Making the Marxist

8/12/2019 Making the Marxist

1/11

Making the Marxist: Understanding Freirean Views of the Marginalized

to Motivate a Socio-cultural Learning Experience

We should . . . participate in the collective construction of knowledge, which goes beyond the

knowledge of past experience and takes into account the necessities of the people and turns that

knowledge into an instrument of struggle. (Paulo Freire qtd in O'Cadiz)

The research of Paulo Freire has been well taken into consideration throughout the years,

but to this day, his ideas have yet to be implemented into the curriculum of secondary schools.

Much of this revolves around the skepticism of his work and its positive effects in non-American

schools, because for much of it, changes occurred in So Paulo, Brazil. But at the college levelin America, studies have been carried out by researchers such as Nancy Barnes, whom has used

Freires pedagogical theories to teach anthropology, which bridged the gap between problem-

posing education and cultural studies. She is an example of how teaching can create a positive

outlook on learning for students a motivation. Freirean ideas have been the foundation for

much of the research conducted around the topic of class-consciousness informing literacy skills,

and although this research seems outdated, it still holds much prevalence today. In fact, his

theory of problem posing education has been used in order to develop literacy skills in Brazil

through several case studies, and could have potential in the United States an argument Barnes

identifies in her article. In a tribute, Peter McLaren highlights many of the key points of Freires

ideas and the potentially dramatic, positive changes that Frearean pedagogy could have on

American secondary schools. But McLaren also identifies why it is difficult for these views to

gain acceptance: Freire firmly believed that educational change must be accompanied by

significant changes in the social and political structure in which education takes place. It is a

position most educators would find politically untenable or hopelessly utopian. It is certainly a


2/11

Tsuyuki 2

position that threatens the interests of those who are already well served by the dominant

culture (52). Even so, there are elements of Freire and others pedagogical theories which need

continuous attention in order for any change in the educational system to occur; however, before

entering the education programs at the university level, Freirean ideas must first be considered

by those already in teaching positions at the secondary school level.

Therefore, this paper is intended for secondary educators teaching in low-income

districts characterized primarily by minority Americans. As educators, you are aware that

education is an agency utilized by members of lower classes to achieve a degree that will, in

turn, grant them opportunities for higher paying careers in order to transcend the confines of theireconomically unstable lifestyles, often associated to their ethnic backgrounds. It is my hope that

this information can function as a starting point in making educations purpose a reality for so

many of the marginalized of which it does not. As Freire asserts while challenging other

writers views of illiteracy, these students are not marginal men (619). In fact, what he iterates

in a number of different ways is how marginalization is not a choice. It is a result of a

distribution of power that has led to the so called marginalized into a dependent relationship

with the majority class from the periphery of the social realm not to be mistaken, however, as

still a part of that realm. Because, according to Freire, no one moves outside of the social realm,

we must consider the implication that the marginalized were placed in their social positions.

Agreeing with Freire, I find it hard to believe that one would choose marginality and all that it

involves: hunger, sickness, rickets, pain, mental deficiencies, living death, crime, promiscuity,

despair, the impossibility of being (619). This exhaustive list provides a clear insight into the

students of low-income districts and what they are subjected to. These students are the subjects

of this research, as well as the subjects of a world in which we all live. Thus, the purpose of this


3/11

Tsuyuki 3

research is to illustrate the perspective of students standing on the periphery of the social realm

and identifying how socio-cultural problem-posing education is the necessary tool to create the

drive that can stimulate these students to not only become more literate, but to hopefully see

education as a necessary tool that will foster a desire to define their own history and culture by

critically analyzing the world in which they live.

I began my research on literacy with my own definition that writing and reading are a

process by which multiple concepts of communication, both visual and aural (perception), and

writing and speech (articulation) are employed, and it is the degree of operating in these areas

which may determine ones level of literacy. Like many theorists, my outlook differed from say,Freire. Yet, through many of the articles analyzing literacy, all fail to parallel one another.

There are overlapping elements in some, yet as John Szwed points out, we do not fully know

what literacy is (422). Perhaps more clearly than Freire, Szwed underlines not the foundation

of literacys definition, but rather asks the question of purpose, that is, the point of reading and

writing. Yet, even his questioning does not penetrate how literacy could be defined. Freire sees

literacy as more than psychologically and mechanically dominat[ing] reading and writing

techniques. It is to dominate these techniques in terms of consciousness; to understand what one

reads and to write what one understands; it is to communicate graphically (622). But even

Freire seems to neglect his own view of acquiring literacy skills dialogue. Should the ability to

speak be of any significance in how literacy is examined? Is there any reason why one should

become literate in say, a Freirean sense of literacy? To many, and certainly to Freire, literacy is

absolutely necessary for anyone living in a capitalist society, where social stratification leads to

the marginalization of so many illiterates and consequently, an absence of their own freedom.

