Revolutionary Pedagogy

[Rawthentic]

Have any of you read the book,The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire? It is a truly revolutionary work that advocates pedagogical teaching to create consciouness amongst oppressed people and pave the road for liberation. It is not possible for me to explain its complexity here, so I suggest that you please read it online or buy it.

Anyway, what do you think of the Freire's pedagogical approach? Here the link to read it online: http://www.marxists.org/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/.

It includes the entire thing, and I hope that by reading it, we can come to understand that many of us have taken the paternalistic approach to create consciousness by saying that we are the ones that know, so therefore we have to go teach the masses of it, etc. That is the approach that the oppressors use to keep us down, so the road to liberation cannot have that.

[Whitten]

before reading it. How may I ask can consiousness be raised through other means?

[Rawthentic]

Im sure that it can, but after reading this book, the only viable way that includes liberation is the pedagogical approach, similar to participatory education, where each is a student and a teacher. It lets go of the Leninist vanguard, the paternalist idea that the educated revolutionaries have to educate the ignorant masses. Revolutionary pedagogy recognizes the ability of the oppressed to liberate themselves through consciousness, which is achieved by dialogue and communication, as well as one's identification with their role in an oppressive society. The oppressed are not domesticated animals, but capable human beings.

[Marion]

Well, its certainly a shift away from what Freire termed the "banking" concept of education, but its fair to say it's not exactly a complete rejection of a vanguard in any form. It talks a lot about having leaders who come from a more middle-class background but show solidarity with the poor (he talks about needing to commit "class suicide") and have a certain amount of input into the learning process. I'd say you're more likely to approve of his approach is you're strongly into Guevara, Fanon and 60's national liberation style politics than a more non-hierarchical approach.

Certainly, though, there's a lot of interesting stuff in the book (and Freire's other work) and his basic way of teaching literacy is very interesting. Despite the criticisms I've hinted at, its really really worth reading his stuff.

[Rawthentic]

Actually it is a shift from the hierarchical form of education that vanguardists insist upon, "to wake up the masses". It talks about struggling for liberation beside the oppressed, not as a paternalistic institute that just propagandizes the oppressed with their ideas, but uses a teacher-student, student-teacher relationship, where they both learn form each other, creating dialogue and a revolutionary consciouness in the way.

When it talks about the middle-class shifitng to the side of the oppressed, it is not on a hierarchical way, but that they have to assimilate into the oppressed, become one of them.

Guevara's was the paternalistic approach, he took it upon himself to liberate the masses, whilst not engaging to learn what it is they felt, he didnt fight alongside them, but for them, contrary to Freire's pedagogical approach.

[Marion]

Will come back to you later on this when I've found my copy of the book and have more time to reply.

I don't disagree with much of what you say and definitely think Freire's approach is a shift away from simplistic ideas that "we must educate the masses". However, my original post was stating that it was not "a complete rejection of a vanguard in any form" - I think there's a definite positive shift away from more paternalistic approaches but there's still a lot of stuff I'm not 100% convinced about. I felt my original post was a bit more nuanced than just slagging off everything Freire said, but perhaps I didn't make things clear though...

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, just response, maybe we can form a study group on the book if you'd like.

[Marion]

Yeah, might be interesting to start a reading group on it if enough people are interested. I think its a really important book and one that's well worth reading even if you're not all that interested in educational matters.

Anyway, as I said, there's a lot I like about the book, primarily in the way it tears apart the "banking" and obviously hierarchical means of most education.

However, I suppose I'd summarise the queries or issues I have about the book as follows:

1) There's little information on the way the oppressed can struggle by themselves without the need for "teacher-students" or leaders. I think if he'd started from an analysis of how people can struggle on their own and have a good understanding of the situation themselves he might have had a different approach.

2) I think his view of the "oppressed" in general is depressing. He says that "submerged in reality, the oppressed cannot perceive clearly the 'order' which serves the interests of the oppressors whose image they have internalised". I think this overstates the extent to which people associate with their oppressors (although doubtless it does happen). Many do have a very good understanding of the 'order', they just don't know how or why to fight against it. Of course, however, perhaps this was less true of Freire's north-eastern Brazil in the '60s, but I have my doubts.

3) However much Freire talks about teacher-students and student-teachers, it's clear the former have a special role, effectively to act as a catalyst to speed things up. Is this short-cut approach sensible?

4) There is a lot of talk about the oppressed "participating" in "developing" the educational programme. Can there not be something more than this?

