Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(40)
-
▼
July
(13)
- How to get your marks, pick up your work...
- Open Discussion Thread
- 'Pedagogy of the Superhero'
- For Wednesday...
- Open Discussion Thread
- Notes on office hours and assignments...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 3 and 4
- Open Discussion Thread
- Important notice, re: Practicum
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 1 and 2
- Open Discussion Thread
- Some 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' resources...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed', Intro and Preface
-
▼
July
(13)
15 comments:
While reading Ch. 3, I tried looking for ways to connect what Freire says to what we've learned about children and childhood in this course. Here are some things I found so far:
"...no one can say a true word alone - nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words."(p.88) -> This can relate to James and hearing the voice of the child. Adults should not simply speak on a child's behalf because it prevents us from hearing what the child has to say.
The idea of education of children as a collaboration between both teachers and students. (p.93) This is part of Freire's problem-posing method of education which, again, emphasizes hearing the voice of the child.
"In their political activity, the dominant elites utilize the banking concept to encourage passivity in the oppressed." (p.95) -> Taken out of the political sphere, this is very similar to the power structure of traditional adult-child relationships.
"Even if the people's thinking is superstitious or naive, it is only as they rethink their assumptions in action that they can change." (p.108) -> I would connect this to a child's development and how important it is for children to be able to experience different things in order for them to grow as people.
Jessica, thank you for pointing out these quotes. The first quote that you posted, "...no one can say a true word alone..."(p.88), really alludes to one of, in my opinion, the biggest gaps between the empowerment of oppressed people and the empowerment of oppressed children. I have been toying with this idea for a while now and I guess I'll bring it up as a point for discussion. Throughout this book, Freire discourages people speaking on behalf of others and people in position of power (oppressors) trying to empower the oppressed through "false" means. However, what I find to be problematic is the fact that adults, as oppressors, feel that they know what it is like to be a child, that because we were all at one point children, we are entitled to speak for children. I think that this is why it is harder for us to hear the authentic voice of the child. I will give an example of how this can happen. Imagine that a rich, white (British perhaps?) male is running to be mayor of a city. This man decides to visit a number of poor immigrant families living in co-ops to gain their votes. People might wonder what he has in common with these immigrants, why he is soliciting their votes when he is clearly not 'one of them'. This politician cannot relate with the adults, but if there are children, he can talk about his childhood, how hard he had it (even if he did not). Childhood seems to be a 'unifying factor' that ties us all together, but all this notion achieves is to perpetuate the myth that there are 'good' and 'bad' childhoods and that all children can be lumped together in a group.
In summary, adults may feel uncomfortable speaking for other adults because of their different backgrounds. However, adults seem all too comfortable to speak for all children because, after all, we were all children, don't we all know what life is like for every child in the world? (No, we don't would be the answer to that question, by the way.)
Are you saying Freire discourages people speaking on behalf of others and people in position of power (oppressors) trying to empower the oppressed through "false" means, is because of the fact that adult know what it feels like to be a child? i think the reason why he discourages people on speaking on behalf of other is because not everyone likes to be spoken for.And no one can represent you and know you more than you know yourself.
I think what Natalie was saying that adults feel entitled to speak on the behalf of children because we were all children. I believe she's parallelizing (if that's even a word) it to Freire's argument that the oppressor cannot speak for the oppressed, it's the oppressed that have to stand up and speak for themselves. Natalie, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
While reading Chapter 3, I had a hard time connecting the dots about what Freire said about love and domination and dialogue stemming out of love. I got even more confused when Freire goes on to talk about Love being an act of courage not of fear and love being dialogical. I would be very grateful if someone could shed some light about what he is trying to day here.He says this on page 89.
Amanda, you're right on the ball. Agustina, I think you completely misunderstood what I'm saying. Here: Freire says "You cannot speak for anyone but yourself." Upper class white adults under ideology think "I cannot speak for lower class individuals or individuals of other race because I do not know what its like for them." BUT adults think "I can speak for children because I know what its like to be one." What I'm saying is that children (whatever class, race, gender, sexual orientation etc.. they represent) are more oppressed than adults because adults feel entitled to speak for all children, but not for all adults. Wow, I really don't know if I actually clarified anything with this post, but I really hope it helps =/
Ej, I am not 100% sure which concept you're having trouble understanding, but if its the concept of love in this context, I'll try to shed some light. As Steve said today in lecture, Freire does not use love in the sexual or platonic sense. Love in this context means a love for humanity. What Freire writes about is an emotion that must be felt in order to dialogue and he states that this stems from a sense that humanity must be restored. This is to say that the dehumanization of human beings should cause revolutionaries to initiate dialogue, in order to restore humanity. The love that is felt for humanity causes the revolutionaries to want to humanize those who have been dehumanized. I think that when Freire says that domination is the pathology of love, what he means is that domination is a "diseased" form of love and is therefore ineffective for dialogue. Also, I link this to when Steve was talking about equality vs. equity, where, realistically, equality is unattainable while equity is to understand that you are human and that other people are human as well and that we can respect each other as such. When we practice equity and see ourselves as a part of humanity, we can love and care for humanity and in this sense, we destroy domination and unequal power relations. I /really/ hope this helped.
