Paulo Freire education as a practice of liberation. Radical political theory of P. Freire
home
PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED
(50th Anniversary Edition)
Translation from English by Irina Nikitina (preface, introduction, chapters 3 and 4, notes to all sections, afterword, interviews with modern scientists), Maria Maltseva-Samoilovich (chapters 1 and 2, edited by Irina Nikitina). Unless otherwise indicated, translations of quotes in all chapters are by Irina Nikitina.
© Paulo Freire, 1970, 1993
© Donaldo Macedo, foreword, 2018
© Ira Shor, afterword, 2018
© Nikitina I. V., Maltseva-Samoilovich M. I., translation into Russian, 2017
© Edition in Russian, design. LLC "Publishing Group "Azbuka-Atticus", 2018
CoLibri®
Freire's book... calls on all educators in general and critical educators in particular to move beyond the fetishization of methods that paralyzes teacher thinking, innovation, and creativity.
Noam Chomsky, linguist, essayist, philosopher
“Pedagogy of the Oppressed” has the main criterion of a classic: this book has outlived its time and its creator. It is a must-read for every teacher who cares about the connection between education and social change.
Stanley Aronovich, Professor of Sociology and Cultural Studies, City University of New York
Without a doubt, Freire's work has generated an impressive response around the world. He is perhaps the most influential scholar in the field of education.
Ramon Flecha, Professor of Sociology, University of Barcelona Freire's theory continues to challenge scholars today to consider the variety of personal and geographical nuances that need to be taken into account when thinking about education. Freire encourages us to look at everything critically, especially working together with others in the context of community when trying to solve pressing problems of inequality. It also places research in the area Everyday life
- everyday realities, real destinies, real living conditions of people, their struggles and their aspirations - in order to make research accessible to the people with whom we work and with whom / about whom we write these same studies.
Valerie Kinlock, Dean, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh
Dedicated to the oppressed and all those who suffer and fight alongside them
Before New York had time to show the world a $1,000 bagel, a local restaurateur included a $27,000 chocolate sundae on the menu, setting a Guinness record for the most expensive dessert in the world.
It is my great honor to write the foreword to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a book that is undoubtedly already a classic as it has gradually gained in popularity over the past half century as the world enters the bleak 21st century. Leading intellectuals - Noam Chomsky, Zygmunt Bauman, Henry Geroux, Arundhati Roy, Amy Goodman, Tom Piketty and others - have repeatedly appealed to the prudence of the inhabitants of our planet, warning about dire consequences(including climate change denial, shameless economic inequality, the threat of nuclear holocaust) the hegemony of the political far right, which, if not checked by the left, could lead to the complete extinction of humanity as we know it. Therefore, it is necessary not only to choose a different political path, but also to take into account that it must be based on the development of a critical awareness of people of the fact that they exist in the world and interact with it - it is this position that Freire insisted on and it is this that permeates his brilliant, insightful thoughts expressed in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” In other words, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” was written primarily not with the goal of proposing a new methodology (which would contradict the author’s critique of stereotypical models of education), but with the goal of stimulating the development of liberation educational process, which challenges students, calls them to action, and requires them to use literacy and critical thinking to learn to change the world in which they live, thoughtfully and critically assessing it; so that they can identify and confront the divisions and contradictions inherent in the relationship between oppressors and oppressed. Thus, Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed primarily with the goal of awakening in the oppressed the knowledge, creativity and enduring capacity for critical thinking that is necessary to expose, demythologize and understand the power relations that have placed them in a marginalized position, and through this awareness to begin the work of liberation through praxis, which invariably requires constant, ongoing critical reflection and action. Although more and more educators now agree with Freire's thoughts, many of them, including those who adhere to liberal and progressive views, do not pay attention to the fact that their political discourse is inconsistent: on the one hand, they condemn the conditions oppression, and on the other hand, adapt to the dominant structures that directly created this situation of oppression. We will return to this issue a little later.
home
PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED
(50th Anniversary Edition)
Translation from English by Irina Nikitina (preface, introduction, chapters 3 and 4, notes to all sections, afterword, interviews with modern scientists), Maria Maltseva-Samoilovich (chapters 1 and 2, edited by Irina Nikitina). Unless otherwise indicated, translations of quotes in all chapters are by Irina Nikitina.
© Paulo Freire, 1970, 1993
© Donaldo Macedo, foreword, 2018
© Ira Shor, afterword, 2018
© Nikitina I. V., Maltseva-Samoilovich M. I., translation into Russian, 2017
© Edition in Russian, design. LLC "Publishing Group "Azbuka-Atticus", 2018
* * *
CoLibri®
Freire's book... calls on all educators in general and critical educators in particular to move beyond the fetishization of methods that paralyzes teacher thinking, innovation, and creativity.
Noam Chomsky, linguist, essayist, philosopher
“Pedagogy of the Oppressed” has the main criterion of a classic: this book has outlived its time and its creator. It is a must-read for every teacher who cares about the connection between education and social change.
Stanley Aronovich, Professor of Sociology and Cultural Studies, City University of New York
Without a doubt, Freire's work has generated an impressive response around the world. He is perhaps the most influential scholar in the field of education.
Freire's theory continues to challenge scholars today to consider the variety of personal and geographical nuances that need to be taken into account when thinking about education. Freire encourages us to look at everything critically, especially working together with others in the context of community when trying to solve pressing problems of inequality. It also situates research in the realm of everyday life - everyday realities, real destinies, the real conditions of people's lives, their struggles and their aspirations - in order to make research accessible to the people with whom we work and with whom / about whom we write these same studies.
