Category Archives: Criticism of theories

Here we critically analyze popular theories

Paulo Freire: Pedagogy of the Oppressed

By Richard McCance

A seminal work in the theory of Critical Pedagogies, Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” is essential reading for anyone interested in Critical Theory and those concerned with Social Justice, Radical Democratic Humanism and the transformation of our current social constraints.

Part 1: A Justification

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968/1972) Paulo Freire offers a theory of social order as well as an approach towards new possibilities, both individually and collectively.  This approach concerns what Freire identifies as humankind’s central problem, the axiological question of what it means to be human. Freire outlines what he sees as a contradiction in humanity, that of the oppressive and dehumanizing division of society into opposing social forces. He also offers solutions for a fuller humanity and greater humanization of society through what he refers to as a praxis of critical engagement within his specific approach to pedagogy.

Towards the goal of transformation of society with regards to greater humanization, Freire makes reference to the specific context of his time and the preoccupation with the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of being human. His approach to humanization views an oppressed class of society as subjects of decision making as opposed to the objects of decisions made on their behalf. Building on this idea, Freire calls for a conscious engagement with humanizing and de-humanizing forces of society. This struggle to affirm humanity becomes what he refers to as humanity’s “ontological vocation,” our approach to the struggle against exploitation, injustice, oppression, and alienation. For Freire, these dehumanizing forces are historical facts but do not need to determine our destiny. While individually we may not readily identify with our own oppressed nature nor that of any oppressors, we all must recognize distortions in our society that dehumanize us and we must stand in solidarity with those who are oppressed. It is only through this realization and a praxis of active and critical engagement in overcoming the contradictions of divided humanity, that a new model can be created.

While the immediate goal is to overcome oppression, we must also be weary of oppressing the oppressors. The ultimate goal in this sense becomes the liberation of all, including those who oppress. We must address, for example, the fear of losing the power of oppression that many in positions of oppression may hold. However, the liberation of the oppressed can only come through the power of the oppressed themselves, as they extend true generosity to those who would oppress them. For this we must understand how the oppressed often come to identify with their oppressors, falling back into individualistic and selfish modes of behaviour. Recognizing the prescribed nature of relationship of oppressor and oppressed is important, as “every prescription represents the imposition of one man’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the man prescribed to into one that conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness.” (p. 30). In this sense, the oppressed can begin to fear their own freedom, to deny their own humanity, and to lose sight of possible alternatives to our current situation.

Communion and comradery with others oppressed is necessary. Overcoming the security of conformity and alienation from solidarity is essential. The oppressed must recognize that they cannot authentically exist without freedom and so must overcome their fear in order to be more fully human, to have choices, to act, to speak, to create and to transform. It is through education that Freire sees the strength for this liberation stemming. It is this approach to pedagogy continually developed and redeveloped directly with the oppressed themselves, as opposed to for the oppressed by others, which will provide liberation and reclamation of true humanity.

How then can the oppressed as fearful, unauthentic and divided beings effectively engage in this pedagogy of their own liberation? Firstly, they must recognize that this pedagogy situates their oppression and the causes of this oppression as the object of critique and reflection. It is through this reflection that the required engagement in the struggle for liberation will become evident, as each new struggle presents itself.

Secondly, the oppressed can only be critically engaged through their identification of themselves as objects of oppression and with the realization that their identity relates to their oppressors’ dehumanizing manifestation of their oppressed selves. This critical discovery may be painful but it is essential for the humanization of all and is necessary to oppose the contradiction of a supposedly free yet divided society. As the ultimate goal is liberation for all humanity, this perception of reality must move beyond a view of fixed limitations of oppression to a viable alternative transformation of freedom for all. Indeed, the perception of reality as this viable alternative freedom must be the motivating drive for transformation.

Individuals in positions of oppression must also acknowledge their role. However, recognition does not equate to solidarity. Some element of radicalization may be necessary in order for the individual oppressor to see the oppressed not as some abstract grouping but as those who have been deprived of justice and humanity. This acknowledgement necessitates more than sentimentality. It requires love beyond individualistic acts as existential practice, objectively verifiable and transformative in the immediate situation.

Here the question of objective/subjective dichotomy must be explored. In fact, Freire argues that there is no dichotomy at all in the sense that one cannot exist without the other. In reality these two positions are in continual dialectical relationship (p. 35). The author references Marx and Engles’ work La Sagrada Famila y otros Escritos (Mexico, 1962), in terms of making “real oppression more oppressive still by adding to it the realization of oppression” (p. 37). It is only in this dialectical, subjective/objective relationship that authentic praxis is possible as it requires the oppressed subject to confront their oppressive reality in a critical and objective manner, with the goal of active transformation. False perceptions and defensive rationalizations also arise when such a critical view of reality would challenge the interests (either individually or at the class level) of the perceiver. As with Freire’s reference to Lukács (1965), the solution rests on a critical intervention in both reflection and dialogue as they relate to praxis. Through the experience of reflection and dialogue, a critical consciousness awakens as the oppressed become their own models in the struggle for redemption.