As I have mentioned, marginal men have been dehumanized into objects of their


4/11

Tsuyuki 4

oppressors. The only means of humanization is through literacy, which in essence is a cultural

action for freedom (619-21). By cultural, Freire is referring to his analysis of man being a

subject of the world in which he lives, making clear the distinction between man as the maker of

culture (as history and culture define him) and man being subject to the world which he takes no

part in creating. In short, culture is all human creation, not the world (621). Too often have

schools perpetuated incomplete versions of culture instead of endorsing the cultural identities of

their students in order to foster a stimulating learning experience that could help ignite students

freedom - an important aspect with which Freire identifies.

Connecting this notion of marginalization to the realization of ones own culture andhistory is, in a sense, an equation with an answer freedom. Ronald Glasss discussion on Freire

points out that freedom was only attainable through education. He elaborates on the learning

process of attaining freedom with the emphasis on praxis as the central defining feature of

human life and a necessary condition of freedom (16). But what Glass fails to account is that

the ability to theorize is an ability of literacy skills. He does, however, indirectly suggest that

only through what Freire defines as historicity does the ability to theorize take place. That is,

the dialectical interplay between the way in which history and culture make people even while

people are making that very history and culture (Glass 16). In this article, Glass asserts that

human historicity aids in the realization of freedom, which in turn, can open up the opportunities

in being free. If freedom is, as Glass points out, an aspect of human existence impossible to

eliminate and only achievable, perhaps the first step is to create a guided dialogue with students

in order to come to a conclusive definition of freedom. This means that the definition must

account for culture and history as each adhere to the class, which can serve as the foundation for

a semester of learning activities and assignments analogous to their socio-cultural lives.


5/11

Tsuyuki 5

Moreover, Glass reveals that because there is a process of humanization and dehumanization, the

point of transition is a point of struggle. The struggle is getting students to realize that they are

self-defining subjects creating history and culture (16). If pedagogy is to gear itself toward

this aim, it means that they will be analysts of a socio-cultural world.

In an article theorizing an anthropological approach to the pedagogy of literacy, Nancy

Barnes suggests students will develop more dynamic thinking abilities as they move back and

forth between individual experience and structural analysis or theories (149). The foundation of

her argument suggests that students must initially learn about themselves, and later connect how

they fit within the larger social realm this could, quite possibly, mean that students will learnhow they are on the periphery of society, a necessary realization in demythologizing the world.

Freirean pedagogy suggests a dialogue in teaching sessions, whereby the act of knowing [is

when] the learner assumes the role [as a] knowing subject in dialogue with the educator as a

means to attain freedom (Freire 621). Walter Ongs examination of writing as a technology aids

in giving weight to the significance of the spoken word. He claims:

The written text, for all its permanence, means nothing, [it] is not even a textexcept in relationship to the spoken word. For a text to be intelligible, to deliverits message, it must be reconverted into sound, directly or indirectly, either reallyin the external works or in the auditory imagination (23).

Clearly, Ong is not directly complementing Freires assertions; however, he does capture the

significance of the spoken word being a necessary element in creating meaning, which informs

Freires message on discussion. Freire notes that in order for a discussion to take place, reality

must be demythologized. This is so men who had previously been submerged in reality [can]

begin to emerge in order to re-insert themselves into it with critical awareness (621).

Luis C. Moll and Norma Gonzlez write about their research with language-minority

children emphasizing the need for learners to read and write about social issues of importance to


6/11

Tsuyuki 6

them, which can develop the same consciousness that Freire speaks of in his dialectical

learning theory. However, Moll and Gonzales term this consciousness as a realization,

which aids not only the student, but potentially the community in that by studying socio-political

aspects of ones own life, he or she can begin to address the broader social, academic, and

intellectual issues [that inform their lives rather] than simply learning basic rudimentary skills

(158). Later in the article, Moll and Gonzlez reiterate this emphasis on cultural and social

issues as a means to develop literacy skills: Becoming literate means taking full advantage of

social and cultural resources in the service of academic goals (158). This means that literacy is

being a socio-cultural investigator in order to utilize the institution of education to gain freedom.In terms of teaching, Barnes suggests understanding the students experience in order to

gear the teaching toward them, because they should be the subjects of their own learning

experience, not objects of it. In a study she conducted on freshman secondary school students,

she concluded that doing well in school bears very little relation to matters that directly concern

their lives. So, they dismiss school entirely because it does not provide a place to think about

things that really matter to them (151). Her conclusion is perhaps what education is lacking.

With all of its standardization, the curriculum fails to first account for what issues will concern

students the most, and in turn, how those issues can be transformed with the manipulation of the

educated instructor, into ones more closely in line with the standardized curriculum.

Conventionally, teaching through a standardized curriculum resulted in teaching

strategies that lacked the interest of the student, both in its pedagogical form and its content.

Therefore, in order to grasp a stronger pedagogical perspective on motivating literacy, it is

necessary to detail banking education and problem-posing education through Freires eyes. As

Barnes simplifies, banking education offers that the expert (instructor) actively deposits


7/11

Tsuyuki 7

knowledge into the account (mind) of the docile student who is presumed to know nothing

(148). In other words, students are to, without conscious questioning, digest the taught material

and somehow understand it completely. Furthermore, this teaching style reinforces the notions

of power that reside in the institution itself. It firmly establishes the distinction between teacher

and student, and because the instructor represents the institution itself, it demarcates the

structures of power between the student on the periphery, and the school, the center of freedom.

