The second major teaching of Freire explains the elite perspective of the peasantry, as ignorant, devoid of value and dependent on the wealthy for “truth” and “authority”. Freire exposes this elitist perception as intentionally arrogant, assuming ownership not only of bodies, but minds and hearts as well. The elite situate themselves as the heavenly vessels bestowed with divine rights to dispose to their favored; therefore, the elite are empowered to bank the thoughts and beliefs of the poor through ideology — this is both their divine right and their concept of “humanitarism.” This elitist practice is clearly articulated by the famous, modernist Greek writer, Nikos Kazantzakis who said, “Since we cannot change reality, let us change the eyes which see reality.” His presumption of situational and personal entitlement over the minds and eyes of others was not, not even for a moment, considered to be beyond the bounds of his personal authority (narcissism). Freire provides practical educational methods for the poor, to counter such elitist impositions.
He created teaching techniques that encourage experiential recollection of personal and collective history, critical thinking and acting (praxis) so the oppressed come to be conscience of their own personal experience in dialog, and therefore work to develop their collective transformation. Freire wrote,
The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed. The oppressors use their ‘humanitarianism’ to preserve a profitable situation. Thus they react almost instinctively against any experiment in education which stimulates the critical faculties and is not content with a partial view of reality but always seeks out the ties which link one point to another and one problem to another. Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in ‘changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them’; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situate, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this end, this oppressors use banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of ‘welfare recipients’ (73-74).
This elitist objectification assumes the dehumanization of the poor; it bets and banks on their ignorance, lack of knowledge and experience. It teaches that people are empty containers to be filled and constructed with the teaching and ideology of the elite and self-actualized, rather than trust their personal experiences in concrete reality, which provide meaning and enrichment through their everyday observation and activity. Freire developed a curriculum of consciousness where “the oppressed” begin by expressing their observations and experiences of reality by constructing new words from word roots. From these words, they collectively developed generative themes of their reality, existence and history. The students then begin the process of critically questioning and thinking about their reality in conversation with each other. Freire states, “Authentic liberation — the process of humanization — is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (79).
I replicated Freire’s curriculum plan for language and literacy development for adolescence in my own work, Parables of the Kingdom; A Literature Unit for Language Arts on the New Testament Parables, by aligning his format with Greek and Latin word roots. Greek and Latin word roots are a state standard that must be covered in language arts courses. Therefore, I applied the mandatory principles to a creative lesson that accommodates the everyday life of the teenagers who are required to learn this objective. In the lessons, the students create new words with the prefixes, suffixes and root words of Greek and Latin. They also use their created words in a sentence of a realistic context that corresponds to their daily life. The students are able to connect the root words to their own life, and contribute imaginatively and resourcefully in this exercise. Not only are they more engaged, because of their active, creative participation, but also their memory retains the information because it is judged to be more personally beneficial. And, this helps their vocabulary comprehension and acquisition, especially during testing (when their knowledge is being measured).
The Greek and Latin exercises, from the Parable unit, may be the most necessarily helpful in the classroom. I say this still strongly believing in the entire comprehensive unit, because the educators who have already taught from the unit indicated to me, again and again, how supportive, useful and effective these particular lessons were.
Freire also emphasized the virtue of humility for true and loving educational and human transformation. Humility, for Freire, is a requirement of love; and true love can transform the world through words and actions of naming; “The naming of the world, which is an act of creation and re-creation, is not possible if it is not infused with love. Love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself (89).” Therefore, humility is a necessary and constant virtue, which gives space for others, because “dialogue cannot exist without humility” (90). However, elitism assumes completion onto itself, and devalues the contributions of the other – of the oppressed. Indeed, more often we see the genius contributions of the poor being assumed by the elite, who are hungry for peer-respect in their ever-consuming conquest of self-actualization. Freire writes,
How can I dialogue if I start from the premise that naming the world is the task of an elite and that the presence of the people in history is a sign of deterioration, thus to be avoided? How can I dialogue if I am closed to – and even offended by – the contribution of others? How can I dialogue if I am afraid of being displaced, the mere possibility causing me torment and weakness? Self-sufficiency is incompatible with dialogue. Men and women who lack humility (or have lost it) cannot come to the people cannot be their partners in naming the world. Someone who cannot acknowledge himself to be as mortal as everyone else still has a long way to go before he can reach the point of encounter. At the point of encounter there are neither utter ignoramuses nor perfect sages; there are only people who are attempting, together, to learn more than they now know (90).
