On Education Part Ten: Jefferson, Mann, Dewey, Conant - A Comparative Analysis

    In any society the single most determining factor in how institutions are organized and function is the political and economic situation in which those institutions exist. Schools are a reflection of the society and how it is structured. Generally, schools can serve one of two functions; either they are designed to perpetuate the current system or they act as spawning grounds for dissent, questioning of society, and those who run it. In practice, the latter usually dominates. However, not everyone agrees on what role education and the school system should play in society. Some, like Mann and Conant, would propose that the primary goal of education is to reproduce the existing class structure and the classes required for such a society to continue its existence. Others, such as Jefferson, hoped, in an extremely exclusive way, that education help develop the minds of those citizens who had the leisure time to pursue it so that they could function in a relatively limited form of democratic society. Still others, such as Dewey, believed democracy should extend further than the political realm to all spheres of life, including school and the workplace, and the only way to prepare students for such a democratic society was to model schools in a participatory and democratic way. These key thinkers in educational philosophy and their ideal of schooling help illuminate the social, economic, and political realities at each stage of American education. Indeed, each one of their arguments is reflective of the material conditions at the time and each were attempting to respond, whether reactively or progressively, in a manner that would deal with these constantly changing conditions.

    Thomas Jefferson’s ideas of education were rather clear as he wrote frequently about the subject. He believed that in order to fulfill the role of active, aware citizen required in any sort of democratic society, men (with an emphasis on the gender-specific term, along with the exclusion of non-propertied men and men of color) should be liberally educated in order to understand the world, and how society functions, more broadly. Extremely vital in Jefferon’s conception of education is his postulation that democratic localism, or local school control by the community, represents the best method for how schools are to be organized and run. He believed that a sort of basic, three year education should be provided by the local government to all free children but insisted that education beyond that point should be privately funded. Jefferson’s style of education seemed to have very little to say in regards to vocational work, instead focusing on classical literature and traditional subjects in order to train the mental faculties. Armed with the basic necessities needed to be consciously aware of one’s own self-interest and, to a certain extent, the collective good of society, Jefferson believed his model of education would supply the “habit and long training” required for democratic participation by the citizenry (Tozer, p. 37). This would be accomplished by the free exchange of ideas through newspapers where argument and debate would manifest and educated men would rationally decide upon which argument best suited their interests. It is no question that the material conditions present in Jefferson’s particular historical framework played an immense role in shaping his understanding of how education should be organized.

    Many of Jefferson’s arguments cannot be understood without a basic understanding of reality in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  Formulated around a largely rural, agrarian based economy with little in the way of communications, it would only make sense that Jefferson articulated his idea of extreme localism and autonomy for each and every distinct school district. The industrial revolution was still decades ahead of Jefferson and social relations were largely pre-capitalist; enormous corporations, media consolidation, and globalization were not historical realities that impinged upon society with the same percussive impact they do today. Therefore, Jefferson believed that each individual white male, owning his own plot of land and having the leisure time to pursue a liberal education, would be informed of his own interests and, subsequently, how he should vote for representatives in government. Women were left out in Jefferson’s education ideal since he believed, echoing the dominant ideology at this time, they were naturally inferior beings “governed more by appetites and passions than by reason [and] were less capable of self-governance” (Tozer, p. 35). Similarly, the entire institution of slavery excluded blacks from the educational process during the Jeffersonian era. Males without property with likewise excluded from democratic life. Jefferson’s democracy then, along with his education which fostered it, was highly exclusive. Thus, the larger political economy heavily influenced, and also explains the limitations of, the Jeffersonian education ideal.   

    The locus of Horace Mann’s educational philosophy was that an “appropriate set of moral values” should be taught to all children in order to “support and sustain industrial development” (Tozer, p.68). His ideal education, a synthesis of various methods but borrowing from the authoritarian Prussian model most heavily, was an attempt to homogenize the enormous influx of immigrant workers. To do this, he believed it would be necessary to “provide [employers] with workers who were not only more productive but also docile, easily managed, and unlikely to resort to strikes or violence” (Tozer, p.76); similarly, he thought education should be used to “disarm the poor of their hostilities towards the rich” (Tozer, p.77). By instituting public education through common schools for the majority of the nation’s children, Mann believed that the inculcation of obedience and discipline, or “modern values,” into working class children should be the primary goal. Thus, his educational ideal would act as a perpetuation, indeed an expansion, of the existing order.

