Читать книгу Teaching to discern - Hernando Arturo Estévez Cuervo - Страница 11

Education and pedagogy have different spheres of action within the educational system. Education is a practice, a social activity and an action, while pedagogy is the pondering and reflection about educational theories. However, they possess the common goal of guiding individuals’ activities and behavior in any given society. This distinction is measured by the realm of their concern and their function in society: While pedagogy is concerned with the precepts and principles behind an educational theory, education’s main interest lies within the process involved in the practice of imparting knowledge.

In addition, pedagogy and education share a common political goal. Behind every given educational theory and pedagogical reflection is a political ideology. Every educational theory and pedagogical practice contains a political ideology. Every educational theory deploys in its practice a set of social principles and political rules conducive to perpetuating a given social and political structure, or, in the best case, it promotes a critique of the social order ruling society and its citizens. A pedagogical reflection in this sense aids the understanding of the social and political aspects of an educational theory by providing a rubric by which educational theories can be evaluated and understood. Most discourses on education have the structure of any given theoretical practice since they guarantee a desirable educational objective, presupposing an understanding of those who are going to be educated and demand specific procedures to reach and realize its objectives. Intrinsic to education’s role in society rests the need for a pedagogical practice consistent with the principles and the rules governing society in order to reaffirm the social structure and reflecting the principles governing the relations between citizens. If Plato is correct in The Sophist (1892) when affirming that education’s role in society is to release individuals from the affliction created by an excess of accepting opinions and the lack of truth and knowledge, then education must always be a catalyst towards some form of political change and pedagogy should be a reflection about its practice and principles.

When I was first invited by the Office of International Affairs at Universidad de La Salle in Bogotá to be part of the Summer Academy Program during the summer of 2016, I was also informed that one of the general aims of the program was to bring the world to the students of the university. Besides other general considerations, the program finds its uniqueness on the premise that the study abroad experience can be brought to the students of the university through a series of pedagogies, methodologies, academic contents and life experience from different professors from a variety of cultures; that is, the study abroad program at Universidad de La Salle invites researchers from different countries to discuss interdisciplinary topics, current trends on contemporary themes in order to provide a greater understanding of the global context to the students of the university. The rationale behind such an approach to studying abroad programs derives from the economic challenges that most of the students at Universidad de La Salle face while recognizing the current need for an education that must engage students in global issues and global concerns. As a whole, the program is designed to prepare students to interact globally and to get a significant glimpse of the world through interaction with various disciplines, languages, and peoples.

As a philosophy professor at Universidad de La Salle, the invitation to be part of such a unique program was exciting and challenging; my academic and personal experience with study abroad programs rests on the traditional programs organized by universities in the United States that primarily provide students with the personal experience of adapting to different cultural values, being immersed in a language, acquiring coping skills and tools for internationalization while developing opportunities for personal growth. Prior to working at Universidad de La Salle in Bogotá, I had the opportunity to be the co-director and faculty member of a study abroad program in the Caribbean for students from John Jay College (CUNY). This study abroad program was primarily designed for undergraduate students interested in the humanities, and all course contents were developed in topics that provided students with an understanding of the reality in which they were being immersed while they focused on issues of justice and social change as part of the university’s overall academic research interest.

Both programs shared the common interest of providing students and faculty with an opportunity to enhance their understanding of the world in an academic setting that celebrates cultural diversity while enriching the vibrancy of academic themes, topics and issues. Besides the commonalities and distinctions of the programs, that is, the difference between “bringing the world to the university” versus “taking students to the world,” and the common goal of aiming at gaining a greater perspective on the world. In this scenario, I argue that, regardless of the aim and the academic content of the program, study abroad programs need to provide a level of awareness to both students and teachers of the power and privilege endemic to travelling abroad. Although I do not intend to reduce the experience of study abroad programs to a simple relationship of power and privilege, I do believe that the content of the classes, the pedagogy used in each class as well as the function of education during the study abroad will greatly benefit from such awareness.

The complexities of my suggestion become obvious especially when one considers both students’ reality and the way such reality is presented while recognizing the intrinsic relation to the content that will be presented to the students participating in the study abroad program. In other words, my initial claim is that there is a correlation between the content of education, the context where the educational practice occurs and the pedagogy that is used to share any given knowledge. The relationship between the content of education, its context and pedagogy serve as the bases for communication between individuals in the classroom. However, such a relationship reveals an epistemological approach that unfolds forms of privilege and power for students and faculty of both versions of an aforementioned study abroad program.

I would also like to argue that education is always a political act that involves a theory, a method, and a value of truth — that is, it is never neutral nor impartial because to educate is to politically commit oneself to either reproduce what is already in place or to create new social and political paradigms. In that sense, the content of education becomes a tool for mediating between the classroom and reality and a medium for proposing novel ways to understand the complexities of reality and the continuum need to reflect upon the role education plays in the construction of reality. In that sense, one does not engage in education through knowledge alone; on the contrary, knowledge contains judgements, values and perceptions of the world that are impossible to avoid. In other words, we are all defined by a subjective account of our own understanding of reality and, as such, education and teaching are practices that are aware of the unequal relation between teacher and student, which in many cases is reinforced by a content that reproduces reality and leaves no room for creativity towards novel social and political paradigms.

