become a threat to their own identities. " That's not how I see myself. I don't think I am threatened by my own identity at all. I realize that the educational system IS set up to be oppressive. That's purposeful. It's much easier to "manage" when all your ducks are in a row. Although I don't necessarily agree OR function that way, to change that system would require me to acknowledge the oppression I work under. And don't I know that! So, in my classroom I'll accept my oppressive behaviors - try to be more cognizant of them and work to pose more things as "problems" and less things as lectures. But to take on the institution as a whole and fight the oppression that teachers work under is an animal of a different color. Any takers?
But one last point...there is a difference between teaching HOW to do something and teaching content. The problem posing approach can obviously work for both (I think it's much easier to teach content this way personally) but the here's the rub - time is against us. Regardless of grade level, teachers are under great pressure to fill those vessels! I can teach a kid HOW to decode much easier by presenting the rules, showing him, guiding him, and releasing that responsibility to him. But that's not problem posing. Problem posing would take so much more time. First, the child would have to recognize there is a problem with the way he reads. For a 16-year-old in denial, that could take a year. And if I can teach that kid what he needs to know in that same span of a year, not only would he recognize that he did have a problem with reading, but he'd be a much better reader at that point. I'm not sure that problem posing is always the most effective or the most realistic. Maybe I'm just showing my oppressive roots.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
I get it...I think...
So, now I don't see myself as so much as the dog chasing its tail with this seemingly circular philosophical logic. Now, I'm just sort of...walking quickly after it. It's progress. That said, I won't even discuss how he took a perfectly understandable statement (106) made by Lenin "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." I like it. Simple but profound. Obvious...but one of those obvious things that are so clear nobody thinks they need to think of it until they see it for themselves in a book. Then Friere throws me into another tail-spin by responding to it: "Revolution is acheived with neither verbalism or activism, but rather with praxis, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be tranformed." Come on. I was doing really well until I had to pick that one apart.
What I am getting from this as a whole, is that Friere just wants to see everyone live without being told what to think, live without being told they are stuck where they are and they believe it, live without having really thought about why they allow others to impose upon, have power over, and manipulate them. But again on page 110, he talks about these very people having a fear of freedom. Is he saying that they are really afraid of knowing the truth about their existence? That ultimately, because of their fear, their existence means nothing? If they do not work together, then there really is no revolution, that the people are just pawns in the big game for the elite and powerful and dominant, and in whatever that game's goal is and they don't even know it. ...what? I'm really trying. I don't think I lack intelligence, but this type of reading just really has my brain going in circles. It would be lack of intelligence that would allow me to pretend I truly understand every run-on multi-comma'd sentence. I get the big picture...it's how he chooses to get there and his thought processes that are driving me crazy.
What I am getting from this as a whole, is that Friere just wants to see everyone live without being told what to think, live without being told they are stuck where they are and they believe it, live without having really thought about why they allow others to impose upon, have power over, and manipulate them. But again on page 110, he talks about these very people having a fear of freedom. Is he saying that they are really afraid of knowing the truth about their existence? That ultimately, because of their fear, their existence means nothing? If they do not work together, then there really is no revolution, that the people are just pawns in the big game for the elite and powerful and dominant, and in whatever that game's goal is and they don't even know it. ...what? I'm really trying. I don't think I lack intelligence, but this type of reading just really has my brain going in circles. It would be lack of intelligence that would allow me to pretend I truly understand every run-on multi-comma'd sentence. I get the big picture...it's how he chooses to get there and his thought processes that are driving me crazy.
Words, Meanings, Life
Freire addresses the action of "Words".
As Ray pointed out in discussing "the footnote" and its importance for clarification, I offer a footnote from chapter 3.
"Action, Reflection, Sacrifice of action=verbalism [all talk], sacrifice of reflection=activism [no thought often to consequences"(88).
Life and love is about living in our world. the route "doing" because someone tells you "to do" becomes a reflection of "doing" after learning and critically thinking of the consequences.
Perhaps Freire admonishes us to make a reality check in our own lives to see if we are truly empowered, or are we fooled?
For some weird reason I offer the following point for discussion, "by stimulating 'perception of the previous perception' and 'knowledge of the previous knowledge,' decoding stimulates the appearance of a new perception and the development of new knowledge" (115). Please look to the way the following example will address the two or three sides to each action, the consequences, and Freire's attitude toward a love of Humankind.