    During the Common Era of education, in which Mann played a significant role, industrialization and urbanization were rapidly changing the American scene; city sizes were growing, technology was making it possible for capitalists to bring together prodigious numbers of workers into one spot to labor, and immigrants from all over, but especially Ireland, were crossing the Atlantic to find work. Therefore, Jefferson’s ideal of democratic localism based upon the rural economy was largely fading from palpability. Mann, then, was trying to formulate a policy to "Americanize" the large influx of (often militant) immigrant workers who rejected to the wage slavery imposed upon them by capitalist enterprise. His ideal is a direct response to the changing political economy and he desired to force workers in a direction of obedience in order to expand the nascent industrial capitalism and subdue working class resistance to it. Therefore, his educational ideal was naturally very different than Jefferson's; it had to be state instituted and financed so that it could effectively reach the broader population and indoctrinate them into the newly emerging capitalist society. At the same time the feminization of teaching was becoming prevalent and, since females generally worked for much lower wages than men, females were being hired at a much higher rate and for much less pay. Once again, as with Jefferson, one can hear the echo of the dominant ideology’s sexism through Mann’s idea that women were biologically inclined to act as the “guide and guardian of children of a tender age” (Tozer, p. 75). However, he differs from Jefferson on one important fact; instead of excluding women from education, he pushed for it. But as Tozer et al. explains, “[t]he long term effect…was to reinforce the sexist belief that women were by nature not only fundamentally different from men but deficient in rational faculties” (Tozer, p. 75). To this day, the wages of educators pale in comparison to other professions, a legacy due in large part to the devaluation of occupations normally associated with women.

    Dewey theoretical contributions to the philosophy of education are probably the most underutilized, yet ultimately most valuable, aspects of pedagogical development. Dewey’s ideas arise in order to combat social efficiency proponents such as Charles W. Elliot who viewed students as “raw materials” which must go through “factories,” or schools, in which they are to be “shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life” (Tozer, p. 157). In contrast, Dewey’s focus relies upon furthering participatory democracy throughout all realms of society such as the workplace, school, and both the economic and political spheres. Rather than mold students into obedient workers as with traditional educational thought, his primary postulation was that schools should serve as models of participatory democracy; students and teachers alike are to function within a sort of democratic microcosm of the ideal society. Dialogue, debate, and democratic culture were vital factors in Dewey’s educational philosophy and, likewise, in his conception of a democratic society. This “developmental democracy” that he articulated would upset quite a lot of elite educational theoreticians. Dewey was a challenge to those who wished to maintain the existing, undemocratic class structure and the private tyrannies whose real nature are disingenuously hid behind free market dogma. Precisely because of this, Dewey would be largely underutilized in mainstream schooling environments.

    The Progressive Era of education is defined by this clash between social efficiency theorists and development democracy theorists. Industrialization and urbanization were rising sharply and elites understood that some sort of publicly funded, far reaching education would have to be implemented if the dominant ideology was to maintain its hegemony. Labor unions and radical workers, especially from the various southern and eastern European nations, were providing a significant challenge to the capitalist political economy. Thus, the elites found the manifestation of their educational ideal in Elliot who wanted less democracy and more obedience. On the other hand, Dewey argued for more democracy which should extend to the industrial arena (and the workplace in general) and empower workers, essentially the socialist position. Therefore, Dewey’s educational philosophy was a direct response, indeed, even a furthering, of the participatory democracy and economic control which millions of workers struggled for throughout this era.

    James Bryant Conant’s main educational assertions are that standardized testing was a “foolproof method for ascertaining academic promise,” education should function along meritocratic lines, public schools could serve as “the first bulwark of defense” against official state enemies and inculcate young minds with “greater cultural and social unity” on a seemingly nationalist basis (Tozer, p. 209-13). Conant argued that “school must first prepare talented youth for strategically necessary scientific, professional, and technological occupations” (Tozer, p. 222). Conant largely ignored the extremely varying social and economic backgrounds which may impede or further a student’s academic ability. The university, according to Conant, was an ivory tower where only the most academically successful should have a presence; education should be extremely competitive and only available for those who could make some sort of contribution to the national-security state and corporate interests. The rest of the population should be confined to purely vocational pursuits, a liberal education only hindering their limited minds from acting as docile, passive laborer, consumers, and flag-wavers. Conant’s theory of education follows the line of T.S. Elliot and, to a certain extent, Horace Mann, in developing a fundamentally undemocratic theory of education.

