On Education Part Six: Articulating the World and the Implications of Literacy on Overcoming Limit-situations

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:

Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?

Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

Part Four: "Revolutionary Radicals," Consciousness, and the Privatization of Education

Part Five: Humanization through Liberal or Vocational Education?

----------------------------------------------------

Malcolm X, recounting the mental enlightenment during his stint in prison in the chapter entitled “Saved,” lucidly articulated a vital concept for educators who desire to promote social justice and the democratization of society. As he explains:

I became increasingly frustrated at not being able to express what I wanted to convey in letters that I wrote…In the street, I had been the most articulate hustler out there – I had commanded attention when I said something. But now, trying to write simple English, I not only wasn’t articulate, I wasn’t even functional… every book I picked up had few sentences which didn’t contain anywhere from one to nearly all of the words that might as well have been in Chinese. When I just skipped those words, of course, I really ended up with little idea of what the book said (Haley, 1964, p. 197-8).

This passage vibrantly outlines how fundamental literacy is in combating one’s own oppression. Malcolm’s utter frustration and his conclusion that “going through only book-reading motions” (Haley, p. 200) was useless is not only a real and pressing issue for educators, it is a primary building block upon which the entire goal of individual development for participation in democratic life is based. Thus, for educators who hope to foster a culture of democratic participation and social justice in the classroom, the aspect of developing critical literacy is essential.

Without such critical literacy, the oppressed are permitted only an acrimonious severance from any genuine locus of control over their lives; this confinement to a specious, often naively individualistic comprehension of society reinforces the dominant ideology. The inability to articulate reality, or “read the world” as Paulo Freire outlines in chapter nine, implies a institutionalized, intentional paucity of intellectual development designed to undermine critical analysis of societal foundations and oppression stemming from them (Tozer, 2009, p. 288). Malcolm’s enlightenment, and with it the development of critical literacy and analytical skills, provides a glimpse of how percussive the acquisition and application of such skills are in altering not only the individual whom travails to hone them, but of helping to determine the destiny of humanity in a collective manner. This ability to articulate the world, then, is a prerequisite for the removal of the chains of real, or present, consciousness ; these chains bind the oppressed to simple, perfunctory responses dominated by the limit-situations  which define what can or cannot be done within the current structures. Critical literacy, as Malcolm demonstrated, facilitates the progression from real consciousness to potential consciousness and the subsequent blossoming, and pursuit, of untested feasibilities.

A prodigious amount of social interaction involves limit-situations, rational outcomes necessary to maintain order within the current political economy, which marginalize, oppress, alienate, and exploit the masses while serving the interests of the opulent. Often, these limit-situations are accompanied by a sense of fatalism festering within the oppressed who find struggle and liberation as unrealistic, or even undesired, outcomes. As Freire outlines, however, “it is not the limit-situations in and of themselves which create a climate of hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived by women and men at a given historical moment; whether they appear as fetters or as insurmountable barriers” (Freire, 2006, p. 99). Thus, critical literacy as exemplified by Malcolm’s development his voracious appetite to garner knowledge and understanding of the world becomes a vehicle through which limit-situations are no longer unfixable, eternal structures but institutions able to be altered, dismantled, or appropriated and creatively restructured or rebuilt by the oppressed. He goes on to explain, when the true nature of society is “concealed by the limit-situations and thus are not clearly perceived, the corresponding tasks – people’s responses in the form of historical actions – can be neither authentically nor critically fulfilled (Freire, p. 102).

Therefore, prior to Malcolm’s enlightenment, he simply responded to his limit-situations, as an animal responds to environmental stimuli in order to survive, rather than actively reflect upon methods through which to alter society. His actions only became historical when he engaged in critical analysis and sought to overcome and eliminate limit-situations through democratic struggle; literacy provided the prerequisite for the sufficient combination of action and reflection required to humanize the oppressed and allow them to play a role in shaping their own destiny.

