Manohar Dhadwad and Venu Prasad H D

PAULO FREIRE- HIS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS EDUCATION:

Introduction:

Paulo Freire (1921 - 1997) was a great Brazilian, progressive educationalist who has left significant marks on informal education and especially popular education. He was born on September 19, 1921 in Recife Pernambuco, Brazil. During 1929 world depression, Freire’s family was forced to leave Recife, & settle nearby Jaboatao in the north eastern Brazil. The world economic crisis during 1929 forced Freire to know what is hunger and poverty at a young age. These experiences; deeply influenced his further life work. Though he opened law school after his graduation; he left this profession shortly & dedicated his whole life for the problems of education of the poor and illiterate members of Brazilian society.

                                            In 1962, he got the first chance to experiment his methods of education, when he taught 300 farm workers to read and write within just 45 days. Freire travelled worldwide during his period as a Special educational advisor to the World Congress of Church in Geneva in 1970-1980. During this period he helped various countries to implement popular education and literacy reforms. He wrote plenty of literature on in-formal and popular education. His some of the famous books are - Education as the Practice of Freedom (1967); Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970); Extension or communication? (1973); the politics of education: culture, power and liberation (1985). In 1986, he got the UNESCO Prize for his contribution in Education for Peace. He

                     His concepts about education, especially dialogicity; banking concept of education; conscientization; etc. influenced the whole world. He asserts that non-formal education should be dialogical rather than just curricula based. For him dialogue implies people working together with respect for each other; rather than one person acting on another. He emphasises that dialogicity helps in enhancing community & creating social capital which ultimately results in humanization. He had described present education system as ‘Banking concept’ in which teacher deposits knowledge in the students. Such type of education results in passive learning. He argues that learning to be effective; the learner must be conscientized about their reality. Learning process should be focused on perceiving and exposing social and political contradictions. Thus education activities should be directed in such a way that it will give real life experience to the learners. 

                         His “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” is one of the most notable educational texts which is still famous in Latin America, Africa and Asia. His another quotable work is “Essays on extension or communication”. The review of these both is given below.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - A Review

I. Justification of pedagogy:

                           In the first chapter of this book Paulo Freire has given the justification about his concept of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. He describes the pedagogy as a process during which an individual learns to promote his own development through situations from his daily life events. Such events provide useful learning experiences. He advocates that the subject[1] should build his reality from the circumstances that give rise to the daily events of his life. The texts that the individual creates through such confrontations permit him to analyse his real world. It helps him to reform his efforts so as to conform to his historical demands and not just to adapt himself to this world.

               Paulo Freire advocates that the method of learning should be such that students can do more than simply reproducing the words that already exist. They should create their own words through this method. Own words means the words that allow the subject to become aware of their reality. Thus they can fight for their own liberation. Without this, some people acquire a kind of inexperienced consciousness. Which means they are aware of their situation but do not make any effort to change it. They take a conformist stand and consider their situation as normal one. On the other hand individuals with such learning construct their own reality and liberate themselves from oppression. The person who thinks and reflects liberates himself. He creates his consciousness of struggle by transforming reality. He liberates himself from the oppression that has been inserted by traditional pedagogy. Thus he acquires a new approach of thinking, his understanding of the social status that he holds changes him. It's a cognitive understanding, which is important in the liberation from oppression of the individual who possesses it. Freire endeavours that the individual, through systematic study, learns to fight for the end of oppression. Thus Paulo Friere argues that pedagogy must deal with the problem of the consciousness of the oppressed as well as oppressor. His  pedagogy implies two distinct and sequential moments: the first involves becoming conscious of the reality that the individual lives as an oppressed being subject to the decisions that the oppressors impose; the second refers to the initiative of the oppressed to fight and emancipate themselves from the oppressors. Freire does not believe that the lived situation consists only of a simple awareness of reality. Instead, he believes that the individual has a historical need to fight against the status that dwells within him. The efforts of the oppressed become focused and concrete through the type of learning that school really should give them, instead of encouraging them to adapt to their reality, as the oppressors themselves do.

           In the relationships between oppressor and oppressed, the oppressed appear to be the troublemakers of violence.  Furthermore, the oppressors accuse those who oppose them of being uncooperative, irresponsible and immoral. Oppressed are considered responsible for their own situation. Infact the adjectives like uncooperative, irresponsible, immoral etc. are really a response to being oppressed. These adjectives are ultimate results of the exploitation to which these people have been subjected. The situation gets even worse when the oppressed accept this reality and adapt to it without questioning or attempting to change it. This generates in the oppressed an emotional dependence that seems unchangeable. Therefore, it is necessary, that these individuals must become conscious about themselves to fight for their own liberation.