    Conant’s educational philosophy can only be understood within an exponentially strengthening American capitalism after World War II and the ensuing Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union. At a time when arms and technological development became a primary goal that consumed an enormous amount of resources, and while American capital was expanding rapidly and pursuing new markets, the reasoning behind Conant’s idea of an elite group of experts dictating how society should be run for the rest of the population becomes rather lucid. Instead of a society based upon Dewey’s model where participatory democracy reigns and the value of jingoism and capitalism to collective society can be challenged, Conant interjects on behalf of the current ruling elite with a meritocratic educational ideal which perpetuates the existing class structure. At a time when two world super powers were colliding for supremacy, the elite in each society hoped to infuse an extreme sense of nationalism and fear of the other within their respective populations. Thus, Conant’s educational philosophy was largely impacted by, and helped to reinforce, the flag-waving, red scare mentality among the American populace. The schools would play a vital role in this ideological transmission.

    The superficial democracy represented by philosophers such as Mann, Elliot, and Conant is not only a democracy for the few, it also manifests itself as an oppressive force for the many. Capitalism, the class society it produces, and the various oppressive formats which stem from its competitive and irrational nature, are in opposition to democracy. Democracy entails more than simply voting for a different political representative every few years whose vocation is to maintain the dominant structures of society. True democracy, participation and action involving the masses of society, cannot be realized in a society where profit dominates human motivation. Despite the empty rhetoric and glittering generalities which so profusely emanate from political pundits and multi-national corporations, the promise of democracy has yet to be fulfilled.

    A society where the premise is the collective good can only be established through a transformation of the political and economic system. It must be a change which stems from the people whom are oppressed themselves. When Dewey explains that democracy must extend beyond the shallow political sphere, he is absolutely correct; collective decision making by members of society who control their own labor, the means of production, and how those products are distributed is absolutely essential for any sort of functioning democracy. Political democracy is a hollow ideology when the so called free market ingeniously manipulates it in the manner that it does today.

    Dewey was also correct when he emphasized that schools should reflect the democratic ideal. A democratic culture inside the schools is vital to preparing students and teachers alike for their immensely important role in a democratic society. Democratic change has always, and will continue to be, a limit on the power of the wealth and the elite in society; if democracy is to be realized, it must remove the conditions in which enormous wealth and power are accumulated in the hands of the few. While Dewey’s development democracy model is a necessity, a truly democratic society and educational system must not only reflect the democratic ideal, it must actively seek to challenge oppression in any form. As Paulo Freire outlines, democracy involves transforming humans as objects who simply respond to their surroundings into humans as subjects who are intricately involved in determining their own destiny. This process undoubtedly involves the engagement of the oppressed in challenging and struggling against the system of oppression which forces itself upon them. Full human liberation, where the power and wealth of the few do not dictate the lives of the many, can only is achieved through a democratic struggle in which collective ownership and participatory decision making is the objective.

    The current political, economic, and social factors which may impede one’s ability to actualize a democratic structure in the classroom are multifaceted. Fundamentally, the overarching structure of a society based upon hierarchical control by those with wealth and the power it wields limit democratic decision making by educators and students. An extremely rigid school hierarchy, an often dense an seemingly impenetrable union bureaucracy, limited government resources and the dominant ideology as represented in the corporate controlled media and textbook publishing companies are some of the major limiting factors. The day to day life, along with the material realities of the students whom educators encounter may provide a challenging obstacle as well.

    Involving students by allowing them to help make decisions in the classroom and by engaging them with their own interests is a vital step in achieving some semblance of democracy in the classroom. Students must be tied to their educational experience directly and this is facilitated by involving them in constant dialogue and discussion. Both an understanding of their own oppression and the oppression which exists around them is necessary. Developing a democratic culture in the classroom, as Dewey suggests, can have an immense impact on the students that pass through the classroom. In fact, helping to develop that democratic culture will inevitably lead to questions of how society can be further democratized, which should be the goal of any educator in a democratic society. Students who are actively involved in struggles against oppression, and reflection upon that activity, will be more inclined to fight for radical change as they being to decode, comprehend, and articulate the world around them. Giving them the voice, and the power, to articulate their own experiences and their relations with the larger world will give them the power to help propose solutions to the challenges in their own life and the struggles society must overcome collectively.