5) Freire sees leadership as vital for revolutionary action and his vision of leadership is always a fairly hierarchical one in that although he stresses issues like communion with the people, it always ends up being one person who has a special role. For example, he stresses Guevara as an example of leadership in at least some aspects and his view of leadership seems to me to fit in with this model.

To be honest, the first time I read the book I thought it was absolutely fantastic and there's still many passages in it I really love. The second time, however, I started to have a few more doubts about how it all fits together. I do think his approach to learning language is absolutely fascinating though. Some of his other works go into a bit more detail on it and they're well worth reading.

[Rawthentic]

1) The teacher-student and the reverse relationship is the way that the masses liberate themselves, after acquiring a revolutionary consciousness. They cant just liberate themselves out of the air, they liberate themselves through communication and dialogue. Is there any other road to revolution? Im not sure

2) The vast majority of the oppressed do not uundestand the capitalist order and percieve it as the way that life just is.

3) It is not a shorcut to revolution. It is the means by which the oppressed can truly liberate themselves. The teacher-student and the reverse relationship must be the road for liberation because it emulates the types of relationships that the new society will have, forged by the oppressed.

4)Yes, of course, they are the ones that conscientisize themselves, if that is the correct wording. What do you mean by " can there be more than this"?

5) Not necessarily hierarchical. Hierarchical is when those leaders see themselves as superior and obligated to indocrinate the oppressed. Freire talks about becoming part of them, and by listening to the oppressed and communicating with them, form a system of revolutionary pedagogy, once again, formed acording to the problems of the oppressed and by the teachers who plan to use what the oppressed see and feel as their world, not only as the teacher sees it.

[Marion]

Busy at present, but here's my initial thoughts:


1) The teacher-student and the reverse relationship is the way that the masses liberate themselves, after acquiring a revolutionary consciousness. They cant just liberate themselves out of the air, they liberate themselves through communication and dialogue. Is there any other road to revolution? Im not sure

Of course you're right that there is a need for communication and dialogue - my question would be whether it needs to take the form of there being a teacher-student and student-teacher relationship. I'm not sure if you look at revolutionary situations (e.g. the Russian revolution) that the vast majority of those rebelling were in those type of relationships.


2) The vast majority of the oppressed do not uundestand the capitalist order and percieve it as the way that life just is.

I have my doubts. I think most people have a pretty good understanding of what capitalism is - most people have a dislike of the "big boss", they think the system works against them and they try to get round the system as they can. Yep, they perceive it as being very difficult to change the system, but I don't think they don't understand it.


3) It is not a shorcut to revolution. It is the means by which the oppressed can truly liberate themselves. The teacher-student and the reverse relationship must be the road for liberation because it emulates the types of relationships that the new society will have, forged by the oppressed.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Freire does talk of it this way about 40 pages into the book with it being clear he sees the teacher-student as a catalyst (albeit without using that term). I'll try and find the quote if I remember!


4)Yes, of course, they are the ones that conscientisize themselves, if that is the correct wording. What do you mean by " can there be more than this"?

I was meaning whether it is possible for them to do more than merely "participate" in "developing" their programme - why not a fuller form of involvement?


5) Not necessarily hierarchical. Hierarchical is when those leaders see themselves as superior and obligated to indocrinate the oppressed. Freire talks about becoming part of them, and by listening to the oppressed and communicating with them, form a system of revolutionary pedagogy, once again, formed acording to the problems of the oppressed and by the teachers who plan to use what the oppressed see and feel as their world, not only as the teacher sees it.

But there are times for Freire when the teacher has a more traditional role. He says that, on occasions, the teacher will have to direct and they will have to lead (similarly to his vision of Guevara and Castro), so it isn't strictly solely about listening and communicating with the oppressed (although clearly this is a substantial part of it). To my mind, Freire doesn't really go into the necessary specifics of how this works beyond a few general comments.

PS Would question your definition of hierarchy as well. I think its very easy to think of a situation which is hierarchical where you have leaders who are not obliged to indoctrinate and genuinely think they are on the same level as those they are oppressing.

[Marion]

Here's that quote I was looking for about the teacher being the catalyst:

"sooner or later, those contradictions [arising from the banking system of education] may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and the attempt to domesticate reality... and then engage themselves in the struggle for their liberation.

But the humanist, revolutionary educator cannot wait for this possibility to materialise".

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I see your point. A teacher has to take advantage of the situation in a banking-concept system to engage in revolutionary pedagogy. But never should a revolutionary engage in banking concept education, for it is the method used by the oppressors.