II. The "banking" concept of education:

                                                      ‘A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character’. (Freire p.45) That is presently in education, more emphasis is given on of lecture methods and memorization. Very little emphasis is given on the analysis of the importance of what is being memorized. For example, the year 1945 marks the end of the Second World War. But we do not know either how that affected our lives or how it continues to affect our daily relationships which we establish. We have simply memorized, mugged and retained the date. Freire describes this situation as Banking Concept- in which the students are seen as containers into which knowledge can be deposited. The teacher is the depositor and the knowledge is that which is deposited on a daily basis. This banking education maintains and even stimulates the contradiction through the following attitudes and practices, which mirror oppressive society as a whole: (Freire, p.46)

1. The teacher teaches and the students are taught.
2. The teacher knows everything and the student knows nothing.
3. The teacher thinks and the students are taught about.
4. The teacher talks and the students listen – meekly.
5. The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined.
6. The teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply.
7. The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher.
8. The teacher chooses the programme content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it.
9. The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his own professional authority, which he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students.
10. The teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.

                               Thus this banking concept of education attempts to change the minds of individuals so that they will adapt better to actual situations and be dominated by them with greater ease. The more passive people are, the more they will adapt, the more their creativity will diminish and which creates the conditions necessary for the oppressors to oppress these people.

                                                 When the individual does not fight for his interests and for cultural and social emancipation, it seems that he has lost his love of life. This necrophilia is reproduced by the type of today’s education imparted in the schools. The Freire’s pedagogy is the opposite of that described above. It suggests that the individual acquire a love of life through a cultivation of his being - by being with the world and not of it - a state that is achieved through liberation. For this to occur we need an education that liberates the individual, and makes him conscious.

                      Moreover we need an education in which the content is understood and analysed, overcoming the dichotomy that exists between teacher and student. It must leave to one side this unidirectional relationship and allow bi-directionality to contribute to the whole education of both parties, since they both have elements to bring to the learning. If this reciprocal meaning is lost, the learning becomes a unilateral act of memorization. This type of learning helps people to create new expectations and reach a truly reflective state in which they discover their own reality. It provokes new challenges that move the students toward a self construction of the world in which they have real and direct participation in the activities they undertake without mediating their learning through artificial experiences.

III. Dialogicity: the essence of education as freedom in practice.
                                                    When education is used as the mean to adapt man to this reality, he is not allowed to understand and transform the surrounding reality. The pedagogy of Freire is that the individual learn to understand and transform the reality. So it is necessary that dialogicity be established between teacher and student, since man does not create himself in silence, but through words, actions and reflection. Therefore the use of dialogue is the key element in learning. The dialogue established between the two subjects helps to increase reciprocal kindness.

                              Freire argues that generation of critical thinking is possible, but only through the dialogue. He further argues that without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true education. Some people, who believe that they are revolutionary leaders, go to the masses to establish a dialogue with them. But it is their interests (to get the support of the people) and not the interests of the community that are pursued. They utilise the banking concept to encourage the passiveness among the oppressed without attending to their historical demands. They fall into the naïve thinking that one should adapt to existing conditions, rather than construct the new and appropriate conditions required to liberate them. Thus these so called leaders obstruct the critical thinking which helps to overcome the oppression through conscious action. So Friere argues that it is important to establish dialogue with a community. Dialogue with community implies that the topics for learning can be found in the reality that surrounds the individual; and use of a language with which the individual is familiar.

                               In order to investigate a generative topic one should go to the places where the individuals whom we wants to liberate are located and study their thinking. Teach them through reality, so that it will not be a mechanistic teaching. In order to overcome oppression the individuals need not only to construct their own ideas but also transforms them through praxis and horizontal communication. Studying the generative topic implies two distinct steps: the first is to go to the places where the events take place and become familiar with the thinking of the oppressed. The second step is that applying this thinking to the systematic learning process with emphasis on group interaction between the participants. Through such endeavour each person acquires the consciousness of his reality as well as truly expresses it.

IV. Antidialogicity and dialogicity: Two matrices of opposing theories of cultural action:

                                                 Antidialogicity and dialogicity: two opposite matrices of theory of cultural action. Friere asserts that men’s as being of praxis, their activity consists of action and reflection. Transformation of reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action. In order to participation of the oppressed in the revolutionary process dialogue is essential and not the anti-dialogue. The anti-dialogical matrix of cultural action is characterised by conquest; divide & rule; manipulation; & cultural invasion. In contrast to this the dialogical matrix of cultural action is characterised by co-operation, unity for liberation, organisation; & cultural synthesis.

                                 The oppressor uses antidialogicity to oppress others through unilateral dialogue, converting the communication process into an act of necrophilia. Sometimes the oppressors even use other ideological instruments so that their conquest will be total.

                      Divide and rule is also oldest and one of the fundamental dimensions of oppression theory. The oppressors oppress the other people through divide and rule. They also prevent people form uniting through dialogue. They isolate them so as to create and deepen splits among them.  They warn that it can be dangerous to the “social peace" and to the social harmony to speak to the oppressed about the concepts of union and organisation, amongst others. Furthermore if any individual decides to oppose them, and to begin a fight for liberation, he is stigmatised. He is included in the "blacklist", and loses his job. Thus all efforts are made to maintain their “status quo”.