Thus, one must necessarily view the political economy and the dominant ideology which reinforces it as definite limit-situations which heavily influence the majority of the people. These situations, then, must be articulated and understood in order to be dismantled and overcome. Literacy is an invaluable tool in the struggle to raise the oppressed from a level of real consciousness where limit-situations define them to a level of potential consciousness where untested feasibilities become collective possibilities which the oppressed actively work towards achieving. One should not, however, make the mistake of assuming illiteracy or ignorance on the part of the oppressed because they refuse to participate in the dominant culture or do not adhere to the linguistic norms of the oppressor.

Throughout history, the oppressed have always fought for freedom and liberation from the oppressor, often on their own terms, with their own words, their own dialects, and their own form of literacy. Freire further explains this concept:

In order to communicate effectively, [the] educator…must understand the structural conditions in which the thought and language of the people are dialectically framed… The object of investigation is not persons (as if they were anatomical fragments), but rather the thought-language with which men and women refer to reality, the levels at which they perceive that reality, and their view of the world… (Freire, p. 90-2).

To highlight just one historic example, Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Black Panther Party of Illinois, was someone who struck fear into the hearts of the establishment through his articulate oratory skills. He did not, however, simply adopt the oppressor’s linguistic style and attempt to use it for his own purpose but made prodigious use of eloquent black vernacular and what he called “plain proletarian English.” His brilliant oratory skills were not used to place himself above the oppressed but rather immerse himself within the oppressed community, of which he was a member. His words, many of the same words used by the community which he fought for, were a powerful example of honing one’s own linguistic techniques in order to educate and dialogue with the oppressed; through this Hampton avoided the isolation and projection of ignorance which plagues many activists, organizers, and educators. He was, however, not simply concerned with talking; as he explains, “so, what we’re saying there simply is, if [people] learn basically by observation and participation, we need to do more acting than we need to do writing. And I think the Black Panther Party is doing that. We didn’t talk about a breakfast for children program, we got one” (Hampton). The symbiotic combination of both reflection and action was essential; however, reflection could only be accomplished on the part of the oppressed when they were able to dialogue with educators and organizers, and the use of a culturally important vernacular facilitated this process. In fact, Fred Hampton presented such a threat that he was murdered by the FBI for his political leadership and percussive oratory abilities.

Lastly, educators should also be careful to avoid dismissing the language of the oppressor as inapplicable or unimportant; on the contrary, the language of the oppressor and what they intend to do must be thoroughly critiqued by those who wish to develop social justice in the classroom. This language can be analyzed through the dialect or linguistic intricacies of the oppressed but should be understood in terms of what the oppressor intends; to do this, one must understand the intricacies of the oppressor’s language. Hampton could both comprehend the oppressor’s language and communicate through the language of the people.

Therefore, the educator must be able to analyze the language of the oppressor in order to effectively combat it, even if they choose to combat it in the unique cultural and linguistic manner of the oppressed. For instance, educators (and students) facing privatization measures and budget cuts to common areas of study by a highly unpopular, unelected school president or board of trustees should not fail to understand and discuss the significance behind language such as “efficiency, extreme student centeredness, opportunities, business oriented, etc.” Words such as these must be highly scrutinized and a dialogue must occur, not necessarily with the oppressors who make use of such language, but with the students in how the best way to combat oppression is in the face of such benevolent-sounding language. Thus, what Malcolm shows is that an understanding of the oppressor’s language is absolutely vital, and what Hampton exemplifies is that understanding can and should be communicated to the oppressed in a way that is conducive to their specific situation and learning style. Professional educators could learn quite a lot by studying these political organizers, their methods, and their tactics. Black vernacular, bilingual education, and other forms of cultural resistance to the dominant ideology should be embraced by educators in the classroom who hope that one day social justice is not just an obscure pedagogical phrase but a dynamic, living reality in schools.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Haley, A. (1964) The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York, NY: The Random House Publishing Group.
Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Vantowers "Fred Hampton" Youtube 1 May 1997. 16 March 2009 .

On Education Part Five: Humanization through Liberal or Vocational Education?

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Read Past Contributions:

Part One: Banking or Problem Posting Education?

Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

Part Four: "Revolutionary Radicals," Consciousness, and the Privatization of Education

----------------------------------------------------

In educational and pedagogical discourse there is a dichotomy that consists of two contradictory methods of education. On one hand, an extreme emphasis is placed on vocational education, education designed for a specific job or occupation. Purported as the best for society by its proponents, some claim it would lead “to the development of marketable skills” that “prepares students for employment after high school” (Tozer, 340, 346-7). While in certain regards this may be true (although even the accuracy of these statements are contested due to the nature of employment in an advanced capitalist society such as the United States), education purely for vocation enervates students with a lack of the intellectually stimulating education required for the development of democratic culture, provides them with a narrow range of skills designed primarily to augment productivity, fails to promote an analysis of the material world in which they live, and hampers any sort of genuine democratic participation in society. On the other hand, some argue that vocations should be a vehicle through which a broader, liberal education can be pursued. Dewey articulated this concept as learning “through vocations” rather than “for vocations” (Tozer,  347). More generally interpreted, one can pose the debate between an approach that would prepare students to fill an occupational position in a hierarchical, oppressive society or an approach which would galvanize students to embark on the humanizing process of understanding, analyzing, and challenging society to help build the democratic ideal.

 

If education is to achieve “academic, intellectual, and personal growth,” (Tozer, 347) it must necessarily involve the process of humanization. This conception of humanization is illuminated by critical literary theorist Paulo Freire:

[T]he problem of humanization has always…been humankind’s central problem… Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality... Within history, in concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person… [b]ut while both… are real alternatives, only the first is the people’s vocation [emphasis added]. This vocation is constantly negated, yet it is affirmed by that very negation. It is thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression, and the violence of the oppressors; it is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed for freedom and justice, and by their struggle to recovered their lost humanity (Freire, 43-4).

Humanization, then, is the struggle to control one’s own destiny free of violently coercive and undemocratic alienation. This can only be achieved for the masses in a relatively free, highly democratic society where private interests do not dominate social relations. Alienation, exploitation, and oppression are rational results of a society based upon the irrationality of a profit-driven system. It is consistent, therefore, to assume that these forms of subjugation and marginalization will persist until the system which creates them is dismantled by the collective effort of those in its yoke.
 

Richard Shaull, emphasizing Freire’s approach, explains that this humanization process functions on “one basic assumption: that man’s ontological vocation…it to be the Subject who acts upon and transforms his world, and in so doing moves toward ever new possibilities of fuller and richer life individually and collectively” (Freire, 32). The distinction between subjects and objects becomes relevant here since humanization produces people who are “no longer willing to be mere objects, responding to changes occurring around them; they are more likely to decide to take upon themselves the struggle to change the structures of society, which until now have served to oppress them” (Freire, 33). Some would proclaim that proponents of purely vocational education simply do not recognize the inconsistency between training one to fill an occupation and preparation for participation in, or further developing of, a democratic society.
 

However, it is much more likely that these theorists do indeed understand the implications of their approach. Proponents of such an education wish to successfully reproduce society; therefore, excess skills such as critical analysis, the ability to understand the world systematically in its totality, and other forms of thought which people may act to scrutinize society and propose alternatives, are rejected as unimportant and invaluable. Indeed, the concept of selling one’s labor in the marketplace takes on an entirely different interpretation when one begins to question the wage system and the free market ideology that supports it. Therefore, for those who control society it is infinitely more useful to train students to perform a specific task or group of tasks that will aid in the process of production without the ability to question how that process is structured. A worker who completes his task in a perfunctory manner and never questions the institutions of society is the desired result.
 

Further, this style of education solely for vocations shapes the very conception of democracy. It confines democracy to an extremely limited, hierarchical definition in which a small minority control the fate of humanity while the majority are marginalized into a position where they only perform their duties of production and consumption, once in awhile reaffirming or changing political leaders whom they vote for every so often. It is, in its result, much like the restricted and exclusive democracy Aristotle promoted in ancient Athens; it was a democracy for the few. Rather than taking a hand in how their own lives are managed through collective ownership of the workplace, workers are alienated from their labor. Teachers rarely control what they teach, how much they are paid, the number of students in the class, etc. Thus, the workplace is not democratically controlled by the teachers who work there, but instead by a small group of bureaucratic officials and private interests. Likewise, students are expected to conform to an extremely rigid, undemocratic environment where they have little to no control over how they learn, what they learn, and the environment they are placed in to learn. It is a vicious cycle indeed, one meant to perpetuate the dominant political economic system.
 

