Talk:Paulo Freire/Archive 1

Freirian Pedagogy
Someone should use the topics in the Template:Freire to write an article on Freirian Pedagogy. That could be of great value. - Freechild 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Theoretical Contributions
Paulo Freire contributes a philosophy of education that comes not only from the more classical approaches stemming from Plato, but also from modern Marxist and anti-colonialist thinkers. In fact, in many ways his Pedagogy of the Oppressed may best be read as an extension of or reply to Frantz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth, which laid strong emphasis on the need to provide native populations with an education which was simultaneously new and modern (rather than traditional) and anti-colonial (that is, that was not simply an extension of the culture of the colonizer). Freire is best-known for his attack on what he called the banking concept of education, in which the student was viewed as an empty account to be filled by the teacher. Of course, this is not really a new move--Rousseau's conception of the child as an active learner was already a step away from the tabula rasa (which is basically the same as the "banking concept"), and thinkers like John Dewey and Alfred North Whitehead were strongly critical of the transmission of mere facts as the goal of education. Freire's work is one of the foundations of critical pedagogy. More challenging, however, is Freire's strong aversion to the teacher-student dichotomy. This dichotomy is admitted in Rousseau and constrained in Dewey, but Freire comes close to insisting that it should be completely abolished. This is hard to imagine in absolute terms (there must be some enactment of the teacher-student relationship in the parent-child relationship), but what Freire suggests is that a deep reciprocality be inserted into our notions of teacher and student. Freire wants us to think in terms of teacher-student and student-teacher, that is, a teacher who learns and a learner who teaches, as the basic roles of classroom participation.

This is one of the few attempts anywhere to implement something like democracy as an educational method and not merely a goal of democratic education. Even Dewey, for whom democracy was a touchstone, did not integrate democratic practices fully into his methods. (Though this was in part a function of Dewey's attitudes toward individuality.) However, in its early, strong form this kind of classroom has sometimes been criticized on the grounds that it can mask rather than overcome the teacher's authority

I don´t think that this should be delete Kukkurovaca! Please, give some resons.--Ot 14:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, it's not being deleted. It occurred twice on the page, and one of the duplicates was deleted. Or so I thought. Let me check -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 19:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right!--Ot 16:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

essay
Once a time ago I have written this following essay, but I think my english is to bad to put it in the article. Perhaps someone can improve it a bit and then ....--Ot 18:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Paulo Freire was born on September 5, 1921, in Recife, Brazil. His parents belonged to the so called middle-class in Brazil. During the worldwide economic crisis (1929), Paulo Freire made himself the experience of hunger. It "led him to make a vow, at age eleven, to dedicate his life to the struggle against hunger, so that other children would not have to know the agony he was then experiencing." After the Brazilian "high school" he studied at first law and became a lawyer. But he was not convinced of this profession because his interest were more in philosophy, psychology, pedagogy, and language.

With 23 years, Paulo Freire married the teacher Elza Matia Costa. He has with her five children. After the marriage, Paulo Freire studied systematically education. Between 1946 and 1954, Paulo Freire was the director of the department of education and culture in Pernambuco. Here, Paulo Freire was beginning the dialogue with the people. In 1946, Paulo Freire became a lecturer at the University of Recife. The beginning of the illiterate campaign was 1947. That was the time when Paulo Freire discovered the "culture of silence". "In 1959, he received a Ph. D. degree from the University of Recife and stayed at the university as a teacher of philosophy and education."

Paulo Freire developed his theory out of several theories. It is not wrong to call him an electisim. Figueroa argued that Paulo Freire got his main ideas from Karl Mannheim, Ferdinand de Saussare and Charles Bully, and Edmund Husserl. I think it is a mixture of marxism and existentialism; and I would call Paulo Freire's theory a radical theory of enlightenment. Paulo Freire developed his educationally theory in a time when the empirism and the positivism was quite popular in Brazil. Paulo Freire criticized both theories and developed out of this critique his own theory. In the following I want to explain shortly this two theories which are the basic ideas of the "banking concept of education" which I have to explain shortly, too. Then I have to explain Paulo Freire's "problem posing concept of education". Within this I have to explain Paulo Freire's "anthropological concept of culture" and the "methodology of thematic investigation". The aim of Paulo Freire's concept is to develop a "critical consciousness" so that the people want to change the society. Paulo Freire called this "conscientization" which I have to explain, too. Within this I have to explain what Paulo Freire thinks when he used the key-words "dialogue", "teacher-student relationship", and "praxis".