- everyday realities, real destinies, real living conditions of people, their struggles and their aspirations - in order to make research accessible to the people with whom we work and with whom / about whom we write these same studies.
Valerie Kinlock, Dean, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh
Dedicated to the oppressed and all those who suffer and fight alongside them
Before New York had time to show the world a $1,000 bagel, a local restaurateur included a $27,000 chocolate sundae on the menu, setting a Guinness record for the most expensive dessert in the world.
It is my great honor to write the foreword to Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a book that is undoubtedly already a classic as it has gradually gained in popularity over the past half century as the world enters the bleak 21st century. Leading intellectuals - Noam Chomsky, Zygmunt Bauman, Henry Geroux, Arundhati Roy, Amy Goodman, Tom Piketty and others - have repeatedly appealed to the prudence of the inhabitants of our planet, warning of dire consequences (which include climate change denial, shameless economic inequality, the threat nuclear holocaust) hegemony of the far-right political forces, which, if not checked by the left, could lead to the complete extinction of humanity as we know it. Therefore, it is necessary not only to choose a different political path, but also to take into account that it must be based on the development of a critical awareness of people of the fact that they exist in the world and interact with it - it is this position that Freire insisted on and it is this that permeates his brilliant, insightful thoughts expressed in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” In other words, Pedagogy of the Oppressed was written primarily not to propose a new methodology (which would contradict the author's critique of stereotypical models of education), but to stimulate the development of a emancipatory educational process that challenges students, calls them to action and demands, that through literacy and critical thinking they learn to change the world in which they live, thoughtfully and critically assessing it; so that they can identify and confront the divisions and contradictions inherent in the relationship between oppressors and oppressed. Thus, Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed primarily with the goal of awakening in the oppressed the knowledge, creativity and enduring capacity for critical thinking that is necessary to expose, demythologize and understand the power relations that have placed them in a marginalized position, and through this awareness to begin the work of liberation through praxis, which invariably requires constant, ongoing critical reflection and action. Although more and more educators now agree with Freire's thoughts, many of them, including those who adhere to liberal and progressive views, do not pay attention to the fact that their political discourse is inconsistent: on the one hand, they condemn the conditions oppression, and on the other hand, adapt to the dominant structures that directly created this situation of oppression. We will return to this issue a little later.
Freire always remained true to his view of history as probability and fervently hoped for the possibility of creating a world where there would be less discrimination and more justice, less dehumanization and more humanity, but he was nevertheless always critical of “liberation propaganda... [which can only] “instill” faith in freedom into the heads of the oppressed, thereby seeking to win their trust.” Accordingly, Freire believed that "the correct approach is built on dialogue... [a process that awakens] the conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their freedom, [which is] not a gift given to them by a revolutionary leader, but the result of their own conscientization". During this long and fruitful walk, Freire told me, partly jokingly, that “the ruling class will never send us on holiday to Copacabana. If we want to go to Copacabana, we will have to fight for it.” During this long - and last - conversation, Freire several times showed frustration, sometimes bordering on “sheer rage,” as he used to call it, towards some of the progressive renegades who are adapting to neoliberal theology. His friend was one of them, ex-president Brazil's Fernando Henrique, who, like Freire, was exiled to Chile by a brutal neo-Nazi military dictatorship, whose representatives killed and tortured thousands of Brazilians. In essence, Brazil's experiments with neoliberalism under the auspices of Fernando Henrique's government have exacerbated already dire conditions and plunged millions of Brazilians into hunger, poverty and despair, which in turn has led to worsening economic and educational inequality, while simultaneously unleashing systemic corruption in the country. ruling circles. Unfortunately, the socialist governments of the Western world of that time largely abandoned the principle of the struggle for social justice, equality and equity, leaning towards a neoliberal, market-obsessed ideology that not only trampled the hopes of people who dreamed of better world, but also overthrew these same governments, creating the conditions for rampant corruption. This is exactly what happened in Portugal, Spain and Greece. In Greece, the Socialist Party under Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou allowed corruption to reach epidemic proportions, so that, for example, the PASOK party was able to buy votes by offering free air tickets to Greek citizens leaving the US and wanting to fly to Greece if they voted for the socialists. Such moves are reminiscent of strategies regularly criticized by Western democrats as attempts to rig elections, which they say are afflicting countries pejoratively referred to as "Third World banana republics" like a plague. It can be said that socialist governments on various continents have lost power, in particular due to outrageous corruption scandals, which in general gave rise to the emergence of center-right and far-right governments (Greece, where the radical left-wing party SYRIZA won the elections, was an exception). These governments were brought to power by the votes of disaffected and disenfranchised voters—voters who were victims of the austerity regime imposed on them by neoliberal policies.