Oh no, in my post that I addressed to Agustina, I meant to say Christine. Sorry!
Christine: I see where you are going with people speaking on the behalf of the others, it is true that not everyone likes to be spoken for, and that no one gives the accurate represenation than yourself, but we need to specify 'people'and aim this towards children. Children are much more oppressed because they 'technically' do not have a place in society that entitles them to speak out their voice, therefore they have to rely on adults to speak on their behalf.
At the same time, adults possess the important and valuable role of making sure that they state what the children intended to say. This can get lost through adults' own representation of what children should be thinking and so forth.
We have to work with what we got at the moment and keep working until children are no longer oppressed, it may take a long time, but every step counts.
Jessica: It certainly puts it in perspective when you connect what we've learned in the course to this chapter. This chapter certainly focuses on the major issues like the quote of "no one can say a true word alone" to the common assumptions.
This particular quote "no one can say a true word alone" does fall back to Jenkins and hearing the voice of the child. It also fall back to understanding what is authetic and what isn't. Authetic voices itself poses a lot of problematic issues since one is not 100% accurate if it's the direct voice, or rather the words, from the child or of it's mainipulation of the words from someone else( thus, someone speaking for that child, but isn't speaking the voice)
I think by understanding why there are problematic issues will help us move forward and become critical towards what occurs towards children and people themselves.
Ej:What Freire means to say about love is that when it comes to dialogue, if you don't have love for what you are fighting for, which in this case is the oppressed, then there's no true dialogue, becàuse to have true diaolgue is to be able to communicate, therefore the oppressed has to communicate what they feel in their very soul regardless of whatever fear they may have, otherwise it's not love. By communicating this, it's considered to be an act of courage because it takes all your strength in your human being self and risking while realizing possible disappointments or failures that can happen.
Then Freire goes off to talk about how all of this is essential for dialogue because it is from the root, it sets the "..foundation of dialogue"(pp. 89), love is mainly the job of responsible subjects, therefore love cannot exist in relation of domination.
Elaborating on domination, domination reveals the study of love because there’s sadism (or cruelty) in the dominator and masochism (or hardship) in the dominated. Meanwhile love is the cause of liberation, the act of love is commitment to the oppressed cause.
natalie: no worries at all. It happens!
I just wanted to comment on the quote pointed out in lecture on pg 88 about dialogue and voice. I think this relates to the other comments people have posted about adults speaking on behalf of children because when adults speak for children they are denying them their right to speak, which is preventing them to say their true word. Although adults representing children are trying to do a good thing by talking on their behalf, I think it is better to get actual children to speak up and represent themselves.
Also, I think that in order to get children comfortable with saying their opinions it needs to start in schools. Freire mentioned that educators should work with children and have dialogue instead of telling them what is right and wrong. With children having more dialogue with teachers and other students I think it will really benefit them because they will become critical thinkers and will help them be more open with their views.
lots about dialogue here. and my first point goes in relation to love, originally brought up by Ej. I think a lot of you summed up the meaning of love within authentic dialogical relations. it IS as Natalie says "a love for humanity". it can be compared to openness and empathy, the human quality which actually induces curiosity, creativity, and genuine dialogue. it can be seen as therapeutic, in that it is the essential ingredient for the maximizing of one's individual potential and psychological growth. this is usually only considered to be on the client side, but for true therapeutic progress, the therapist must be genuinely and empathically engaged in this dialogue. thusly, the therapist grows inasmuch as the client grows, being a simultaneous liberation between the two Subjects involved. The words "therapist" and "client" can be substituted with "teacher" and student", respectively.
the other thing mentioned was whether or not one can speak on behalf of the other. I think what Freire is saying is that we can never speak for an other, but we can always speak with. I think his reasoning is founded upon this very empathic/love characteristic we were just talking about. True empathy is a moment in which one genuinely attempts to relate to a human condition (which we are all more attuned to than we may think), be it sadness, ecstasy, or pain. When I say genuinely attempt, I think this must include the awareness of one's own limitations, it includes the willingness to consider one's self less experienced and thus less "expert" than the Subject whom we are trying to empathize with. Catch my drift?
On a side note. Where is Neil's input on these discussions!
peace
Hi everyone , I just wanted to know when the who owns york assignment is due and if only two people from a group can do it. Neil I would really appreciate an answer.
Post a Comment