I believe, The Literacy Assistance Center,offers the following exerpt from dialogue poem Two Women, available from Rethinking Schools, as an exercise explaining this concept. It is important to note that this poem is to be read from 2 far sides of a room. Furthermore, the action takes place in Chile,appropriate for Freir's Latin American roots.
I am woman.
I am a woman.
I am a woman born of a woman whose man owned a factory.
I am a woman born of a woman whose man labored in a factory.
I am a woman whose man wore silk suits who constantly watched his weight.
I am a woman whose man wore tattered clothing, whose heart was constantly strangled by hunger.
But then there was a man.
But then there was a man.
And he talked about the peasants getting richer by my family getting poorer.
And he told me of days that would be better and he made the days better.
We had to eat rice.
We had rice.
We had to eat beans.
We had beans.
My children are no longer given summer visas to Europe.
My children no longer cried themselves to sleep.
And I felt like a peasant.
And I felt like a woman.
Perceptions for each participant shows the importance of words, the emotional arrangements of the spoken words, and some knowledge of the place where the words exist in the lives of the women. I find this poem addresses the fluidity of where we might find ourselves placed in a changing (or as Freire would say, "transforming" world).
He makes no judgement on possessions. Rather it appears that he makes a judgement on the oppressors oppressing and the oppressed fighting the oppressed to become the oppressor. The cycle in his "Circles" offer points of dialogue, critical thinking, and eventually developing a common ground for living connected to a place in the world.
The manipulation of the truth and the tearing down of oppression comes with the critical awareness of education discussed throughout all of Chapter 4. I believe Ann Ryand wrote in one of her books something about "some people matter, and some people don't". For Paulo Freire, his love of humankind is inclusive. The actions that are exclusive and controlling are what he tries to educate against.
The education and literacy he promotes offers a hope of smashing the Culture of Silence that allows for oppression. Words are needed to give meaning beyond the silence.
As Ray pointed out in discussing "the footnote" and its importance for clarification, I offer a footnote from chapter 3.
"Action, Reflection, Sacrifice of action=verbalism [all talk], sacrifice of reflection=activism [no thought often to consequences"(88).
Life and love is about living in our world. the route "doing" because someone tells you "to do" becomes a reflection of "doing" after learning and critically thinking of the consequences.
Perhaps Freire admonishes us to make a reality check in our own lives to see if we are truly empowered, or are we fooled?
For some weird reason I offer the following point for discussion, "by stimulating 'perception of the previous perception' and 'knowledge of the previous knowledge,' decoding stimulates the appearance of a new perception and the development of new knowledge" (115). Please look to the way the following example will address the two or three sides to each action, the consequences, and Freire's attitude toward a love of Humankind.
I believe, The Literacy Assistance Center,offers the following exerpt from dialogue poem Two Women, available from Rethinking Schools, as an exercise explaining this concept. It is important to note that this poem is to be read from 2 far sides of a room. Furthermore, the action takes place in Chile,appropriate for Freir's Latin American roots.
I am woman.
I am a woman.
I am a woman born of a woman whose man owned a factory.
I am a woman born of a woman whose man labored in a factory.
I am a woman whose man wore silk suits who constantly watched his weight.
I am a woman whose man wore tattered clothing, whose heart was constantly strangled by hunger.
But then there was a man.
But then there was a man.
And he talked about the peasants getting richer by my family getting poorer.
And he told me of days that would be better and he made the days better.
We had to eat rice.
We had rice.
We had to eat beans.
We had beans.
My children are no longer given summer visas to Europe.
My children no longer cried themselves to sleep.
And I felt like a peasant.
And I felt like a woman.
Perceptions for each participant shows the importance of words, the emotional arrangements of the spoken words, and some knowledge of the place where the words exist in the lives of the women. I find this poem addresses the fluidity of where we might find ourselves placed in a changing (or as Freire would say, "transforming" world).
He makes no judgement on possessions. Rather it appears that he makes a judgement on the oppressors oppressing and the oppressed fighting the oppressed to become the oppressor. The cycle in his "Circles" offer points of dialogue, critical thinking, and eventually developing a common ground for living connected to a place in the world.
The manipulation of the truth and the tearing down of oppression comes with the critical awareness of education discussed throughout all of Chapter 4. I believe Ann Ryand wrote in one of her books something about "some people matter, and some people don't". For Paulo Freire, his love of humankind is inclusive. The actions that are exclusive and controlling are what he tries to educate against.