Freire also made no secret of his “absolute rage,” condemning the critical stance of many soft-spoken liberals and some of the so-called critical educators who often find refuge within the walls of higher education institutions, hiding their dependence on shameless consumerism while attacking the market in their written discourse. theology of neoliberalism. Very often, the tastes of such soft liberals and so-called critical educators and their ways of being in and interacting with the world remain, in Freire's words, inextricably linked to the extreme neoliberal market views that they themselves condemn at the level of written discourse. In their daily actions, such soft liberals and so-called critical educators often act in a way that is not at all what praxis dictates, turning the stated political project into a fossil, into vague analytical rants that cannot go beyond the framework of “deferred” action - action planned with the goal of transforming the existing, destructive deification of the market inherent in neoliberalism into new democratic structures that will lead to equality, equity and the formation of truly democratic political practices. In other words, many soft-spoken liberals and so-called critical educators boast of their leftist principles, ostentatiously proclaiming themselves to be supporters of Marxism (which in most cases is expressed only in written discourse or in the safe walls of higher education institutions), and sometimes feel the need to also boast that , for example, their radicalism goes beyond the ideas of Marx, since their political principles closer to Mao’s views - and they consider this position even more radical. As a result, being a leftist in the academic world becomes an appropriated, exotic political and cultural currency: being a Marxist in a tower of Ivory, provides a person with status, but in reality it is just a stylish brand, the personification of consumerism, maintained through the manipulation of an empty, symbolic list of names and labels that are otherwise essentially devoid of any meaning. In essence, the current title of “Marxist” in the academic world, which is used by some critical educators, turns ethical and political activity into a performance, and the leftist worldview into a consumer product. Becoming a commodity, these self-appointed “radical” positions and the title of radical turn out to be dummies, losing their progressive content to such an extent that they become divorced from principled action. This gap underlies the reproduction of the theology of neoliberalism, which does not endorse collective social activities based on critical thinking and encourages a fierce, cut-throat competitive spirit. This insidious process of decoupling critical discourse from action makes it possible to act contrary to belief: it allows self-proclaimed Marxists in the service of educational institutions to, for example, declare that they are against racism, while at the same time turning the fight against racial prejudice into lifeless clichés that leave no pedagogical space to critique white supremacist ideology. In this process, their progressive principles are often used, put into action only insofar as they expose racism at the level of written critical discourse, invariably reaping the benefits of privilege from the cemented, institutionalized racism that they voluntarily refuse to acknowledge and voluntarily refuse to fight against.
Thus, these Marxists in the service of the education system also ignore the political and systemic influence of racism, which was clearly on display during the 2016 US presidential campaign and which became increasingly horrific with each calculated speech of Donald Trump aimed at inciting hatred. by whites against their fellow citizens, not against the state or the conditions created largely by the neoliberal policies that enraged working-class whites, paradoxically, are willing to tolerate. Trump's election essentially exposed the lie behind the post-election campaign slogan that "racism is over" - a slogan coined after the election of Barack Obama, the first black president. Moreover, to deny the existence of racism while simultaneously expanding ghettos, normalizing the school-to-prison pipeline that operates primarily for blacks and Latinos, and exacerbating poverty as a side effect of racism, is to be racist. These self-proclaimed supporters of Marx and Mao in the service of the educational system are racist when they preach anti-racist sermons, presenting racism as an abstract idea and resisting the intellectual and social pressure that requires them to turn this abstract idea expressed at the level of written critical discourse into action, which would lead to a radical democratization of society and its institutions. How radically democratic are, say, universities if the majority of the faculty is white, apart from a handful of black professors and a tiny number of non-white students? For example, does racial bias play a role in the near absence of African Americans on faculty? classical literature– among both faculty and students – or are African Americans not genetically predisposed to the study of classics and, therefore, reluctant to enroll in such departments? Even more pernicious is the situation when such self-proclaimed leftists in the service of the education system join a social structure of denial of ingrained racism, which is expressed in their speech and behavior. Take, for example, the statement of a liberal white professor working at a university large city – educational institution, which prides itself on its ethnic and cultural diversity: “We just want these black kids to learn how to learn.” Such remarks demonstrate not only the highly ethnocentric view of the act of knowing, as Freire insightfully discusses in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, but also that some of the people making such remarks are still shackled by the white supremacist ideology that has implanted myths in their consciousness and the belief that children of a particular race or culture are innately incapable of learning until they receive the prescriptions provided by educators to the poor and oppressed. The latter often carry pre-packaged lesson plans in their leather bags and Gucci briefcases in which they intend to teach, say, African Americans something that they could not yet know by definition, because until now they did not have the ability to acquire knowledge. The very existence of the brutal conditions in which these non-white children were doomed to grow up testifies to how well they learn, because they managed to survive in circumstances of “inhuman inequality,” as Jonathan Kozol caustically called it in some of his books. Would the sons and daughters of these Marxist university teachers be able to bear the pressure of such deep-rooted social inequalities and remain unscathed, while at the same time performing excellently in the final qualifying examinations? Probably not. Therefore, the mere survival of the most blatant racism, segregation, gender and class discrimination indicates not only the high level of intelligence of those children who are forced into the ghetto, but also confirms Howard Gardner's theory of the existence of multiple intelligences, which comes out beyond the Western concept of “intelligence.”
Which is available on the Internet, has an unexpectedly small volume and, with all due respect to the pioneer, is maximum suitable for preliminary acquaintance with the work of the author of the book.
If I missed something please knowledgeable people correct me.
These pages will introduce the reader Pedagogy of the oppressed were born from my observations during six years of political exile, observations that enriched those obtained earlier during my educational activities in Brazil.
And during training courses by analysis conscientization(: Term conscientization means the development and perception of social, political and economic contradictions, as well as the undertaking of actions against the oppressive elements of reality. Cm. Chapter III.— approx. English translation //In the English edition, the Portuguese term is given without translation, the most adequate meaning is “statement of consciousness” - approx. ) and during direct experiments in real, liberatory education, I came across the phenomenon of “fear of freedom”, which is discussed in the first chapter of this book. It is not uncommon for course participants to point out the problem of the “danger of conscientization,” thus revealing their own fear of freedom. Critical consciousness, they say, is anarchic. Others add that critical consciousness can lead to disorder. But some, nevertheless, confess: “What to deny? I was afraid of freedom. I’m not afraid anymore!”