By drawing this distinction, it is quite possible that students will have a difficult time

understanding how they, being socially marginalized, can actively become part of the larger

power, a structure which represents their own opportunity for freedom.Whereas banking education assumes no participatory initiative for the learner, problem-

posing education requires active thinking on the part of the student. It allows the learning

experience of the student to become personable, as it raises questions and discussion on events

that occur in peoples lives in the world first and foremost, it must question the students own

lives (Barnes 148). Problem-posing education asks that students critically think about the world

in which they live, which could potentially mean that the dominate culture that positions their

social status may be critiqued. Providing an opportunity and encouragement for students to

critically think about the world is the aim in this pedagogical approach to literacy. Moreover,

raising a consciousness of difference can develop a counter-balance to the weight of the

dominant culture as it is expressed and felt throughout education, thus creating a stronger sense

of culture for the student, and quite possibly creating a motivation for the student to become

actively involved in his or her avenue towards freedom (Barnes 154). This active involvement

must be handled carefully which involves the educator understanding David Bartholomaes

analysis of the discourses impression on the student. That is, in their writing, students will


8/11

Tsuyuki 8

focus their attention on writing themselves into the discourse; in other words, they will learn to

try on a variety of voices and interpretive schemes and it is in the best interest of the student for

instructors to be sensitive that students are maintaining strong ideas versus strong language

(511). Language will eventually find its way, but ideas are much deeper than just words on a

paper.

There is really no exact way to detail a pedagogical approach to motivation. All students

are different and have their own issues that concern them. There is, however, one factor in

marginalized students lives that will forever affect them, should motivation and literacy be

absent freedom. As I have examined, culture and history are the very elements that definehuman beings, and it is in defining them conversely, that freedom can be attained. Most students

are culturally sensitive. They are passionate against racism, or at least passionate of their own

ethnic backgrounds. The key is guiding a discussion throughout the semester that will help them

identify with their own culture as it adheres to the institutionalized powers that inform it, and in

relating to other cultures and their histories. In doing so, students can, as Freire has stated, play

an active role in transforming the world in which they live (616). We must not forget that in

all of this conscious building of culture and history, we as educators, are not neglecting the

development of literacy skills. In fact, it is not the role of the educator to teach students how to

read and write; rather, it is educators role [to] enter into dialogue with the illiterate about

concrete situations and simply offer . . . him [or her] the instruments with which he [or she] can

teach him [or her] self to read and write (622). As I have mentioned before, students must be

the subjects of their learning experience; therefore, this teaching cannot be done from the top

down, but only from the inside out, by the illiterate . . . with the collaboration of the educator

(622).


9/11

Tsuyuki 9

In essence, what I am advocating in this paper is a sincere effort for teachers to become

personable with their students. If a teachers role is to educate the student, this means to do

everything possible in the best interest of the student. This could mean working around what

laws already govern the educational system, which continue to set minority students up for

failure. It means understanding the community on a personal level, in order to be able to

contribute and guide a discussion with students. As ideal, utopian, and progressive that these

ideas may seem, the change must begin somewhere. It is necessary that students endorse

education as a sponsor, and in turn, that education endorses them (Brandt). However, if the

pedagogy is not designed for students to learn about themselves, to learn about the community inwhich they live, and even more broadly, the world in which they live, then asking that students

embrace this system, is asking them to be subjects in a dependent relationship forever that

Freires marginal men will forever remain on the periphery of the social realm.


10/11

Tsuyuki 10

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. Inventing the University. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose,

Literacy 511-524.

Brandt, Deborah. Sponsors of Literacy. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose,

Literacy 555-557.

Cushman, Ellen, Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M Kroll, Mike Rose, ed. Literacy A Critical

Sourcebook . New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001.

Freire, Paulo. The Adult Literacy Process as Cultural Action for Freedom and Education and

Conscientizao. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose, Literacy 616-628.Gee, James Paul. Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy?

Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose, Literacy 525-544.

Glass, Ronald David. On Paulo Freire's Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation

Education. Educational Researcher 30.2 (2001): 15-25.

McLaren, Peter. A Pedagogy of Possibility: Reflecting upon Paulo Freire's Politics of

Education: In Memory of Paulo Freire. Educational Researcher 28.2 (1999): 49-56.

Moll, Luis C. and Norma Gonzlez. Lessons from Research with Language-Minority

Children. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose, Literacy 156-171.

O'Cadiz, Maria del Pilar and Carlos Alberto Torres. Alternative Visions of Schooling: Success

Stories in Minority Settings. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 25.3 (1994):

208-25.

Ong, Walter J. Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen,

Kroll, and Rose, Literacy 19-31.


11/11

Tsuyuki 11

Szwed, John F. The Ethnography of Literacy. Ed. Cushman, Kintgen, Kroll, and Rose,

Literacy 421- 429.

Documents

Making the Marxist