The "banking concept of education"

The idealism was popular in Brazil until Brazil was independent. After this the empirism and positivism was popular because the influence from Britain and the United States was growing. For the idealism, the ideas are the subject for changing the world but not the people. Sartre and Paulo Freire have called this "Nahrungsphilosophy" [philosophy of the nourishment, J.K.]. Education is for this philosophy not necessary for the people because the people are "undernourished".

But the positivism was more worst thinks Paulo Freire. "Conscientization" is for the positivism an illusion because the human consciousness is something which is empty and passive; and there is nothing that should become conscious. I think that is the philosophical background of the so called "banking concept of education". Freire described it as follows:

"Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between man and the world: man is merely in the world, not with the world or with others; man is spectator, not re-creator. In this view, man is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty 'mind' passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside."

Paulo Freire criticized the existing "banking concept of education" because it serves the interest of the "System" - in the sense of J. Habermas. The people are oppressed and they do not think critically; and the school system do not change the consciousness of the people. But if the people do not act in a different way the oppressor (the "System") will still remain in this position. The "banking concept of education" "serves the interest of the oppressor, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed. The oppressor use their 'humanitarianism' to preserve a profitable situation."

But it is not only that the existing school system serves the interest of the oppressor. it also "colonized" the oppressed. Paulo Freire used the word "colonized" very similar as J. Habermas. Paulo Freire thinks that the oppressor dominate in the world. If the oppressed do not think similar as the oppressor the oppressed are not able to exist in the world. "One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge men's consciousness. Functionally, oppression is domesticating." Paulo Freire argued further that "The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creation of men, men themselves, time - everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal." But this "System" dominate not only the people but also controlled what the people are doing and learning.

The "banking concept of education" is mythicizing "the antagonistic contradiction of the social structure, thereby hoping to avoid (...) the radical transformation of reality". Some examples for a myth are: "the myth that the oppressive order is a 'free society'; ... the myth that this order respects human rights and is therefor worthy of esteem; ... the myth of the universal right of education, when of all the Brazilian children who enter primary schools only a tiny fraction ever reach the university; ... the myth that rebellion is a sin against God; ..."

The society is in this way I have described it above because the society is "antidialogical". A good example is the mass media; they are "sending messages rather than communicating." Another good example is the teacher-student relationship. "Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the student patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the 'banking' concept, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."

I think if you want to value Freire's "banking concept of education" you have to consider the time he wrote this. I think especially of parts of Freire's theory when he used Erich Fromm. Today the sociology and the psychology are more sophisticated. A second reason is that we are living in a different time today -the so called postmodern era. For both reasons it is today necassary to use a more recent sociology and educationally theory.

An example for the problem of Freire's theory is the mass media. On the one hand the mass media are sending messages and are not dialogical because the mass media do not communicate. On the other hand the mass media inform the citizen - for example the war in Vietnam. I think that probably each thing has two sides and that Freire is - as the early Frankfurt School, too - to negative. However, Freire's "banking concept of education" is not wrong in my opinion but perhaps to negative in our time.