In one of the discussion groups there was a debate about whether the conscientization of men and women in a specific situation of injustice could not lead them to “destructive fanaticism” or to “a sense of the total collapse of their universe.” At the height of the argument, one man, who had been a factory worker for many years, took the floor: “Perhaps I am the only working class person here. I can’t say that I understood everything that you just said here, but I can say one thing for sure - when I I came to the course, I was naive and when I realized how naive I was, I began to become critical. But this discovery did not make me a fanatic and I do not feel any collapse."
Doubts regarding possible effects statements of consciousness contain an assumption that the doubter does not always explicitly introduce: “it is better for victims of injustice not to perceive themselves as such.” In fact, however, concentration does not lead people to “destructive fanaticism.” On the contrary, allowing people to enter historical process as responsible subjects [the term "subjects" refers to those who know and act, as opposed to "objects" who are known and acted upon. — approx. English transl.], the formation of consciousness includes them in the search for self-affirmation and, thus, leads them away from fanaticism.
The awakening of critical consciousness opens the way to the expression of social unrest precisely because these unrest are real components situations of oppression [Francisco Weffort, in the preface to Paulo Freire, Educagdo como Prdtica da Liberdade (Rio de Janeiro, 1967)]
The fear of freedom, which is not always realized by the wearer, makes him see ghosts. Such an individual is essentially trying to hide, and prefers security to the risks associated with release. Hegel states:
And only at the risk of life is freedom confirmed, it is confirmed that for self-consciousness not being, not how it directly appears, not its immersion in the vastness of life is the essence, but the fact that there is nothing in it that would not be a vanishing moment for it, - that it is only pure being-for-itself. An individual who did not risk his life can, of course, be recognized as a person, but he has not achieved the truth of this recognition as some kind of independent self-awareness. - cit. according to Hegel G.V.F. Phenomenology of spirit, p. 115 / trans. with him. G.G. Shpeta. - 2nd ed. - M.: Academic project, 2014.
People rarely openly admit their fear of freedom; rather, they strive to disguise it - sometimes unconsciously - by presenting themselves as its defenders. They give their doubts and suspicions the appearance of solid sobriety, as if they were proud guardians of freedom. But they confuse freedom with maintaining the status quo; so what if conscientization calls into question the preservation of the status quo, it seems to pose a threat to freedom itself.
It was not reflection and research alone that gave rise to Pedagogy of the Oppressed; it is rooted in specific situations and describes the reactions of working people (peasants and urban dwellers) and members of the middle class whom I have observed personally or indirectly in the course of my educational work. Continuing observations will enable me to correct or confirm in later works the conclusions I present in this introductory work.
This publication will likely cause a negative reaction among some readers. Some will consider my approach to the problem of human liberation purely idealistic, or consider the discussion of ontological vocation, love, dialogue, hope, modesty and sympathy to be too reactionary chatter. Others will not accept (or will not accept) my denial of government oppression that panders to the oppressors. Accordingly, this apparently experimental work is intended for radicals. I am sure that Christians and Marxists, even if they partially or completely disagree with me, will read it to the end. And a reader who dogmatically takes a closed, “irrational” position will reject the dialogue that this book will hopefully open.
Sectarianism, fed on fanaticism, is inevitably castrated. Radicality, nurtured by a critical spirit, is always fruitful. Sectarianism creates myths and thus alienates; radicalism critiques and thus liberates. Radicality requires increased responsibility for the position taken, which means increased involvement in an attempt to transform immediate, objective reality. And vice versa, sectarianism, due to its mythology and irrationality, turns it into a false (and therefore unchangeable) “reality”.
Sectarianism in any part [of the political spectrum - approx. ] is an obstacle to the emancipation of humanity. The right option, therefore, does not always, unfortunately, cause its natural opposite: the radicalization of revolutionaries. It is not uncommon for revolutionaries themselves to become reactionaries, falling into sectarianism in response to the sectarianism of the right. This possibility, however, should not plunge the radical into the role of an obedient tool of the elites. Once involved in the liberation process, he or she will not be able to remain passive in the face of the brutality of the oppressors.
On the other hand, a radical will never become a subjectivist. For him, the subjective aspect exists only in relation to the objective aspect (the concrete reality that is the object of analysis). Subjectivity and objectivity thus come into dialectical unity, generating knowledge in solidarity with action and vice versa.
In turn, the sectarian, no matter what his or her beliefs, is blinded by irrationality, does not and cannot perceive the dynamics of reality - at least, he interprets it incorrectly. If such a person thinks dialectically, then this is “home dialectics.” The right-wing sectarian (I used to call them natives [In "Educagdo como Pratica da Liberdade" - Education as the practice of liberation]) seeks to slow down the historical process, to "tame" time and thus tame other people. Leftists who have become sectarians are completely mistaken when they try to interpret reality and history dialectically, and fall into essentially fatalistic positions.