          Some dominant elite people use manipulation as an instrument of conquest. These people try to make the masses conform to their objectives. Manipulation is sometimes used to accomplish unequivocal interest of the dominant class. Some people also use cultural invasion as means of oppression. They try to impose their views on others. Paulo Freire asserts that cultural invasion leads to increase in distance in socio-economic equality and the oppressed are considered as the object & oppressors as the actors and authors of the process. This result in loss of values, a transformation in their form of speaking and, inexorably, support for the oppressor.

                       On the other hand just opposite to antidilogicity, Friere has described the dialogicity theory of cultural action. It is characterised by co-operation, unity for liberation, organisation; & cultural synthesis. There is co-operation among the subjects in order to transform the world, instead of invasion. There is collaboration for community emancipation. This collaboration is brought through communication among all the members of the society.

                      In order to avoid ideological control from the top organisation is also necessary. It implies coherence between action and practice. For revolutionary leaders organisation means uniting themselves with the people, rather than just organising themselves. Organisation is basic element to any revolutionary action for emancipation.

                           Union along with co-operation and organisation is also necessary in order to achieve a common effort toward liberation. Unity involves solidarity regardless of the status, caste, and religion. To unite the oppressed, class consciousness among them is required. Cultural synthesis is also a major characteristic of dialogical theory of cultural action. Cultural synthesis occurs along with the investigation of generative topics. It is a mode of action for confronting culture, itself. It serves as the means of organisation.

Conclusion: Paulo Friere asserts that the individuals must form themselves rather than be formed. He advocates that every person, however ignorant or submerged in the "culture of silence" can be transformed. Every person can look critically at his or her world through a process of dialogue with others, and can gradually come to perceive his personal and social reality, think about it, and take action in regard to it. For this there is need of to treat them as subject rather than object through dialogicity. The concept of banking education makes us as passive entities in the world. The teacher deposits and students are the depositories. Students receive, memorize, and repeat. Thus they become just receivers and can not create their own words, so as to transform themselves. The oppressor takes the benefit of this. He proposes that one should problematise his own life in order to realize that he both requires and can achieve a different status. For this the generative topics should be taught to them, instead of just depositing in them.

Brief Summary of “EXTENSION OR COMMUNICATION”:

                        Paulo Friere in “Extension or Communication” has applied his concept and philosophy of human conscientization in the field of rural extension. He has explained how extension differs from communication.  He has explained the term extension in the context of its general uses -as the action of extending something to. That means the person extends something towards someone who receives the contents of that action. He labels the person who extends content as direct object of the verbal action; and the person who receives this content as indirect object of the verbal action. Today extension is characterised by transfer of techniques and knowledge. The extension agents are engaged in just extending their hands and their technical capacities. They are trying to change people to the changing world rather than improving the particular situation. The extension agents are imposing their understanding of reality upon its clients. Thus they are domesticating the people and not liberating the peoples. Thus they are made simply as the objects of a persuasion. Furthermore the term extension is perceived as involving only transmission, mechanical transfer cultural invasion & manipulation.

                                    Thus the term extension implies the action of transferring of the technologies, i.e. handing over it to the rural peoples.  The extension agent deposits his technical knowledge and his capacities in to the rural masses. Paulo Friere argues that this type of work by extension agent is not truly humanist outlook. Education, according to Freire, is for the purpose of humanizing others through conscious action for the purposes of transforming the world. The person who is filled by another person (extension agent) with the contents which is not known by his client cannot learn. He can not learn   as he is not challenged.

                                He suggests that extension to be effective must undertake educational process which leads to liberalisation, instead of domestication of the people. Education, according to Freire, is for the purpose of humanizing others through conscious action for the purposes of transforming the world. Liberation implies the problamitzation of their situation in its concrete objective reality, so that being critically aware of it; they can also critically analyse and act upon it. The role of extension agent is neither extending their hands nor persuasion of rural masses to accept his propaganda. The true role of extension agent is to extend the peoples knowledge and their technical capacities through problematization of their situation in reality. Thus they will aware of it and critically act upon it. The dialogue should be established between them as it is the key element in learning. The society, its values, customs, and its social structure should be taken in to consideration. It is possible to change the attitude of the masses by making them conscious about their real world and their critical involvement with the reality is vital.

References:

1. Frierie Paulo 1972, “pedagogy of the oppressed”, Penguin Books Publication, England, 1972, pp.1-150.
2. Freire, Paulo 1979, “Rural Extension or Communication”, Idea and Action 128 (28) 16-22.
3. Allman, P., 1994, "Paulo Freire's Contributions to Radical Adult Education." Studies in the Education of Adults 26(2): 144-61.
4. Internet links:-

a)      Critical pedagogy, Link; - http:/mingo.info-Science.uiowa.edu%Estevens/critped//Links freire.html.

b)      Lowand P, Brief Biography of Paulo Friere, in Frieries Life & Work. Link: - htpp://www.paulofriereinstitute.org/documents/PF-life_and_work_by_Peter.html.

c)      Chronological facts, Link: - htpp://www.paulofriereinstitute.org/documents/PF-Facts.html.

d)      Sung-Sang Yoo, Paulo Friere & Frerian Pedagogy. Link: - htpp://www.paulofriereinstitute.org/documents/PF- Frerian_Pedagogy.html.