[Note:
This posting is subject to further editing.]
In the attempt to share with readers how
critical theory is expressed in the educational community, this blog has described
Paulo Freire’s educational approach. To begin,
this application is called critical pedagogy and the purpose of relating
Freire’s contribution is to provide a working sense of what it takes to be a
critical pedagogue. He provides, if not
a pure version of critical theory, an insightful view of what critical pedagogues
mean by people being liberated.
To
be honest, this blog’s effort has not been an extensive presentation of Freire’s
argument but a basic one. Enough of one
so that an interested teacher can begin experimenting with Freire’s more
practical prescriptions and if readers are interested, his book, Pedagogy of
the Oppressed, can offer a more complete exposition of his views. It addresses the challenges teachers will
face if they initiate his ideas in the classroom.
Mixed
in with Freire’s critical thoughts are natural rights beliefs – the approaches,
to a noticeable degree – blend one with the other. What one can clearly discern, though, is that
Freire does not have a natural rights sense of liberty, one based on
individualism. The critical bent leans
toward a communal sense of liberty and, in this mode, Freire writes of cycles where
teachers and students perform each other’s roles in the classroom. The same, in a different fashion, pertains to
the oppressed and liberated oppressors where both strive toward attaining their
humanity.
And
here is a general principle of this construct:
Those involved must, in communion, exert their effort to accomplish the
transformation from a reality of oppression to one of liberation. They must accomplish it; it cannot be
done for them, and it cannot be done alone.
In this, Freire strays from other critical theorists.
The
usual writers of that construct and in the fashion of Marxists, speak and write
of collectives not communal arrangements, unless the two are equated. This blogger feels the two are distinct. A collective subsumes or mostly
subsumes the individualism of those involved for the sake of the
collective. Communal retains individualism
in terms of a person’s self-dignity.
Why? Because the common good is
or will be compromised if that dignity is sacrificed.
Writing
in this vein, Christopher Ferry writes of the need for teachers to trust
students, for them to accept them for who they are, including their limitations,
while working with them to transform them and their reality toward liberation.[1] In terms of this distinction, one can
appreciate an overlap between Freire’s ideas and the ideas of federation
theory.
If and when others step in and attempt to instill or create
a liberation for those who are oppressed – the “savior” role – that in effect
objectifies those who are to benefit from such attempts and, therefore, end in failure. The process, in its very nature, demands
dialogue and trust among those involved.
Yes, there is a role for empirically derived knowledge, but from the life
experiences of those involved.
These are the themes the
previous postings pointed out which are essential to true school reform even if
one finds fault with Freire’s overall message.
One does not need to be a critical theorist or critical pedagogue to appreciate,
for example, the function of discourses.
And the dialogues or discourses are to be on-going that strive to expose
the slew of myths the oppressors promote, e.g., that entrepreneurial
opportunities exist in abundance.
Along with these
exposures is discovering and informing those involved of various strategies
such as existing policies or practices that divide the oppressed. So, leftists or liberals often attempt to uncover
quick paths to success or power which by-pass hard earned partnerships among
the oppressed – short cuts to some.
Results of such efforts are unaccomplished goals or new forms of
oppression or other parties inflicting other forms of exploitation who, through
their discourses, promise “liberation.”
And then, according to
Freire, there are governmental programs – e.g., welfare – that artificially
anesthetize the oppressed and tend to further divide them. What critical pedagogy strives for is not
cradle to grave assistance. Along with
its condemnation of undue concentration of wealth, this form of enlightenment
sees wealth as power and that power is exercised, in part, to deny opportunities
for the oppressed.
So, what determines liberation. Liberation exists in societies where no small
percentage of the population – the elites – can dictate or unreasonably influence
the laws of the land and/or how the laws are enforced. According to Freire, true equality includes
all segments of the population having equal say in what those laws are, how
they are administered, and how they are interpreted.
[1] See Christopher Ferry, “When the
Distressed Teach the Oppressed: Toward
an Understanding of Communion and Commitment” (n.d.) accessed June 11, 2021, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268749403.pdf,