Right-wing cultists differ from their left-wing counterparts in that the former try to domesticate the present so that (they hope) the future will reproduce this same domesticated present, while the latter believe that the future is predetermined - something like fate, destiny, inevitability . For right-wing sectarians, “today” is connected with the past, with something given and immutable; For left-wing sectarians, “tomorrow” is predetermined, inevitably predetermined. Thus, both rightists and leftists are reactionaries because, starting from their respective false views of history, both types develop ways of acting that limit freedom. The fact that someone imagines a “well-behaved” present, and someone else a predetermined future does not mean that both types give up and become spectators (i.e., the former expect the continuation of the present, and the latter the onset of a “known” future). On the contrary, by imprisoning themselves in “cycles of certainty” from which they cannot escape, these individuals “work out” their own truth. But this is not the truth of those men and women who are fighting to build the future, exposing themselves to all the risks that this very construction is associated with. And this is not the truth of those men and women who fight side by side and learn together how to build the future - which is not something given that can be achieved, but rather something that people create with their own hands. Both types of cultists who treat history as if it were their property end up losing other people - and this is one way of pitting themselves against people.
While the right-wing sectarian, who closes himself in his own truth, still only fulfills his natural role, the leftist, who has become rigid and turned into a sectarian, denies his own nature. Both of them, however, revolve around “their” truth and feel threatened if this truth is questioned. That is, everyone believes that everything that is not “his” truth is a lie. As journalist Marcio Moreira Alves once told me: “Both suffer from a lack of doubt.”
A radical adherent of human liberation will not become a prisoner of the “cycle of certainty” in which reality itself becomes a prisoner. On the contrary, the more radical a person is, the more fully he enters reality, so that by knowing it more fully, he is better able to carry out the transformation. Such an individual is not afraid to confront, hear and see the world in its true light. Such a person is not afraid of meeting other people and entering into dialogue with them [“...As long as theoretical knowledge remains the privilege of a handful of “academics” in the party, the danger of going astray remains” Rosa Luxemburg “Reform or Revolution” (FIND EXACT QUOTE!)]. He does not consider himself the owner of history or all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; no, this man devotes himself, within the framework of history, to fighting on their side.
The pedagogy of the oppressed, the introductory sketches of which are presented in the following pages, is the work of radicals; it cannot be done by sectarians.
I will be pleased if among the readers of this book there are people critical enough to correct errors and misunderstandings, deepen statements and point out aspects that have escaped me. It is quite possible that someone will question my right to discuss revolutionary cultural action, a subject of which I have no direct experience. The fact that I personally did not participate in revolutionary actions, however, does not negate the opportunity for me to reflect on this topic. Moreover, in my educational experience with people, with dialogue-based and problem-centric education, I have accumulated relatively rich material, which encouraged me to take risks associated with the statements contained in this work.
On these pages, I only hope to maintain the strength of my trust in people, my faith in man and in creating a world in which it will be easier to love.
Here I would like to express my gratitude to Elsa, my wife and “first reader,” for her understanding and support of my work, which also belongs to her. In addition, I would like to extend my gratitude to a group of friends for their comments on my manuscript. At the risk of leaving out some names, I must mention Joao da Veiga Coutiño, Richard Scholl, Jim Lamb, Mira and Jovelino Ramos, Paulo de Tarso, Almino Affonso, Plinio Sampaio, Hernani Maria Fiori, Marcela Gaillardo, José Luis Fiori and Joao Zacharioti. Responsibility for the statements contained here belongs, of course, to me alone.
— Paulo Freire.
Those who think that the book is needed join the translation work: they help look for citations, leave editorial and proofreading suggestions, and join in constructive discussions.
, Christian socialism, liberation theology
Pedagogy of the oppressed, “banking” education system, critical consciousness, anti-repressive education, practice
Biography
Born into a middle-class family in Recife (Pernambuco), Freire experienced hunger and poverty during the economic crisis of the 1930s, when severe economic situation did not allow him to receive a full education. In 1931 the family moved to Jaboatan dos Guararapes.
In 1943, Freire entered the University of Recife. Although he studied to become a lawyer, he devoted much of his time to the study of philosophy (especially phenomenology) and the psychology of language. After graduation, he decided not to work in his specialty, but became a teacher of Portuguese in high school. In 1944, he married Elsa Maya Costa de Oliveira, with whom he worked at school and raised five children.
In 1946, Freire was appointed director of the Department of Education and Culture social service state of Pernambuco.
In 1961, Freire was appointed director of the Department cultural development at the University of Recife. In 1962, he got the opportunity to put his theory into practice and taught 300 sugar plantation workers to read and write in 45 days. After this, the Brazilian government approves the creation of thousands of similar cultural circles throughout the country.
In 1964, after a right-wing military coup, the dictatorship banned their activities. Freire, a Christian socialist who sympathized with the Cuban Revolution and leftist movements in the country, was arrested and jailed as a “traitor” for 70 days. After exile and a short stay in Bolivia, Freire worked for 5 years in Chile for the government and FAO at the UN. In 1967, Freire published his first book, Education as the Practice of Freedom. Education as the Practice of Freedom ). Which is followed by his most famous book, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (port. Pedagogia do Oprimido, English Pedagogy of the Oppressed), first published in Portugal in 1968. In 1970, the book was translated into Spanish and English. In Brazil itself, the book was published only in 1974, in the context of the weakening of the authoritarian regime.
After spending a year in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he taught at Harvard, Freire moved to Geneva, Switzerland, where he was special adviser to the World Council of Churches on educational issues. In addition, he advised leftist movements that came to power in the former Portuguese colonies (including Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau) in the creation of educational systems and the fight against illiteracy.
Freire was able to return to his homeland only in 1980. Freire joined the Workers' Party and was responsible for the party's adult literacy program in São Paulo from 1980 to 1986. When PT won municipal elections 1988, Freire was appointed Secretary of Education of the State of São Paulo.