This awareness is the bases for Paulo Freire’s work on education, teaching and social change. According to Freire (2005), education’s end is driven by the possibility of liberating individuals from the oppressive quality of their reality. This form of education demands individual and collective liberation through the process of “conscientization.” Freire’s pedagogy is mainly concerned with the construction of a less dehumanized world. A liberating process of becoming aware, of regaining humanity implies, for Freire, a move from a naïve consciousness to a critical consciousness. Individuals possess an understanding of the world but they do not always comprehend that their reality has been imposed by an oppressive social order and justified by historical accounts claiming its reality as necessary or normal. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2005) makes us aware of the traditional conditions that affect education and pedagogy by dismantling the inner practices that constitute traditional and normal education. The level of normalization to which peoples’ consciousness and system of beliefs have been accustomed is, in Freire’s opinion, the state of oppression. However, it is also the source of a need to transform individuals’ perception of the world and understanding of the place they hold in society. Human beings make history and, simultaneously, history constitutes humanity. Human nature is not predetermined; rather, it is constructed socially and historically. And it is within history and society that individuals can find not only the source of their oppression but also the means to escape their own situation.

In this liberating process, individuals take possession of their reality by denouncing their dehumanized order and proposing a humanized structure. For Freire (2005), individuals are not solely beings in the world; rather, they are constituted in their context, having a role in it and with others. Once individuals’ consciousness has become aware of their role in history and society, through the educational process of “conscientization,” then they come to realize that their place in society can be transformed and that they are the protagonists of their own history.

For Freire, education can only take place in a community of inquiry in which the content of education comes from the participants through dialogue by creating a dynamic process in which education and action are interwoven. Understanding and participating in individuals’ reality is probably the first step in the Freirian awakening process. For this reason, the relationship between teacher and student must exist outside the “banking concept of education” (Freire, 2005, p. 72), which forces students to replicate old dynamics of social oppression; it is opposed to an “Education as the practice of freedom” (Freire, 2005, p. 81). This education allows students to critically think about their socio-historical conditions in order to try and change them.

The banking system does not acknowledge the value of students’ life experience, but rather it considers them empty minds in need of education and knowledge. The process of education is then reduced to a simple imparting of knowledge rather than a sharing of knowledge. At the center of Freire’s proposal is a call to overthrow all forms of a social order based on power and privilege containing precepts for the preservation of a society based on power dynamics.

For Freire, the world is divided between the oppressor and the oppressed. In some form or another, every individual is part of what Hegel (1977) expressed in the master-slave dialectic. In order for an individual to be liberated from this existential dichotomy, according to Freire (2005), he or she must first engage in a pedagogie vraiment liberatrice (“truly liberating pedagogy”) capable of distinguishing between humanistic education and humanitarian education. Only a humanistic education would enable a process of conscientization through which individuals would engage in a pedagogical practice animee d’une generosite authentique (“animated by an authentic generosity”). I would like to argue that authentic generosity constitutes the core of Freire’s educational theory. For Freire, (2005), the desirable goal is to liberate individuals from their oppressive realities through generosity and humanization. Beneath this claim lies the belief that all individuals, regardless of their contingent place in society, are entitled — if not by education, by their own humanity — to participate in the construction of their own realities and communities. To reach such goal, Freire (2005) advocates an educational theory conducive to the empowering of individuals by the development of a critical consciousness capable of pushing education beyond its instructional limits. The force behind Freire’s educational project surpasses traditional education as a social tool, by making it a necessary and transforming political resource. In that sense, education and pedagogy for Freire (2005) are political practices adept at finding solutions to social and political problems. Freire articulates this principle by maintaining that education’s key precept is the undeniable fact that education is not neutral.

Accordingly, education is either designed to maintain the status quo, imposing on people the values and culture of the dominant class or to liberate those people, helping them to transform society. Freire’s new individual undertakes the critical role of merging theory and practice: praxis demands of a critique, a theory, in order to become a transforming social and political experience. Engaged in these critical perspectives of socio-political conditions, individuals fuse theory with praxis by making knowledge contextual. Individuals attain knowledge from daily interaction with others and by facing the problems of their reality.