The "problem posing concept of education" Paulo Freire's "problem posing concept of education" is based on his "anthropological concept of culture" which is based on Freire's distinction between animals and humans. That is similar as the early Marx thinks. For Paulo Freire, "man is the only one to treat not only his actions but his very self as the object of his reflection; the capacity distinguished him from the animals, which are unable to reflect upon it." Animals are "beings in themselves", are "ahistorical", are "merely stimulated", "animals cannot commit themselves". Paulo Freire's "anthropological concept of culture" is

"the distinction between the world of nature and the world of culture; the active role of men in and with their reality; the role of mediation which nature plays in relationships and communication among men; culture as the addition made by men to a world they did not make; culture as the result of men's labour, of their efforts to create and re-create; the transcendental meaning of human relationship; the humanist dimension of culture; culture as a systematic acquisition of human experience (but as a creative assimilation, not as information-storing); the democratization of culture; the learning of reading and writing as a key to the world of written communication. In short, the role of man as a Subject in the world and with the world."

I think here is one problem within Freire's theory. He thinks that if the students are able to think critically they are able and they want to change the society. Adorno thinks that humans are not the subject of the history (Marx); that humans are not the creator of the history (Sartre and Freire); but Adorno thinks that the humans are the product of a historical development which is "verselbst„ndigt" [independent, J.K.].

However, Freire thinks that man is not a spectator, but a re- creator and he thinks that if man have a "critical consciousness" they are able to re-create the world. Freire distinguished three levels of consciousness which he got from Karl Mannheim. For Paulo Freire, in the "first stage, man's attitude is not the one of a knowing subject; it is not intentionally curious attitude, but the naive attitude of somebody who experience something." In Education: The Practice Of Freedom, Paulo Freire called this "semi-transitive consciousness". He called the next stage "naive transitive consciousness". This stage "can evolve toward critical transitivity, characteristic of a legitimately democratic mentality, or it can deflected toward the debased, clearly dehumanized, fanaticized consciousness characteristic of massification."

"Concientization" is Freire's method to reach the third level. To develop this critical consciousness Freire has develop his "methodology of thematic investigation". In Pedagogy Of The Oppressed, Paulo Freire distinguished three stages for the dialogical teacher. The methodology of thematic investigation is firstly, "to get a significant number of persons to agree to an informal meeting during which they can talk about the objectives of their presence in the area. In this meeting they explain the reason for the investigation, how it is to be carried out, and to what use it will be put ..." Secondly, the evaluation meetings represents the decoding of the unique living code. Thirdly, the investigators are "returning to the area to initiate decoding dialogue in the 'thematic investigation circles'."

In Education: The Practice of Freedom, Paulo Freire described the way how he and his comrades literate students (here rural peasants). Here, Paulo Freire described the same "methodology of thematic investigation" but he has now five phases. Here he is more concrete as in Pedagogy Of The Oppressed. Phase 1 is to research the vocabulary of the groups with which one is working. Phase 2 is the selection of the generative words from the vocabulary which was studied. Phase 3 is the creation of the codification. The development of, for example, slides, typical existential situations of the group. Phase 4 is the elaboration of agendas; and phase 5 the preparation of cards with the breakdown of the phonemic families which correspond to the generative words.

In summary, the task for the educator is firstly, the investigation (see the first stage above). Secondly, the codification. That is the codification of the unique living situation (see the second stage above) and the selection of the generative words which should have the following criteria: "a ) phonetic richness; b ) phonetic difficulty ...; c ) pragmatic tone ..." (see phase 2 above). Thirdly, the decodification. The first criterium is to develop "discovery cards" which have a practical theme (see phase 3+5 above); the second criterium is to analyze the social context in which the students are living (see stage 2 above). Husserl calls this "polythetische" reflection. The last task is the "de-decodification". It is the synthesis of the codification and the decodification (see stage 3 above). Husserl calls this "monothetische" reflection - the last step of "concientization".

Within the "methodology of thematic investigation" the "dialogue" is very important. Paulo Freire argued that if "I do not love the world - if I do not love life - if I do not love men - I cannot enter into dialogue. ... dialogue cannot exist without humility. The naming of the world, through which men constantly re-create that world, cannot be an act of arrogance." "Dialogue further requires an intense faith in man, faith in his power to make and remake, to create and re-create, faith in his vocation to be more fully human (...). Faith in man is an a priori requirement for dialogue; the 'dialogical man' believes in other man even before he meets them face to face." Mutual trust is the logical consequence out of this. And dialogue cannot exist without hope and unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking.

"Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking. Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true education."

These meaning of dialogue requires a different teacher-student relationship. In the banking concept, the teacher do not trust the students. Paulo Freire calls this anti-dialogical. "For the dialogical, problem-posing teacher-student, the programm content of education is neither a gift nor an imposition - bits of information to be deposited in the students - but rather the organized, systemized, and developed 're-presentation' to individuals of the things about which they want to know more." Paulo Freire thinks that the "Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teacher and students."

The true dialogue of the teacher and the students is authentic liberation. But Paulo Freire wants more; he wants "praxis: the action and reflection of men upon their world in order to transform it." "The dream of social transformation" is the aim of Paulo Freire's praxis. But Paulo Freire is aware that "our activities as an educator, will not be enough to change the world." How do we begin is the question! Paulo Freire has four points a teacher-student educator should consider. Such an educator "need to have more or less clear the limits we have as educators." "... the teacher must have some indications about how the students are understanding their reality different from the teachers' reality." They "need critical understanding of the very ways the society works, in order for me [Paulo Freire, J.K.] to understand how the education [they are] involved in works in the global context and in the context of the classroom."

Critique

My basic critique to Freire's "problem posing concept of education" is the question if his theory is really practical in the school? He has written his theory in the first line for the "third" world. And the reason is not only that English or German is not a syllabilic language like Portuguese. One other reason is that the culture is totally different. I do not think that it is possible to create "culture circles" with "voluntary investigators" within the normal school. I see such "culture circles" only in Maori groups, in new social movements, and in old union groups. The next practical reason is, if it is possible for the teacher to have their "easter"? All teachers are involved with the capitalism and therefor are alienated. Only some teachers did not see his or her profession as a job to earn - in Germany - heaps of money or to get a lot of holidays.

And there are some theoretical problems in Freire's theory. One was Adornos critique of Karl Mannheim's evolutionary concept of the human history. Another critique formulate Figueroa. He criticized the theoretical background of Freire's "dialogue". Freire got his ideas from Husserl and de Saussure. Both are analyzing the language of the subjects but not the "kommunikative Erfahrung" [communicative experience (practice), J.K.]. The problem is - as Figueroa argues - that Freire has not a consequential historical starting point. In words of Habermas: Freire analyzed the "Lebenswelt" [life-world, J.K.] very well but has forgotten the "System". One can see this in the military putsch in 1964. Paulo Freire was not able to see this possibility early. I think that Habermas "Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns" is more sophisticated as Paulo Freire's "dialogue". Interesting for me was that both are speaking from "colonisation".

References

Beck, Ulrich, Risikogesellschaft Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt am Main, 1986

Brown, Cynthia, Literacy in 30 Hours: Paulo Freire's Process in Northeast Brazil, in Social Policy, Vol.5, no. 2, 1974

Mustafa Ue. Kiziltan, Wiliam J. Bain, and Anita Canaizares M., Postmodern Conditions: Rethinking Public Education, Educational Theory, Summer 1990, Vol. 40, No 3

Figueroa, Dimas, Paulo Freire zur Einfhrung, Hamburg, 1989

Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy Of The Oppressed, New York, Thirty Second Printing, 1990

Freire, Paulo, 'A few notions about the word 'concientization'. in: Dale, R., Esland, G., MacDonald, M., Schooling and Capitalism: A Sociological Reader, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976

Freire, Paulo, 'Conscientization', The Month, May, 1974

Freire, Paulo, Education: The Practice of Freedom, London, Writers and Readers, 1974

Freire, Paulo, and Shor, Ira, A Pedagogy for Liberation, London, MacMilliam, 1987

Hernandez, Jesus, P„dagogik des Seins: Paulo Freires praktische Theorie einer emanzipatorischen Erwachsenenbildung, Aschenbach, 1977

Scott Lash and John Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism, Cambridge, 1987

Mackie, Robert (ed.), Literacy and Revolution: The Pedagogy of Paulo Freire, London, 1980