The education and literacy he promotes offers a hope of smashing the Culture of Silence that allows for oppression. Words are needed to give meaning beyond the silence.
I'm Lovin' It
Ok, ok, ok. You all need to be used to the bad puns by now, aren't you? Where's the beef? read on.
I've learned after some time--Read the footnotes! From the one on page 89, "The distortion imposed on the word 'love' by the capitalist word cannot prevent the revolution from being essentially loving in nature." In maintaining that love is necessary for revolution, dialogue, and education Freire pushes us to reconsider what we mean when we use those words.
Revolution: a sudden, radical, or complete change. Not necessarily a military or governmental change, but not necessarily not. How is this in any way related to
Love: unselfish, loyal, and benevolent concern for the good of another. Well now, really. How much of this do we see in our society? In business? in gov't? in classes? in
Education: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools? That doesn't sound like love or revolution at all. That sounds like lab science or a tech manual. That sounds like a brick wall, tall and wide, with no cracks or holes in it to see the person on the other side. To connect with, to talk with, to
Dialogue: a conversation between two or more persons. From dia (from)+legein (to speak [from logos]). From the Word. *
So where does that put us dialoguers, as teacher-students, as citizens? It puts us in a conversation. Not a debate, not a lecture, not a set of orders, not a sermon. A conversation between persons. In the voice of that famous elephant, Horton, "A person's a person, no matter how small [or poor or rich or connected or outkast]." Bracketed additions mine.
That said, I have a few fatty hamburgers of my own with the second half of the book. I can grasp the concept of a limit-situation, the limit-acts it demands, and the generative themes producing/produced by it. But it is slippery and elusive. More examples would have helped. And this from the guy who likes theory. To build on this point was something I may have missed, but I just don't think it was in there. How does one deduce task from theme?
* all dictionary references were taken from Merriam Webster Online
I've learned after some time--Read the footnotes! From the one on page 89, "The distortion imposed on the word 'love' by the capitalist word cannot prevent the revolution from being essentially loving in nature." In maintaining that love is necessary for revolution, dialogue, and education Freire pushes us to reconsider what we mean when we use those words.
Revolution: a sudden, radical, or complete change. Not necessarily a military or governmental change, but not necessarily not. How is this in any way related to
Love: unselfish, loyal, and benevolent concern for the good of another. Well now, really. How much of this do we see in our society? In business? in gov't? in classes? in
Education: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools? That doesn't sound like love or revolution at all. That sounds like lab science or a tech manual. That sounds like a brick wall, tall and wide, with no cracks or holes in it to see the person on the other side. To connect with, to talk with, to
Dialogue: a conversation between two or more persons. From dia (from)+legein (to speak [from logos]). From the Word. *
So where does that put us dialoguers, as teacher-students, as citizens? It puts us in a conversation. Not a debate, not a lecture, not a set of orders, not a sermon. A conversation between persons. In the voice of that famous elephant, Horton, "A person's a person, no matter how small [or poor or rich or connected or outkast]." Bracketed additions mine.
That said, I have a few fatty hamburgers of my own with the second half of the book. I can grasp the concept of a limit-situation, the limit-acts it demands, and the generative themes producing/produced by it. But it is slippery and elusive. More examples would have helped. And this from the guy who likes theory. To build on this point was something I may have missed, but I just don't think it was in there. How does one deduce task from theme?
* all dictionary references were taken from Merriam Webster Online
Monday, September 29, 2008
Freire Part One
I did not check the schedule, so this is my response to the first assignment on Freire. I have the advantage of hearing what all of you said in class last week, so thanks for that.
I enjoyed the introduction by Donald Macedo, especially his discussion of language clarity. As students of language, we consistently try to find not only a way to write how we feel and think, but the best way to write how we feel and think. We value truth and precision in language. So to observe the language clarity issue is too look at a lie. Macedo gives many examples of euphemisms which hide reality: theater of operations instead of battlefield; collateral damage instead of civilian deaths. The academics don't want to "bare the veil of reality" (22) because it might subvert the accepted paradigm of how we are expected to view the poor, education systems, the war, the economy, etc.
I was impressed by the aim of the book, not just to place blame and criticize, but to find hope in the possibility for change. Freire sees education and history as possibility...not as static forces. Macedo wrote that Freire imagined a world "...that is less ugly, more beautiful, less discriminatory, more democratic, less dehumanizing, and more humane" (25). I appreciated the challenge in that line and also the beauty, so I thought it justified my repeating it.
