Chapter 2 –PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED by Paulo Freire. New York: Continuum Books, 1993.
Teacher-student relationship holds narrative character – narrating subject of teacher engaging listening objects (students); however, this delivery model promotes staticism of reality, “filling” students with disconnected concepts, not reflecting student realities (^vessel model- here called ‘containers’) – promotes rote memorization. “The more completely he fills the receptacles, the better a teacher he is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are” (58). Education as depositing, rather than communication – “banking” – where students receive, file, and store deposits – away from creativity, practice. Deposits are given or bestowed, projecting ignorance onto students (^removes agency, dichotomizes teacher and student, roles within classroom, worth of knowledge) – enslaving them, fragmenting their viewpoints, alienating them.
- “humanitarianism” of teachers – the “benevolence” of banking models – however, are more concerned with changing consciousness of those taught, instead of structures that lead to adaptation to oppressive education.
Discuss: “Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of liberation are themselves surrounded and influenced by the climate which generates the banking concept, and often do not perceive its true significance or its dehumanizing power. Paradoxically, then, they utilize this same instrument of alienation in what they consider an effort to liberate” (66).
“Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men upon their world in order to transform it” (66).
By not teaching ‘real-world’ applications or to those knowledge-sets, we alienate and disserve students. Banking models individuate achievement and learning, decontexualize societal impacts and co-creation of knowledge, de-historicizes learning (and even consciousness)
❤ “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (58)
Instead, education must be formed so that all are simultaneously teachers AND students – negating poles, and removing the power dialectic involved in education, removing oppressive practices that act as a metaphor for larger society.
DQ – does Friere, through expressing the cyclical nature of marginalization of knowledge seem to contribute to culture of poverty arguments (particularly on page 63) – disempowerment begets disempowerment?
DQ – why is it important to discern between oppression in knowledge and oppression in teaching? Further, consciousness?
DQ – where is the mechanism of social change, here? – rejection of the banking model entirely, posing “problems,” acquiring intentionality and consciousness (of others, objects, and self) – “consciousness as consciousness of consciousness”- ‘the Jasperian split’ (67). Rejection of authority that is not on the side of freedom – (maintains authority, however?) – “teacher-students with student-teachers” — all responsible for learning environment. Teachers reject narration, but are cognitive at all times (^DQ – how is this possible?), casts students as “co-investigators” in creation of dialogue
Moving from ‘submersion’ of consciousness à ‘emergence’ of consciousness and ‘critical intervention’ with reality – promotion of dialogue between students and teachers, promotion of critical thinking by students through problem-based education. ‘Having’ is not necessarily a part of humanity- in Frierian application – no one’s having should impact the ability for others to have humanity.
The importance of asking the question – ‘why?’