    More importantly, teachers must take up the issue politically as well. Educators, whether they like it or not, are intricately bound up in the political and economic realities of society. Struggling to garner more resources for the schools, decreasing class sizes, fighting against standardized testing, providing equal treatment to all students, and protecting the sanctity of public education are important goals that every teacher should be involved with. To do this, a struggle against a government which favors wars, wealthy bankers, and corporate subsidies over education is essential. Likewise, a struggle to democratize unions so that they become a vehicle for fighting back against attacks on the public sector should be important as well. Educators and students should fight to play a role in shaping curriculum, challenge charter schools and privatization efforts, make the case for the removal of military recruiters from high schools and campuses, exercise their right to participate in budget decisions, combat mandated tests, and do all they can to struggle for a more humane, stimulating learning environment where students are not alienated. This will involve one-on-one battles in specific schools and particular districts; but it also involves linking these struggles with the general trends around the nation and the world. Teacher solidarity and community support are essential features to fostering a democratic learning environment.

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

On Education Part Two: Selective Omission and What We Learn From Malcolm X's Schooling Experience

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 Three: Education, for Liberation or Domination?

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

The chapter entitled “Mascot” in The Autobiography of Malcolm X is an illuminating, yet disheartening look at the state of education in the 1930’s. Malcolm reflects upon his schooling experience and the attitudes of peers and authority figures accompanying it. At a time where racial segregation was rampant in the South, and the North simply disguised their racism in a paternalistic manner, Malcolm’s account is a fantastic primary source with the potential to enlighten the reader in regards to the honest condition of American schools during that time. The dominant ideology shines through repeatedly throughout the chapter. Malcolm recalls how he enjoyed history, except for the fact that his history teacher “was a great one for ‘nigger’ jokes” (Haley, 35). He speaks of his quality schoolwork, his excellent grades, his involvement in extracurricular activities, and his relative intellectual capabilities in comparison with his peers; still, his very humanity is denigrated by his English teacher when he professes his desire to become a lawyer and Mr. Ostrowski explains “that’s no realistic goal for a nigger,” suggesting carpentry instead (Haley, 43). Thus, he implies that this young black child, with one of the best grades in the class, is still somehow inferior and unable to perform at the level of his white counterpart. This obvious insult, one meant not as an invective solely towards Malcolm whom Mr. Ostrowski was actually fond of, provides a paragon exemplifying how racism and conceptions of racial inferiority, reflections of the dominant ideology, so deeply penetrated society.

The examples above of overt, personal prejudices are no longer commonly accepted in mainstream society. Struggle throughout American history but erupting in the 1960’s against the prodigious racial inequality in the United States helped shape and transform many Americans' views on racial inferiority. Today, personal ideas of race and race relations have liberalized considerably; this is undoubtedly evidenced by the fact that Americans elected the first black president, who won more white votes than any democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. At the same time, material conditions for historically marginalized groups, such as blacks, have been on the decline for the past thirty years. Thus, the liberal conception of racism, which they postulate exists because of personal prejudice by backward whites, proves unable to explain this phenomenon. One must instead look critically at the societal institutions, and the dominant ideology which supports them; these institutions have the ability to simultaneously liberalize personal conceptions of race and, conversely, increase the hardship, oppression, and segregation which many black communities face on a day to day basis.

One small component of this dominant ideology, which Malcolm so thoroughly depicts but does not label, is selective omission. This tool, omnipresent throughout the educational system, is used vigorously by academia, textbooks publishers, and public officials to sterilize the resistance of the oppressed against the system which oppresses them. Indeed, it is a paralyzing technique intended to pacify and placate students. Selective omission is a percussive blow to the truth that continues to exert immense force, even today, in hopes of subjugating the masses and excluding them from any sort of participatory democracy. This process, by which those who wish to maintain the status quo and prevent any fundamental change, carefully allows for the absence of regular people in the decision making process. It appears that this aspect of the dominant ideology acts to help ease tension which could potentially arise from the contradictions of a society which prepares students for a “nonparticipatory experience in the workplace” while simultaneously inculcating them “with the prevailing political rhetoric that U.S. society is democratic” (Tozer, 276).