The study abroad program proposed by Universidad de La Salle, built around the idea of “bringing the world to the students,” must take into account the endemic relations of privilege and power that come with traditional education. Furthermore, it should also become critical of one’s own condition, as well of the conditions determining one’s reality. Plato’s dialogue, The Sophist, claims that the fundamental aim of education is to contest ignorance. Education’s concern is not the fulfilling of a need, like providing food to the hungry; rather, the primary goal is to release individuals of their indigestion of opinions that have obstructed their possibility of any desire for knowledge and truth. Ignorance is not a deficiency. Instead, it is an excess of confidence on mere opinions. For Plato, as well as for Socrates, education’s first duty is to establish a critique of such opinions. The quote, commonly attributed to Socrates, “I only know that I know nothing” (see Plato, 1914), elucidates a great level of understanding and knowledge: Not knowing is the result of a profound critique of what one thinks or believes; it is to transform what one knows. The most effective education is one that creates the need for knowledge. Education is not solely a need for information, but rather a need to learn to think critically. To be critical is to learn how to think for oneself. To find fault in the world and society involves a specific practice, an education conducive to awaken in others the capacity of becoming empower to find knowledge within their own means and concurrently to critique and reflect about what is learned. Ultimately, education must develop pedagogical reflection about our own body of knowledge and the process of acquiring it.

Regardless of Freire’s political views on education and the consequences of his theory of education, we cannot reduce Freire’s theory of education to a mere political agenda. In order to avoid such a possibility, I believe is necessary to understand Freire’s pedagogy and theory of education as a socio-educational and cultural project and not just a curriculum project. Teaching is the sensible junction of all the modern problems in which we live. I do not believe it is possible to teach without critique. Education requires a profound reflection about the existing relationship between the force of culture, society and politics. It is at this juncture where I believe Freire’s work is of great importance for understanding the dynamics of power that are endemic to a study abroad, as well as the relationships it produces while allowing for its unfolding as an exchange of various expertise, experiences and knowledge.

A study abroad in either modality, “bringing the world to the university” or “taking students to the world,” collapses not only differences but also unequal realities that are initially expressed in terms of privilege and power. Such differences and inequalities required a pedagogical approach inspired by Freire’s work, insofar as it must be critically acknowledged as a social construct and, therefore, subject to transformation. For Freire, education must be simultaneously an ideal and a point of reference servicing the construction of a new society. Included in education is instruction, but education goes further by establishing specific pedagogical practices and social relationships that influence those engaged in a libertarian education. Learning, teaching and knowledge are contextual insofar as the process of “conscientization” requires a socio-cultural understanding of the elements that have configured the context from which they have been constructed. In the wake of Freire’s (2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, any educational theory demanding of critique must surpass the instructional level of education.

In this perspective, the two major objectives of Freire’s educational theory and pedagogical practice are the development of critical thinking and the empowering of actors for social change. It requires a reformulation of the relationship between teacher and student’s role in the classroom whose mission is to mediate between knowledge, community and individuals through the assertion that education is not a social tool but a political resource that cannot abstract itself from its power to create a specific individual and citizen. For Freire, teaching is to put into action, to accelerate an individual desire for knowledge. Every action implies a reflective act. Every educational theory contains a pedagogical practice, making of education the reflective process of analysis about the practice and consequently promoting both political and social values.

For Freire, traditional education is defined by what he calls the “banking system of education,” which is a type of education that is always caught up on a struggle of power that rests not only on the individuals engaged in the practice of education, but also on the pedagogy and the content of education. Let me explain. For Freire, education is a political act since it conveys certain practices that contribute to liberation, oppression, and social transformation. As such, education can be active or passive depending on student and teacher’s agency and the power imbalance it can produce; the content of education, which initially mediates the relationship between student and teacher, can be a catalyst for fracturing the artificiality of the classroom setting or it can contribute to preserving the power that already exists in a given structured society. Freire understands that only through pedagogical exercises that make reality relevant to students through the content of education is it possible for education to question the power relations that are endemic to the educational setting. To do so, Freire (2005) proposes problem posing and dialogue as processes that can posit education as a social and political resource that can humanize students by learning “to perceive social, political and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (Freire, 2005, p. 35). For Freire, education that transforms the students’ perception of reality facilitates a particular type of relationship with the learner’s experiences while sharing a conceptualization of the common good. Although Freire is aware of the oppressive tendencies of institutionalized education, a pedagogical practice that overcomes the obstacles for making education a social process makes possible a collective conception of a common good. In that sense, education is a subversive practice since it humanizes both the oppressor and the oppressed while developing a cooperative education wherein “teachers and students, co- intent on reality, are both Subjects, not only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby coming to know it critically, but in the task of re-creating that knowledge” (Freire, 2005, p. 69).

Thus, an education and, in this particular case, an education in the context of the academic experience of studying abroad can be surmounted by the study of liberating contents, allowing a recognition of the privilege and power caught up on the practice of education as a mere mirror of the social, political and economic relationship already present in society. It is important to recognize that, as educators in a giving level of education, in any given country or culture, one must choose to teach to either preserve the order of society or transform such order. There is no middle ground for this decision. Nevertheless, both choices demand an understanding of reality, as well as a recognition of the power relations endemic to reality. In this context, teaching is not a passive or a neutral activity.

References

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: NY: Continium.

Hegel, F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit (AV. Miller, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (1892). The Sophist (Benjamin Jowett, Trans). London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (1914). Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (Harold N. Fowler, Trans). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.