Humility is necessary for listening; and this interchange of speech and listening creates communion for transformation. Humility in words, deeds and actions is the most powerful form of activism for good transformation, and it is rooted in the pure silence of asceticism. Naming is the process of experience and observation as it concludes through synthesis and judgment. Naming can evoke both positive and negative emotions from the contextual experience, and these emotions may become intrinsically embedded in the identity or denotation of the person or thing described. Therefore, humility is life giving because it makes room for the other, for encounter, even for prayer. And, through this dialog and encounter trust may grow among all people and creation, and between the person and God. Humility and trust require consciousness, moral maturity, self-control, moderation and a premise of goodness.
The initial learning concerning the “historic struggle of humanization,” integrates the human person in mind, body and spirit, with the family, community, social order and the world, economically, intellectually and mystically is a comprehensive vision that must always be kept in unity; this unity is the dialog that creates integration, communion and transformation. Gabriel Moran develops the ideological schism of internal and external transformation in Religious Education as a Second Language. Moran wrote,
The liberal wing of educational discourse tends to slide over this issue by concentrating on attitudes as opposed to behavior, or by saying that education should be available to everyone but imposed on no one. In practice, this wing of education seems to be based on trying to change people’s thoughts while hoping that there will be a connection between thinking and behavior. On the conservative or behaviorist wing of educational discussion, the issue is directly confronted. Education is thought to be the practical business of changing the world… Education has been and continues to be concerned with changing the world, that is, changing physical organisms in their relation to the whole environment. I think this conviction is present in most people’s thinking about education; they think it should make a practical difference…While the behaviorists take the outside (“behavior”) liberals take the inside with thoughts, values, feelings, attitudes, and so forth. (37-38)
Freire states that when one ideology exists without the other, one has suffocated the other to death, and therefore there is no true development of humanization. Praxis, critical thought and action is the integration, which leads to a true transformation. Liberalism, in this context, may be simply known as deception; it becomes a bullying imposition of elitism, hypocrisy, lies, incompetence and tyranny. Such ideology emphasizes that elitism exists above dialog, dependency and reality. However, to emphasize “behavior” alone has severe dangers. It can take away creativity and free will; it appears to control human reason and liberty for a regimented human identity. “Behaviorism” can be interpreted as authoritarianism if it is isolated from internal, cognitive and moral development of the person. Jesus of Nazareth perfected the balance between the mind and the body in his person and his teaching techniques, most notably the parables. The parables present a problem to the listener, and then they ask for the listener/readers free and authentic response. These stories do not provide the answer; rather they require the listener to apply all of their human experiences and observations as they resolve the story with ethical reasoning and being. As John Dominic Crossan explains, to resolve a parable is to become a parable; therefore the parable is an act of the heart, mind and body. In my own unit on the parable, I draw on the teaching techniques and creative stories of Jesus of Nazareth that respect the fullness of humanity, the human mind, body and spirit, as well as human experience and history. His teaching united the internal and external, and he is indeed the primary model of love for all.
Freire’s precept of humility is essential in all dialogue and academic conversation; it is a necessary virtue for the person, the classroom and in all social interactions. Without humility, people cannot listen or encounter each other, and when and where there is no listening, there is no learning. Humility, as a virtue that vitalizes a room, can be very difficult to achieve in classroom of students, young and old, at various stages of ego and academic development, who may or may not be socially aware of the complexity of integration in the academic environment. Therefore, well-managed dialog techniques, such as Socratic circles or debate formats, should be applied to ensure that the conversation is respectful and all-inclusive. During my experience as a 7th grade teacher, I practiced these formats with my students so they could apply solid social interaction skills, participate, learn to listen to one another, as well as think and respond in a safe and friendly environment. I confess, I still have a long way to go before practice is made perfect in myself and in my classroom; however, I do understand the vital importance of trying and working toward this end of dialog and integration which Freire lucidly examines and creates a curriculum framework for in his powerful book, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Read Full Post »
Milk and Honey Education 