McLaren, Peter, Review Article - Postmodernity and the Death of Politics: A Brazilian Reprieve, Educational Theory, Fall 1986, Vol. 36, No. 4

Meyer, Hilbert, Leitfaden zur Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Frankfurt am Main, 1989, 9. unver„nderte Auflage

Meyer, Hilbert, UnterrichtsMethoden I: Theorieband. Frankfurt am Main, 1988, 2. durchges. Auflage

Meyer, Hilbert, UnterrichtsMethoden II: Praxisband. Frankfurt am Main, 1989, 2. durchges. Auflage

Nicholson, Carol, Postmodernism, Feminism, and Education: The Need for Solidarity, Educational Theory, Summer 1989, Vol. 39, No. 3

Young, Robert E., A critical theory of education. Habermas and our children's future. Sydney, 1989

Zoll, Rainer, (Hrsg.), Nicht so wie unsere Eltern, Weinheim, 1989 �

Gibson critique
The current description of the Gibson critique makes no sense to me. It reads as:
 * Rich Gibson[2] has critiqued his work as a cul-de-sac, a combination of old-style socialism (wherever Freire was not) and liberal reformism (wherever Freire was).

I am so confused by this sentence I don't even know how to edit it! Is Gibson suggesting that Freire made a socialist critique in places he didn't live and a liberal reformist critique in places he did live? Or that his critiques changed based on where he lived? Or does "wherever Freire was/was not" mean something other than where Freire lived? And how is all this relaetd to a cul-de-sac? Could someone please help? I'm happy to copy-edit the sentence if I can just understand what it is intended to say .... --lquilter 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauret —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.77.179 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could anyone provide a (preferably IPA) pronunciation for Freire? Is it [freɪireɪ]? [freɪri]? [freɪirə]? [frɛri]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.157.183 (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issue
"More challenging is Freire's strong aversion to the teacher-student dichotomy. This dichotomy is admitted in Rousseau and constrained in Dewey, but Freire comes close to insisting that it should be completely abolished. This is hard to imagine in absolute terms, since there must be some enactment of the teacher-student relationship in the parent-child relationship, but what Freire suggests is that a deep reciprocity be inserted into our notions of teacher and student. Freire wants us to think in terms of teacher-student and student-teacher - that is, a teacher who learns and a learner who teaches - as the basic roles of classroom participation. Freire however insists that educator and student, though sharing democratic social relations of education, are not on an equal footing, but the educator must be humble enough to be disposed to relearn that which he/she already thinks she knows, through interaction with the learner. The authority which the educator enjoys must not be allowed to degenerate into authoritarianism."

I find this passage to be biased and believe it should be rewritten in a neutral tone, since whoever wrote this clearly disagrees with Freire on this fundamental philosophy. It reads like an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia entry. 67.214.23.26 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Megaman?
The first lines under "Biography" state "Freire was born September 19, 1921 to a middle class family in Recife, Brazil, under the name of MegaMan." Somehow I really doubt that he was born under the name of a video game character originating in the 1980s - this should be removed and the correct information should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.9.163 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally
This one didn't appear in Google.BR.1. BTW, aren't Languages alternatives too hidden? Like the first one. Quod dat momenti de tuo praedicamenta? Μάθετε το αλφάβητο, καθυστερημένη βλάκας. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.161.146 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Update
Hi WP! I found a citation for Freire's 70-day imprisonment and have included that in the article.Arsinventi (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Frank Laubach connection
It has been pointed out at Talk:Frank Laubach that Paulo Freire may have been influenced by Frank Laubach. I searched some research databases and came up with a number of works which may be relevant. My references and notes are at User:Sondra.kinsey/sandbox/Paulo Freire and Frank Laubach. I welcome other collaborators on exploring this topic, as it may take me a while to research this. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Dead links
Hey I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, but I noticed alot of the links are dead and don't lead anywhere. Not sure how to flag this for update... I'm doing a paper on Paulo Friere, so as I find good sources I'll try to edit them in where I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.121.113 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)