As the practice of liberation must be developed by the oppressed themselves, the issue of the lack political power needs to be addressed in terms of the role of the oppressed in developing an approach to pedagogy. A distinction here needs to be made between ‘systematic education’ which only political power can change, and an ‘educational project’ which should directly involve the oppressed in the process of its organization. It is the extension of love and generosity from the oppressed back to their oppressors on which these projects must focus. For Freire, this is not only the ultimate response to the violence of oppression but the truest expression of the character of humanity. Ensuring that those within the oppressor class accept this generosity and love as liberation from the generational and systematic structures of oppression is vital if the monopoly of oppression is to end.

Knowledge of self and the conditions which influence us, both as oppressed and as oppressors, is the beginning of such critical engagement with the contradictory social setting as is necessary to overcome the structures of oppression. It is this awakening that both recognizes and promotes further humanization. Discovery alone, however, is insufficient. Action beyond humanitarian activism is necessary as is continual reflection and struggle as a dialogical and deliberate act of transformation. This is the essence of that praxis to which Freire refers. As this praxis must be of the oppressed, not for them, revolutionary leadership of those who stand in solidarity with the oppressed must trust in the ability of the oppressed to reason. This reason, as with this struggle and this dialogue are at the heart of Freire’s approach to a humanizing pedagogy of the oppressed.

Freire, P.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968/1972). New York: Herder and Herder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, General, History of education

On being authentic

By Natalie Woods

When I recorded this video I didn’t have the philosophy of education in mind. However, I think some of the themes discussed will be relevant to anyone interested in education.

On being authentic

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, General, History of education, Our research

Chapter One: Art and Education

By Natalie Woods

By 2016, in many of the world’s most affluent societies, the utopian impulse had been extinguished. Utopianism was viewed as naïve, a relic of the past, affiliated with brutal, post war regimes. Cynicism was embedded deeply in education, where there had been a move away from idealistic visions of what it meant to be educated, or what it meant to pursue ‘the good life’, towards policies and practices that were grounded in a language of scientific certainty, and economic efficiency.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, Dispelling myths, General, History of education, Our research

What does it mean to be an educated person? An historical overview.

By Natalie Woods

Introduction

Plato, Aristotle, and Rousseau associated the aims of education with beliefs about society, reason and emotion, and knowledge and freedom. Their treatment of these themes profoundly influenced ideals of the ‘educated person’ that emerged in the West during the 19th century. A review of literature published since the late 19th century revealed that these ideals generally fell into one of four broad categories: the rational individual; the worker; the explorer; and, the critical intellectual. Each vision made assumptions about society, human nature, knowledge, and freedom. This review outlines those visions, discusses the tensions between them, and analyses the influence they have had on contemporary educational thought and policy in New Zealand.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, Dispelling myths, General, History of education, Our research

Citizenship and the Philosophy of Education

By Richard McCance
In her wide ranging analysis of citizenship education in Aotearoa New Zealand, Carol Mutch (2013) stresses that school decision-making should rest upon “a strong philosophical base” (pp 59, 62) when considering theories and pedagogies to inform practice. The contentious nature of citizenship in the Western Liberal tradition and Aotearoa NZ’s unique bicultural heritage require we establish a clear and widely accepted definition of citizenship. Dialogue is needed to facilitate better understanding of what citizenship is and how it is practiced. A revised understanding of our collective conception of citizenship would then necessitate further discourse into the meaning and purpose of education in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, General

Innovative Learning Environments: A critique

By Richard McCance

Media attention in New Zealand has recently focused on the current Ministry of Education policy of redesigning schools along the lines of Innovative Learning Environments (also known as Modern Learning Environments or Open Plan Learning Spaces). This attention is important and more people need to be aware of the factors driving this change and the expectations and assumptions that underlie this policy.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Criticism of theories, General

Do Schools Kill Creativity – A Response to Ken Robinson

By BRENT SILBY

Robinson argues that schools are primarily concerned with conformity and that this has a negative impact on creativity. He suggests that by grouping students by age, delivering a standard curriculum, and testing them against standardized criteria, schools are essentially diminishing the individuality and creativity of students. In his Do Schools Kill Creativity TED Talk, Robinson states that:

“…all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.” He goes on to suggest that “creativity is now as important as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status”. (Robinson 2006).

Robinson seems to be implying that schools currently place little value on creativity. He is also creating a distinction between literacy and creativity, suggesting that somehow schools value one but not the other. But literacy and creativity go hand-in-hand. A highly literate person can become hugely creative in the production of written works. It is not the case that schools favor literacy over creativity. Schools encourage both. Furthermore, in other areas of creativity, schools excel. During their life in school, students are exposed to an immense array of creative endeavors from music to visual art; from fiction to game design. It is simply false that schools place little value on creativity. Robinson, himself, is a product of what he might call “traditional schooling”, and he is clearly creative. Arguably the most creative people on the planet are the products of traditional schooling. Given the fact that there is so much creativity in society, it seems to be misleading to make the bold claim that “schools educate the creativity out of kids”. Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Criticism of theories