In Malcolm’s case, the selective omission he cites is in regards to black history in his textbook. He explains:

It was exactly one paragraph long. Mr. Williams laughed through it practically in a single breath, reading aloud how the Negroes had been slaves and then were freed, and how they were usually lazy and dumb and shiftless. He added, I remember, an anthropological footnote of his own, telling us between laughs how Negroes’ feet were “so big that when they walk, they don’t leave tracks, they leave a hole in the ground” (Haley, 35).

Due to the gains made through collective struggle and organized resistance on the parts of historically marginalized groups, this blatant example would not stand today. However, it is quite easy to draw parallels between Malcolm’s textbook and modern textbooks; both make vigorous use of tactical selective omission. In Malcolm’s case, the omissions are obvious; the brutality and dehumanization of the institution of slavery, the history of abolitionism, the organizational and independent forms of resistance, the struggle for racial equality, or, in other words, the self-activity of regular people, are all ignored. Most important, however, is the fact that his textbook presents the issue as if it simply resolved itself, mentioning that “slaves were freed.” The implication, of course, is that this was due to the benevolence of those who control society and not because of the prolific struggle against the pernicious institution. Indeed, it removed the role of common people as an agency for change. Selective omission, used in this manner, hopes to conceal the fact that often times working within the framework of the established system is futile; it hopes to derail the idea that the oppressed must organize and fight back in the process of human liberation.

Examples in modern textbooks are innumerable. One study of social studies texts “reveals that positive social changes in civil rights, the resolution of the Vietnam war, labor unions, and the women’s movement are presented as triumphs of the legal system” (Tozer, 276). This sort of selective omission is vital to the functioning of the social system as it is currently structured; educational institutions, as they now stand, are meant to perpetuate that stability. The reason for this is simple; those who wish to maintain their wealth and power surely want the masses who labor below them to remain in their place. Serious challenges to the system are excluded or, as is the case of the rather popular Socialist Party, “most often portrayed negatively, as an insignificant movement on the part of an irresponsible few” (Tozer, 276). This pays no regard to the fact that Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, at one point won 6% of the popular vote while imprisoned for speaking out against World War I. Selective omission is a vital tool in the ruling class’s arsenal and they are more than willing to use it in order to secure the dominant ideology.

This tool is just one of their weapons. Historically, the ruling class has shown that it will stop at nothing to preserve it’s stranglehold on power. As educators, it is our job to do our part in the struggle for human liberation. Taking back history from the rich and powerful and emphasizing the role that regular people play in the making of history are fundamental in that quest for liberation. Explaining how, instead of working within the system, the largest gains have been made when struggling against the system, is one step to empowering not only the students we teach and the communities they live in, but ourselves as well. It is our job, in dialogue with our students and the community, to smash through purported truths and reclaim the educational system which we, and the students, sustain with our labor and creativity.

This can be difficult when functioning within the confines of a hierarchical, non-democratic school structure. At the moment progressive teachers and students are on the defensive against a myriad of attacks; privatization, lack of resources, budget cuts, No Child Left Behind, etc. all represent conservative aggression intended to consolidate and centralize power in the hands of the few and leave the rest of us begging for crumbs. However, we have a wide range of tools available to help combat misinformation, selective omission, and the dominant ideology. We must make use, both inside and outside of the classroom, of educational resources such as Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States to challenge the whitewashing of history, periodicals such as Rethinking Schools to help articulate our arguments for a critical pedagogy, Jonathon Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation to combat American-style educational apartheid, and various other materials which can help in the struggle. Indeed, when Huey P. Newton said that people learn best by observation and participation, his words could not ring any more true for educators today; it is our role to be models of the struggle for our students. The fight for quality educational standards, equal funding for all children, and the removal of reactionary policies and programs for our schools will have many similarities to the struggle for racial equality, better wages and unionization, and the GLBT movements of both past and present. It is time that teachers stand up and fight back.

Works Cited

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.

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.