I got really confused when I got to the section where Freire discusses how the oppressors are dehumanized on page 47. I agree with him in that they lose their humanity in dehumanizing others. I can't help but wonder, however, if it's possible to include them in this revolution if they , too, are the oppressed. By that I mean that the oppressors have become so ingrained in a system that values money and things over thought and freedom that they simply can't find their way out of it.
This selection was filled with ironies: the oppressed want what? to have what the oppressors have; freedom is scary; oppressors dehumanize themselves as well as the oppressed.
My favorite section was the discussion about what constitutes an act of violence. Freire beautifully captures the intentions of oppressors - that the first act of violence is not the thrown stone or the bullet fired in defiance, but the situation the oppressor creates, "It is not the tyrannized who initiate despotism, but the tyrants. It is not the despised who initiate hatred, but those who despise..." (55). This passage was the most beautifully written in the book so far, and even more poignant because it is true.
Over the past two weeks, with our economy taking a nosedive, where it appears that unparalleled greed might just do us in, it was refreshing to read Freire's comments that "For the latter [the oppressor] to be is to have, almost always at the expense of those who have nothing" (64-65). How prophetic are those words?
I was incredulous that Freire's discussion of the banking system was written in 1970. Here's another irony...while we sit around conference tables and discuss critical thinking issues, most of our educational hierarchy praises the banking system...a system that encourages mediocrity. I like what Freire writes about problem-posing. No matter where a student is in the world, she has the ability to see her world and pose questions about it. Nothing can change without "why". This ties into what he says on page 84, "Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings in the process of becoming-as unfinished, incomplete beings with a likewise unfinished reality." The best teachers are the ones who know we are never "fully baked". They continue to ask the big questions and also encourage students to pose the big questions.
I enjoyed the introduction by Donald Macedo, especially his discussion of language clarity. As students of language, we consistently try to find not only a way to write how we feel and think, but the best way to write how we feel and think. We value truth and precision in language. So to observe the language clarity issue is too look at a lie. Macedo gives many examples of euphemisms which hide reality: theater of operations instead of battlefield; collateral damage instead of civilian deaths. The academics don't want to "bare the veil of reality" (22) because it might subvert the accepted paradigm of how we are expected to view the poor, education systems, the war, the economy, etc.
I was impressed by the aim of the book, not just to place blame and criticize, but to find hope in the possibility for change. Freire sees education and history as possibility...not as static forces. Macedo wrote that Freire imagined a world "...that is less ugly, more beautiful, less discriminatory, more democratic, less dehumanizing, and more humane" (25). I appreciated the challenge in that line and also the beauty, so I thought it justified my repeating it.
I got really confused when I got to the section where Freire discusses how the oppressors are dehumanized on page 47. I agree with him in that they lose their humanity in dehumanizing others. I can't help but wonder, however, if it's possible to include them in this revolution if they , too, are the oppressed. By that I mean that the oppressors have become so ingrained in a system that values money and things over thought and freedom that they simply can't find their way out of it.
This selection was filled with ironies: the oppressed want what? to have what the oppressors have; freedom is scary; oppressors dehumanize themselves as well as the oppressed.
My favorite section was the discussion about what constitutes an act of violence. Freire beautifully captures the intentions of oppressors - that the first act of violence is not the thrown stone or the bullet fired in defiance, but the situation the oppressor creates, "It is not the tyrannized who initiate despotism, but the tyrants. It is not the despised who initiate hatred, but those who despise..." (55). This passage was the most beautifully written in the book so far, and even more poignant because it is true.
Over the past two weeks, with our economy taking a nosedive, where it appears that unparalleled greed might just do us in, it was refreshing to read Freire's comments that "For the latter [the oppressor] to be is to have, almost always at the expense of those who have nothing" (64-65). How prophetic are those words?
I was incredulous that Freire's discussion of the banking system was written in 1970. Here's another irony...while we sit around conference tables and discuss critical thinking issues, most of our educational hierarchy praises the banking system...a system that encourages mediocrity. I like what Freire writes about problem-posing. No matter where a student is in the world, she has the ability to see her world and pose questions about it. Nothing can change without "why". This ties into what he says on page 84, "Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings in the process of becoming-as unfinished, incomplete beings with a likewise unfinished reality." The best teachers are the ones who know we are never "fully baked". They continue to ask the big questions and also encourage students to pose the big questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