To highlight a specific example, once a fellow classmate explicated upon her experience in another class dealing with teacher preparation; she explained that the directions given to her by the textbook employed by the professor instructed that when a budget problem or lack of resources were the cause of an inadequate educational experience for the students (such as lack of funds to go on a promised field trip), the teacher should formulate some sort of personal excuse or reason for not fulfilling the activity (whatever that activity may be); the burden of blame lay was supposed to fall upon the individual teacher, not the school, the system, or society.  The logic behind this instruction was that it is better to lie to the students so they do not perceive the system to be working against them, regardless of whether it is or not, than tell them the truth and have them fall further into despair. The truth, it seems, is best hid behind a veil of benevolence, no matter how it affects the students. Rather than engaging in dialogue with the students, the teacher is supposed to shut up and review the material with no questioning of the structures in place. 

A liberal education which aims to fully humanize each individual and human society collectively, should not subjugate students into “mere objects” which respond to changes around them but should instead challenge students to become subjects who reflect and act to change the conditions which oppress them. The very act of discussing budget cuts and their relation to larger society upon a scenario like this would remove this veil of benevolence and engage students so that they become active participants in their own lives; in fact, this sort of dialogue should fit perfectly with any liberal concept of education where democratic discussion is valued. This can not be accomplished in an educational setting (or, more appropriately, a training setting, as that is what vocational educational philosophy promotes at its core) where vocations are the end goal.
 

If indeed humanity’s ontological vocation is to become more fully human, then the goal of education must be something more than filling an occupation in life like a cog is fills a place in a machine; a liberal, broad based educational approach is required. This is not to say, as Dewey emphasized, that vocations have no place or cannot be utilized in the educational process. On the contrary, vocational education is an essential aspect of education. As the text explains, “vocational educators who find ways to make intellectual developments come alive through concrete projects and activities may well attract a broader student clientele than they currently attract” (Tozer, 346). Not only that, they may even help to empower students who otherwise feel isolated from the traditional academic approach. However, the distinction between education purely for vocation and education through vocation is absolutely essential to formulating a pedagogy intended for liberation rather than subjugation. The impetus behind education, then, should be to fulfill our human vocation instead of filling vocations with humans.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

   

On Education Part One: Banking or Problem-Posing Education?

This mini-series "On Education" is a compiled list of short essays concerning theoretical approaches to classroom pedagogy and their broader implications upon us as educators and our students. I hope to continue it for a while, and, of course, any critical dialogue upon what is presented is more than welcome. I will try to space these out weekly.

Other Contributions
Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn from Malcolm X's Schooling Experience
Part Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

----------------------------------------------------

One of the most fundamental distinctions educators must explicate upon and understand completely is the training-education dichotomy. The role of the educator, functioning within a purported democratic institution (i.e. school), is to democratize society and the schooling process to the fullest extent. This prodigious challenge can be met in various ways, including the engagement of students in dialogue, fostering critical thinking abilities, helping students understand the totality of both society and their schooling experience, and finally how the dominant ideology and the political and economic institutions which it arises from affects them. These vital concepts cannot be overemphasized. However, without the proper educational approach, or with a narrow training-centered praxis, the above mentioned topics become nearly impossible to communicate to students, let alone effectively foster understanding and critical engagement required for democratic participation by the majority.

