urged to add a page for Paulo via this interview..
Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Noam Chomsky, Howard Gardner, and Bruno della Chiesa
Published on May 24, 2013
On Wednesday, May 1, the Askwith Forum commemorated the 45th anniversary of the publication of Paolo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” with a discussion about the book’s impact and relevance to education today.
understand your own oppression – it’s not a law of nature..
33 min – consciousness raising.. thinking for yourself..
45 min – wow – may day in rest of world.. supporting suppressed americans with their 8 hour work day
48 – the reason frerie is unknown – he wasn’t just talking about literacy, if he’d been saying.. here’s a nice method for teaching literacy,… but instead.. it was about literacy as a means for raising questions…
56 min – it’s statistics for god’s sake (pisa et al)
57- put everything in numbers – to look serious – but also to not go deeper.. you quit asking once numbers are presented..
for more on Paulo:
Paulo Reglus Neves Freire, Ph.D (/ˈfrɛəri/, Portuguese: [ˈpawlu ˈfɾeiɾi]; September 19, 1921 – May 2, 1997) was a Brazilian educator andphilosopher who was a leading advocate of critical pedagogy. He is best known for his influential work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which is considered one of the foundational texts of the critical pedagogy movement.
book links to amazon
links to pdf
the immeasurable hope that Paulo represented for those of us who are committed to imagine a world, in his words that is less ugly, more beautiful, less discriminatory, more democratic, less dehumanizing and more humane.
p. 30 intro: coupled with this is Freiere’s conviction (now supported by a wide background of experience) that every human being, no matter how “ignorant” or submerged in the “culture of silence” he or she may be, is capable of looking critically at the world in a dialogical encounter with others. provided with the proper tools for such encounter, the individual can gradually perceive personal and social reality as well as the contradictions in it, become conscious of his or her own perception of that reality, and deal critically with it. in this process, the old, paternalistic teacher[student relationship is overcome. a peasant can facilitate this process fora neighbor more effectively than a “teacher” brought in from outside. “people educate each other through the mediation of the world.”
p. 42: this, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. the oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.
p. 48: to affirm mean and women are persons, and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce.
p. 55: an act is oppressive only when it prevents people from being more fully human.
p. 58: they talk about the people, but they do not trust them; and trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change. a real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust.
those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly.
ie: as in – talk to self daily ness
this conversation is so radical as not to allow of ambiguous behavior. to affirm this commitment but to consider oneself the proprietor of revolutionary wisdom – which must then be given to (or imposed on) the people – is to retain the old ways. the man or woman who proclaims devotion to the cause of liberation yet is unable to enter into communion with the people, whom he or she continues to regard as totally ignorant, is grievously self-deceived. the convert who approaches the people but feels alarm at each step they take, each doubt they express, and each suggestion they offer, and attempts to impose his “status,” remains nostalgic towards his origins.
hearing Krishnamurti talking to parents.. et al..
p. 62: the oppressed must see examples of the vulnerability of the oppressor so that a contrary conviction can begin to grow within them. until this occurs, they will continue disheartened, fearful and beaten. as long as the oppressed remain unaware of the causes of their condition, they fatalistically “accept” their exploitation.
p. 64: to achieve this praxis, however, it is necessary to trust in the oppressed and in their ability to reason. whoever lacks this trust will fail to initiate (or will abandon) dialogue, reflection, and communication, and will fall into using slogans, communiques, monologues and instructions. superficial conversions to the cause of liberation carry this danger.
liberation action must recognize this dependence as a weak point and must attempt through reflection and action to transform it into independence. however, not even the best-intentioned leadership can bestow independence as a gift. the liberation of the oppressed is a liberation of women and men, not things. accordingly, while no one liberates himself by his own efforts alone, neither is he liberated by others. liberation, a human phenomenon, cannot be achieved by semihumans. any attempt to treat people as semihumans only dehumanizes them. when people are already dehumanized, due to the oppression they suffer, the process of their liberation must not employ the methods of dehumanization.
p. 65: the correct method for a revolutionary leadership to employ in the task of liberation is, therefore, not “libertarian propaganda.” nor can the leadership merely “implant” in the oppressed a belief in freedom, thus thinking to win their trust. the correct method lies in dialogue. the conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their liberation is not a gift bestowed by the revolutionary leadership, but the result of their own conscientizacao.