Creation
Paulo Freire worked in the field of public education and studied the philosophy of education, which allowed him to combine not only the classical approaches of Plato, but also modern Marxist criticism and the theory of the fight against colonialism. Pedagogy of the Oppressed can be seen as a development or response to Frantz Fanon's book Branded with a Curse (fr. Les Damnes de la Terre), which emphasizes the need to provide the indigenous population with an education that is both modern (instead of traditional, patriarchal) and anti-colonial (and not just the imposition of the culture of the colonialists).
Essays
see also
Write a review of the article "Freire, Paulo"
Links
- , Brazil
- , Malta
- , Finland
- , Arizona
- , Tel Aviv
Excerpt characterizing Freire, Paulo
“Yes, yes, do it,” he responded to various proposals. “Yes, yes, go, my dear, and have a look,” he addressed first one or the other of those close to him; or: “No, no, we’d better wait,” he said. He listened to the reports brought to him, gave orders when his subordinates required it; but, listening to the reports, he seemed not to be interested in the meaning of the words of what was said to him, but something else in the expressions of the faces, in the tone of speech of those reporting, interested him. From long-term military experience, he knew and with his senile mind understood that it is impossible for one person to lead hundreds of thousands of people fighting death, and he knew that the fate of the battle is not decided by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place where the troops are stationed, not by the number of guns and killed people, and that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he watched over this force and led it, as far as it was in his power.The general expression on Kutuzov’s face was one of concentrated, calm attention and tension, which barely overcame the fatigue of his weak and old body.
At eleven o'clock in the morning they brought him the news that the flushes occupied by the French were again repulsed, but that Prince Bagration was wounded. Kutuzov gasped and shook his head.
“Go to Prince Pyotr Ivanovich and find out in detail what and how,” he said to one of the adjutants and then turned to the Prince of Wirtemberg, who stood behind him:
“Would it please Your Highness to take command of the first army?”
Soon after the prince's departure, so soon that he could not yet get to Semenovsky, the prince's adjutant returned from him and reported to his Serene Highness that the prince was asking for troops.
Kutuzov winced and sent Dokhturov an order to take command of the first army, and asked the prince, whom he said he could not do without at these important moments, to return to his place. When the news of Murat’s capture was brought and the staff congratulated Kutuzov, he smiled.
“Wait, gentlemen,” he said. “The battle has been won, and there is nothing unusual in the capture of Murat.” But it's better to wait and rejoice. “However, he sent an adjutant to travel through the troops with this news.
When Shcherbinin rode up from the left flank with a report about the French occupation of flushes and Semenovsky, Kutuzov, guessing from the sounds of the battlefield and from Shcherbinin’s face that the news was bad, stood up, as if stretching his legs, and, taking Shcherbinin by the arm, took him aside .
“Go, my dear,” he said to Ermolov, “see if anything can be done.”
Kutuzov was in Gorki, in the center of the position of the Russian army. The attack directed by Napoleon on our left flank was repulsed several times. In the center the French did not move further than Borodin. From the left flank, Uvarov's cavalry forced the French to flee.
In the third hour the French attacks stopped. On all the faces who came from the battlefield, and on those who stood around him, Kutuzov read an expression of tension that had reached the highest degree. Kutuzov was pleased with the success of the day beyond expectations. But physical strength left the old man. Several times his head dropped low, as if falling, and he dozed off. He was served dinner.
The outhouse adjutant Wolzogen, the same one who, driving past Prince Andrei, said that the war must be im Raum verlegon [transferred into space (German)], and whom Bagration hated so much, drove up to Kutuzov during lunch. Wolzogen arrived from Barclay with a report on the progress of affairs on the left flank. The prudent Barclay de Tolly, seeing the crowds of wounded running away and the upset backsides of the army, having weighed all the circumstances of the case, decided that the battle was lost, and with this news he sent his favorite to the commander-in-chief.
Kutuzov had difficulty chewing fried chicken and looked at Wolzogen with narrowed, cheerful eyes.
Wolzogen, casually stretching his legs, with a half-contemptuous smile on his lips, approached Kutuzov, lightly touching the visor with his hand.
Wolzogen treated His Serene Highness with a certain affected carelessness, intended to show that he, as a highly educated military man, was allowing the Russians to make an idol out of this old, useless man, and he himself knew with whom he was dealing. “Der alte Herr (as the Germans called Kutuzov in their circle) macht sich ganz bequem, [The old gentleman settled down calmly (German)] - thought Wolzogen and, looking sternly at the plates standing in front of Kutuzov, began to report to the old gentleman the state of affairs on the left flank as Barclay ordered him and as he himself saw and understood it.
- All points of our position are in the hands of the enemy and there is nothing to recapture, because there are no troops; “They are running, and there is no way to stop them,” he reported.
Kutuzov, stopping to chew, stared at Wolzogen in surprise, as if not understanding what was being said to him. Wolzogen, noticing the excitement of des alten Herrn, [the old gentleman (German)] said with a smile:
– I did not consider myself entitled to hide from your lordship what I saw... The troops are in complete disorder...
- Have you seen? Did you see?.. – Kutuzov shouted, frowning, quickly getting up and advancing on Wolzogen. “How do you... how dare you!..”, he shouted, making threatening gestures with shaking hands and choking. - How dare you, dear sir, say this to me? You don't know anything. Tell General Barclay from me that his information is incorrect and that the real course of the battle is known to me, the commander-in-chief, better than to him.