Thus, the training-education dichotomy becomes a vital aspect to understanding how democratic education should be approached. “Training may be described as a set of experiences provided to some organism (human or not) in an attempt to render its responses predictable according to the goals of the trainer” (Tozer, 8). Training, in some limited sense, is of course a prerequisite for education (being taught to read prior to engaging historical or philosophical works). Humans, however, differ from animals in that they have the potential to transform society by their own self-activity. Animals live only for the present, the concept of time is absent and altering one’s destiny is an impossibility for the animal that simply acts (responding to environmental stimuli) and does not reflect. Humans have the capacity, given certain conditions are met, to perform both action and reflection and thus have the potential to transform society. Despite this, humans, like animals, can be trained to simply act in accordance with the dominant ideology and institutions of society. They can be psychologically manipulated to accept societal structures as unchanging and historically ossified; they can be taught that society is beyond their own capacity to alter. Functioning in a society where the goal is conservation of the social order, this style of top-down training serves its purpose; this applies to “democracies,” monarchies, and bureaucratic regimes alike where the ruling elite wish to conserve their dominance. However, if humanity is to fulfill its “historical vocation” of becoming more fully human and thus be able to collectively assert its democratic will as Paulo Freire articulates in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a more profound educational pedagogy must be developed.

The pedagogy, extending beyond the narrow goals of training, is a true education which emphasizes various human capacities:

Education involves reason, the intellect, intuition, and creativity. It is a process or set of experiences that allows humans to ‘create’ themselves. The educated person’s responses to a problematic situation [emphasis added] are based on trying to understand and make calculations about that situation. (Tozer, 9)

This distinction is necessary to understanding how pedagogy in a democratic setting should be constructed. What has been articulated here is not simply the distinction between training and education, although this is essential; it also presents the conflicting models of the banking style education and problem-posing education. The former, where information is simply deposited in the student and regurgitated, facilitates the preparation of the student for a job of unquestioning exploitation and alienation within the current economic and social structures. The latter, stressing problem-posing to allow creative responses and foster analytic skills engages the students and presents society as a problem which can be transformed through human activity.
As Freire explains, “the dominant elites utilize the banking concept to encourage passivity in the oppressed” (95). On the contrary, the program of a problem-posing education must differ drastically:

The starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people. Utilizing certain basic contradictions, we must pose this existential, concrete, present situation to the people as a problem which challenges them and requires a response – not just at the intellectual level, but at the level of action (Freire, 95-6).

Broadly, this means that the material conditions within which the students function must be discussed and analyzed. The dominant institutions and structures of society which dictate these conditions must also be critically challenged and scrutinized. The issues facing society, such as poverty, war, racism, sexism, exploitation, etc. are all problems which the students can be challenged and urged to help propose solutions to. They must first, however, be convinced of the immense significance of their own historical vocation (that of becoming more fully human) and thus, to determine the destiny of their community and humanity in the broadest sense.

More concretely, this means in the classroom that students should be engaged in the course material. They should have a say in the material covered, in how it is presented, in the structure of the classroom. These issues should be posed as problems for the students, who in conjunction with the educator will help formulate a solution, a plan of action. History should not be taught as a static, unchanging sequence of facts and dates and events in isolation from one another, but rather as a dynamic interplay of contradictory forces which have forged human history to the point it has arrived at today. The problems within the school and within the community are not only to be passively reflected upon, but also acted upon; both action and reflection, in constant and dynamic integration, are essential. This manifestation of collective action and reflection in dialectical relation to one another is the truest form of democracy and plays a pivotal role in empowering students to actively pursue progressive change for themselves and future generations.

This also means that educators should be able to effectively communicate with students. Dialogue is vital to any sort of positive, trusting, and democratic teacher-student relationship. To postulate a hypothetical situation: an educator in an urban setting where black vernacular is the most often expressed dialect would only effectively isolate him or herself by moralizing to students about utilizing “proper English” (this term, at any rate, is not only completely irrational given the nature of language but carries with it implicitly racist undertones). Instead, the true educator would both respect the creativity of oppressed communities in formulating language which articulates their own objective conditions and also emphasize the importance of language as an expressive tool. The educator should “understand the structural conditions in which the thought and language of the people are dialectically framed” (Freire, 96). Dialogue is the tool which allows problem-posing education, and simultaneously, democracy, to flourish. Without it, education is nothing more than passive assimilation into a culture of oppression and alienation.

Works Cited

Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2009) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.