p. 66: the oppressed have been destroyed precisely because their situatio has reduced them to things. in order to regain their humanity they must cease to be things and fight as men and women. this is a radical requirement. they cannot enter the struggle as objects in order later to become human beings.
the struggle begins with men’s recognition that they have been destroyed. propaganda, management, manipulation – all arms of domination – cannot be the instruments of their rehumanization. the only effective instrument is a humanizing pedagogy in which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed.
p. 70: in the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. the teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence. the students, alienated like the slave in the hegelian dialectic, accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence – but, unlike the slave they never discover that they educate the teacher.
the raison d’etre of libertarian education, on the other hand, lies in its drive towards reconciliation. education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.
p. 72: the banking approach to adult education, for example, will never propose to students that they critically consider reality. it will deal instead with such vital questions as whether roger gave green grass to the goat, and insist upon the importance of learning that, on the contrary, roger gave green grass to the rabbit. the “humanism” of the banking approach masks the effort to turn women and men into automatons – the very negation of their ontological vocation to be more fully human.
p. 74: the teacher’s task is to organize a process which already occurs spontaneously, to “fill” the students by making deposits of information which he or she considers to constitute true knowledge. and since people “receive” the world as passive entities, education should make them more passive still, and adapt them to the world. the educated individual is the adapted person, because she or he is better “fit”for the world. translated into practice, this concept is well suited to the purposes of the oppressors, whose tranquility rests on how well people fit the world the oppressors have created, and how little they question it.
the more completely the majority adapt to the purposes which the dominant minority prescribe for them (thereby depriving them of the right to their own purposes), the more easily the minority can continue to prescribe. the theory and practice of banking education serve this end quite efficiently. verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, the methods for evaluating “knowledge,” the distance between the teacher and the taught, the criteria for promotion: everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate (remove) thinking.
p. 83: any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. the means used are not important; to alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them into objects.
no one can be authentically human while he prevents others from being so. attempting to be more human, individualistically, leads to having more, egotistically, a form of dehumanization.
p. 87: dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people. the naming of the world, which is an act of creation and re-creation, is not possible if it is not infused with love. love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself.
p. 88: dialogue, as the encounter of those addressed to the common task of learning and acting, is broken if the parties (or one of them) lack humility. how can i dialogue if i always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own?
p. 106: the investigation of thematics involves the investigation of the people’s thinking – thinking which occurs only in and among people together seeking out reality. i cannot think for others or without others, …..
p. 107: humankind emerge from their submersion and acquire the ability to intervene in reality as it is unveiled. intervention in reality – historical awareness itself- thus represents a step forward from emergence, and results from the conscientizacao of the situation. conscientizacao is the deepening of the attitude of awareness characteristic of all emergence.
every thematic investigation which deepens historical awareness is thus really educational, while all authentic education investigates thinking. the more educators and the people investigate the people’s thinking, and are thus jointly educated, the more they continue to investigate.
great example of showing a picture of a drunk walking by 3 men talking. depends how the picture is presented, and the surrounding sermonizing, et al, if people will dialogue/praxi in truth..
p. 122: the important thing, from the point of view of libertarian education, is for the people to come to feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and views of the world explicitly or implicitly manifest in their own suggestions and those of their comrades. because this view of education starts with the conviction that it cannot present its own program but must search for this program dialogically with the people, it serves to introduce the pedagogy of the oppressed, in the elaboration of which the oppressed must participate.
p. 124: Lenin’s famous statement: “without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor activism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflections and action directed at the structures to be transformed. the revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and oppressed as mere doers.
if true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated – and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.
totally smacks of our little games.. pbl, personalization, self-directed learning, design learning, … no? simple puppetry – unless we open up to the vulnerability of nowness/chaos/whimsy/truth… no?
revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders’ decisions – a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites.
revolutionary praxis is a unity…
revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
in order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. he and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
p. 125: … the validity of any revolution resulting from antidialogical action is thoroughly doubtful.
ie: the importance of a revolution/movement – based on 2 convos… self everyday… and others..
why we can do this now.. and perhaps not in illich’s, holts, freire’s time.. tech can help us cut through none and/or crap conversations..
it is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as subjects of the transformation. if they are drawn into the process as ambiguous beings, partly themselves and partly the oppressors housed within them – and if they come to power still embodying that ambiguity imposed on them by the situation of oppression – it is my contention that they will merely imagine they have reached power. their existential duality may even facilitate the rise of a sectarian climate leading to the installation of bureaucracies which undermine the revolution.