Wolzogen wanted to object, but Kutuzov interrupted him.
- The enemy is repulsed on the left and defeated on the right flank. If you have not seen well, dear sir, then do not allow yourself to say what you do not know. Please go to General Barclay and convey to him the next day my absolute intention to attack the enemy,” Kutuzov said sternly. Everyone was silent, and all that could be heard was the heavy breathing of the out of breath old general. “They were repulsed everywhere, for which I thank God and our brave army.” The enemy has been defeated, and tomorrow we will drive him out of the sacred Russian land,” said Kutuzov, crossing himself; and suddenly sobbed from the tears that came. Wolzogen, shrugging his shoulders and pursing his lips, silently walked away to the side, wondering uber diese Eingenommenheit des alten Herrn. [at this tyranny of the old gentleman. (German)]
“Yes, here he is, my hero,” Kutuzov said to the plump, handsome, black-haired general, who was entering the mound at that time. It was Raevsky, who spent the whole day at the main point of the Borodino field.
The publishing house "Prosveshcheniye" is preparing a series of very useful books“Education: a global bestseller”, dedicated to international experience in education and educational reforms. As part of the project, a book by Brazilian psychologist-educator and pedagogical theorist Paulo Freire, “Education as a Practice of Liberation,” will be published. An excerpt from this book is posted on the publisher’s website, which we highly recommend that parents planning to educate their children at home and anyone who cares about their children’s education get acquainted with.
Over the course of several years, the thoughts and works of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire spread from the northeast of Brazil to the entire continent and had a strong influence not only on the educational process, but also on the national liberation movement as a whole. Precisely at the moment when the masses of the dispossessed Latin America began to wake up from traditional lethargy and wanted to take an active part in the development of their countries, Paulo Freire completed the development of a methodology for combating illiteracy, which unusually contributed to this process. Thanks to this technique, people who learned to read and write came to a new self-awareness and began to critically evaluate social status, in which they were, often even took the initiative into their own hands and began to transform the society that had previously denied them such an opportunity. Education has once again shown all its power ( from the foreword by Richard Scholl).
Excerpts from Chapter 2
A careful study of the relationship between teacher and students at any level within the walls of the school and outside it shows that in
The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, consisting of individual parts and predictable. Or he presents the topic without any consideration of the student's actual experience. The teacher’s task is to fill students with the content of his narrative - content that is not connected with reality and is far from everything that is native and familiar to the student and therefore can reveal meaning to him. Words are emasculated in their concreteness and turn into empty, abstract and divisive verbosity.
Wherein main characteristic Such narrative pedagogy is based on the euphony of words, not their transformative power: “Four times four is sixteen. The capital of the province of Para is Belem. The student writes down, memorizes and repeats these phrases without understanding what “four times four” actually means and without realizing the true meaning of the word “capital” in the sentence “the capital of the province of Para is Belem”, i.e. what the city of Belem means for the province of Pará and what the province of Pará means for all of Brazil.
Narrative learning (with a teacher as a narrator) leads to students mechanically memorizing what is told. What's worse is that it turns them into containers, into storage containers that the teacher fills. The more he fills this container, the better teacher he is. The more meekly the containers allow themselves to be filled, the better students they are.
Thus, education turns into an act of placing information deposits, in the process of which students represent repositories, depositories, and teachers play the role of investors, depositors. Instead of communication, the teacher issues a message, makes a deposit (like a deposit in a bank), which the student patiently accepts, remembers and reproduces. And so before us is “banking”<или ограничивающая>a concept of education in which all students are allowed to do is accept, organize, and store contributions. True, they have the opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they keep.
But in the end, in this, to put it mildly, incorrect system, a person himself finds himself excluded due to the fact that there is no creativity, no opportunities for transformation, no real knowledge, because in isolation from knowledge and in isolation from practice people do not can be truly human. Knowledge appears only as a result of more and more new discoveries that people achieve by exploring the world tirelessly, impatiently, inspired by hope, inseparably from this world and from others of their own kind.
In the banking approach to education, knowledge is a gift that those who consider themselves capable of knowing give to those whom they consider to know nothing. Attributing absolute ignorance to others, which is a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates the exploratory nature of education and knowledge. The teacher inevitably positions himself in relation to the students as their opponent, declaring that the students are absolutely ignorant, because he thereby justifies his own existence. Students alienated from knowledge, like the slaves alienated from freedom in Hegel's dialectic, accept their ignorance as a justification for the existence of the teacher, but unlike the aforementioned slaves, they never come to the understanding that the teacher also teaches.
Against, raison d'être libertarian education is that it seeks to reconcile opposites. Education must begin with the resolution of the contradiction between teacher and student, with the combination of opposite poles in such a way that both are simultaneously teacher and student.
There is no such solution, and there cannot be one with a “banking” approach to education. On the contrary, restrictive education maintains and even develops this contradiction because its approach to teaching and practice itself reflect the oppressive society as a whole, namely:
1. The teacher teaches - the students learn.
2. The teacher knows everything - the students know nothing.
3. The teacher thinks - they think for the students.
4. The teacher speaks - the students listen quietly.
5. The teacher imposes discipline - the students obey the discipline.
6. The teacher makes a choice and imposes his choice - the students obey.
7. The teacher acts - students have the illusion of action due to the fact that the teacher acts.
8. The teacher determines the content of the curriculum - the students (whom no one asks) agree with him.
9. The teacher does not separate the power of knowledge from his own professional power, opposing it to the freedom of students.