huge. read again.. this is is huge. partial freedom is no freedom. there is never nothing going on. is respect for every voice a part of your soul. most people are other people – that’s why nothing is thriving/sustaining equitably…. no?
if the oppressed do not become aware of this ambiguity during the course of the revolutionary process, they may participate in that process with a spirit more revanchist than revolutionary. they may aspire to revolution as a means of domination, rather than as a road to liberation.
perhaps this is why we are so determined that if given freedom, people will be lazy. we’ve never really given freedom.. and we all know it. so there’s no real buy-in, ownership. people aren’t really doing the thing they can’t not do.. every day. we are too much satisfying/pleasing just to get by. no?
if revolutionary leaders who incarnate a genuine humanism have difficulties and problems, the difficulties and problems will be far greater for a group of leaders who try (even with the best of intentions) to carry out the revolution for the people. to attempt this is equivalent to carrying out a revolution without the people, because the people are drawn into the process by the sam methods and procedure used to oppress them.
p. 126: dialogue with the people is radically necessary to every authentic revolution. this is what makes it a revolution, as distinguished from a military coup. one does not expect dialogue from a coup – only deceit (in order to achieve “legitimacy”) or force (in order to repress). sooner or later, a true revolution must initiate a courageous dialogue with the people. its very legitimacy lies in that dialogue. it cannot fear the people, their expression, their effective participation in power. it must be accountable to them, must speak frankly to them of its achievements, its mistakes, its miscalculations, and its difficulties.
the earlier dialogue begins, the more truly revolutionary will the movement be. the dialogue which is radically necessary to revolution corresponds to another radical need: that of women and men as beings who cannot be truly human apart from communication, for they are essentially communicative creatures. to impede communication is to reduce men to the status of “things” – and this is a job for oppressors, not for revolutionaries.
let me emphasize that my defense of the praxis implies no dichotomy by which this praxis could be divided into a prior state of reflection and a subsequent stage of action. action and reflection occur simultaneously.
hastening the time between intention and action.. what tech wants..
a critical analysis of reality may, however, reveal that a particular form of action is impossible or inappropriate at the present time. those who through reflection perceive the infeasibility of inappropriateness of one or another form of action (which should accordingly be postponed or substituted) cannot thereby be accused of inaction. critical reflection is also action.
p. 127: denial of communion in the revolutionary process, avoidance of dialogue with the people under the pretext of organizing them, of strengthening revolutionary power, or of ensuring a united front, is really a fear of freedom. it is fear of or lack of faith in the people. but if the people cannot be trusted, there is no reason for liberation; in this case the revolution is not even carried out for the people, but “by” the people for the leaders: a complete self-negation.
p. 129: revolutionary leaders cannot think without the people, nor for the people, but only with the people.
the dominant elites, on the other hand, can – and do – think without the people – although they do not permit themselves the luxury of failing to think about the people in order to know them better and thus dominate them more efficiently. consequently, any apparent dialogue or communication between the elites and the masses is really the depositing of “communiques,” whose contents are intended to exercise a domesticating influence.
if the elites were to think with the people, the contradiction would be superseded and they could no longer dominate. from the point of view of the dominators in any epoch, correct thinking presupposes the non-thinking of the people…
p. 130:what mr giddy really wanted (and what the elites of today want, although they do not denounce popular education so cynically and openly) was for the people not to think.
p. 131: scientific revolutionary humanism cannot, in the name of revolution, treat the oppressed as objects to be analyzed and (based on that analysis) presented with prescriptions for behavior. to do this would be to fall into one of the myths of the oppressor ideology: the absolutizing of ignorance.
p. 132: this myth implies the existence of someone who decrees the ignorance of someone else. the one who is doing the decreeing defines himself and the class to which he belongs as those who know or were born to know; he thereby defines others as alien entities. the words of his own class come to be the “true” words, which he imposes or attempts to impose on the others: the oppressed, whose words have been stolen from them. those who steal the words of others develop a deep doubt in the abilities of the others and consider them incompetent. each time they say their word without hearing the word of those whom they have forbidden to speak, they grow more accustomed to power and acquire a taste for guiding, ordering, and commanding. they can no longer live without having someone to give orders to. under these circumstances, dialogue is impossible.
it would be naive to expect oppressor elites to denounce the myth which absolutizes the ignorance of the people; it would be a contradiction in terms if revolutionary leaders were not to do so, and more contradictory still were they to act in accordance with that myth. the task of revolutionary leaders is to pose as problems not only this myth, but all the other myths used by oppressor elites to oppress.