10. In the learning process, the teacher is the subject, while students are just objects of learning.
No wonder that The “banking” concept of education considers man as a controlled and adaptable being. The more students engage in collecting the contributions handed down to them, the less they develop the critical thinking that would emerge if they interacted with the world as transformers and creators. The more deeply they perceive what is being imposed on them passive role, the more they tend to simply adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality that they are taught.
The ability of restrictive education to minimize and even eliminate students' creativity and encourage their gullibility serves the interests of oppressors who do not seek to open up the world or see it transformed.
The oppressors use their “philanthropy” to maintain a situation that is beneficial to them. That's why they
In fact, the interest of the oppressors is to “change the minds of the oppressed, but not the situation that oppresses them,” because the closer they can be brought to accept the situation, the more easily they can be suppressed.
To achieve this goal, the oppressors use a restrictive concept of education coupled with a paternalistic model of social interaction in which the oppressed are given the euphemistic title of “beneficiaries.” The oppressed are treated as a special case, as marginalized people outside the bounds of a “good, orderly and just” society. They are assessed as a pathology of a healthy society, and, therefore, society must reshape this “inept and lazy” people in its own image, changing their mentality. These marginalized people must be “integrated” and “incorporated” into the healthy society they “left behind.”
However, the truth is that the oppressed are not marginalized or people living “outside society.” They have always been inside—within the structure that makes them “beings for others.” The solution is not to “integrate” them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that the oppressed can become “beings unto themselves.”
Of course, such a transformation fundamentally undermines the goals of the oppressors, which is why they resort to the “banking” concept of education to avoid critical awareness on the part of students. A “banking” approach to adult education, for example, will never ask students to critically analyze reality. It’s better to let them discuss such vital issues as, for example, who exactly Roger feeds green grass: a goat or a rabbit. The “humanism” of the “banking” approach hides the desire to turn people into automata, which is an absolute denial of their ontological vocation to be more human.
Those who use the "banking" approach to education, consciously or unconsciously (the latter includes many well-meaning, bank clerk-like teachers who do not realize that they are acting inhumane), fail to understand that the "investments" themselves contain contradictions in their relation to reality. And sooner or later, these contradictions can lead to the fact that previously passive students will rebel against their domestication and try to subjugate reality. Through their existential experience they can understand that their current life path incompatible with the calling to become more humane. They can understand through their relationship with reality that reality is process subject to constant change. If people are researchers and their ontological vocation is humanization, then sooner or later they will realize the contradiction that when they are trained in a “banking” type they are trying to be controlled and they will join the struggle for their liberation.
But a humanist, a revolutionary-minded figure of public education cannot wait until this opportunity becomes a reality. From the very beginning, his efforts must coincide with the students' attempts to engage in critical thinking and be aimed at finding ways of mutual humanization. His efforts must be imbued with deep faith in man and his creative power. To achieve this, he needs to build partnerships with students.<…>
Those who are truly committed to the idea of liberation must completely reject the "banking" concept, and instead embrace the concept of people as thinking beings and world-oriented consciousness. They must stop thinking that the purpose of education is to "provide informational contributions" and instead offer insight into people's problems and their relationships with society. Problem-posing education, corresponding to the essence of cognition - awareness, denies messages and embodies communication. It embodies a specific characteristic of consciousness - to understand, to be aware - not only by immersion in an object, but also with the help of internal reflection, just as the edges of a jasper play: consciousness as consciousness
consciousness.
Liberating education consists of acts of learning rather than the transmission of information. This is a learning situation in which a cognizable object (far from the last in the act of cognition) mediates the process of cognition between its actors: the teacher, on the one hand, and the students, on the other. Accordingly, the practice of problem-solving education first of all requires the resolution of contradictions between teacher and student. Relationships must be built in the form of dialogue, which is necessary to realize the ability of cognitive actors to interact in the process of comprehending a common object of knowledge, but otherwise it is impossible.
In fact, the problematic concept of education, which breaks the vertical connections of “banking” education, will be able to perform the function of the practice of freedom only if it manages to overcome the above-mentioned contradiction.
Thanks to dialogue, the vertical connections between the dominance of the teacher over the student and the student over the teacher cease to exist, but new horizontal connections arise between the teacher and the student and vice versa. The teacher ceases to be the only one who teaches, but becomes one of those who learns in the process of dialogue with students, and they, in turn, also teach, learning at the same time. They receive shared responsibility for the process in which everyone grows. In this process, arguments based on power are no longer valid; to function, power must be on the side of freedom, not against it. Here no one teaches another and no one learns himself. People teach each other, mediated by the world and objects of knowledge, the very same ones that, in the “banking” approach to learning, are assigned by the teacher.
The “banking” concept (with its tendency to divide everything into parts) distinguishes two stages in the actions of the teacher. During the first, when he is preparing for lectures in his office or laboratory, he studies the object of knowledge. During the second, he provides students with information about this object. Students are asked not to understand the subject, but to remember the content told by the teacher. Students do not perform an act of cognition, since the object in relation to which this act should be performed is, as it were, the property of the teacher, and not an object that mediates cognition and awakens to critical analysis teachers and students. Thus, under the guise of “preserving culture and knowledge,” we have a system that does not contribute to the achievement of either genuine knowledge or genuine culture.
IN English language This is a play on words: “banking” means both “banking” and “limiting.” (Note per.)
Simone de Beauvoir. La Pencée de Droite Aujourd'hui.