if instead, the revolutionary leaders persist in imitating the oppressors’ methods of domination, the people may respond in either of two ways. in certain historical circumstances, they may become domesticated by the new contents which the leaders deposit in them. in other circumstances, they may become frightened by a “word” which threatens the oppressor housed within them. in neither event do they become revolutionary. in the first case, the revolution is an illusion; in the second case, an impossibility.
p. 134: i have already affirmed that it would indeed be naive to expect the oppressor elites to carry out a liberating education. but because the revolution undeniably has an education nature, in the sense that unless it liberates it is not revolution, the taking of power is only one moment – no matter how decisive – in the revolutionary process. as process, the “before” of the revolution is located within the oppressor society and is apparent only to the revolutionary consciousness.
the newness of the revolution is generated within the old, oppressive society; the taking of power constitutes only a decisive moment of the continuing revolutionary process. in a dynamic, rather than static, view of revolution, there is no absolute “before” or “after,” with the taking of power as the dividing line.
.. counter-revolution is carried out by revolutionaries who become reactionary.
p. 135: dialogue, as the encounter among men to “name” the world, is a fundamental precondition for their true humanization.
p. 139: the oppressors halt by an method (including violence) any action which in even incipient fashion could awaken the oppressed to the need for unity. concepts such as unity, organization, and struggle are immediately labeled as dangerous. in fact, of course, these concepts are dangerous – to the oppressors – for their realization is necessary to actions of liberation.
it is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. this is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they are being helped.
p. 143: people are fulfilled only to the extent that they create their world (which is a human world), and create it with their transforming labor. the fulfillment of humankind as human beings lies, then, in the fulfillment of the world. if for a person to be in the world of work is to be totally dependent, insecure, and permanently threatened – if their work does not belong to them – the person cannot be fulfilled. work that is not free ceases to be a fulfilling pursuit and becomes an effective means of dehumanization.
every move by the oppressed towards unity points towards other actions; it means that sooner or later the oppressed will perceive their state of depersonalization and discover that as long as they are divided they will always be easy prey for manipulation and domination. unity and organization can enable them to change their weakness into transforming force with which they can re-create the world and make it more human.
unity and organization – via 2 needs and cure.. app ness
school schedule, schools/school spirit, grade levels, et al.. dividing-ness – keeps people manageable – and thus – non-thinking/oppressed. even if the people working hard to improve each of these aren’t intending to dehumanize..
p. 144: they want to save their riches, their power, their way of life: the things that enable them to subjugate others. their mistake is that men cannot save themselves (no matter how one understands “salvation”), either as individuals or as an oppressor class. salvation can be achieved only with others. to the extent, however, that the elites oppress, they cannot be with the oppressed; for being against them is the essence of oppression.
p. 146: the presence of people in the historical process, no longer as mere spectators, but with the first signs of aggressivity, is sufficiently disquieting to frighten the dominant elites into doubling the tactics of manipulation.
through manipulation, the dominant elites can lead the people into an unauthentic type of “organization” and can thus avoid the threatening alternative: the true organization of the emerged and emerging people.
authentic organization is obviously not going to be stimulated by the dominators; it is the task of the revolutionary leaders.
it happens, however, that large sectors of the oppressed form an urban proletariat, especially in the more industrialized centers of the country. although these sectors are occasionally restive, they lack revolutionary consciousness and consider themselves privileged. manipulation, with its series of deceits and promises, usually finds fertile ground here.
the antidote to manipulation lies in a critically conscious revolutionary organization, which will pose to the people as problems – their position in the historical process, the national reality and manipulation itself.
in a situation of manipulation, the left is almost always tempted by a “quick return to power,” forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible “dialogue” with the dominant elites. it ends by being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls into an elitist game, which it calls “realism.”
watch/hear this daily on twitter, et al.. caught up in the flapping.. no? how many of us have been saying/doing the same things for years..? that’s exactly where elites would like us to be.. motionless – with the misinterpretation of being in motion.. no?
one of the methods of manipulation is to inoculate individuals with the bourgeois appetite for personal success. this manipulation is sometimes carried out directly by the elites and sometimes indirectly, through populist leaders.
the populist leader who rises from this process is an ambiguous being, an “amphibian” who lives in two elements. shuttling back and forth between the people and the dominant oligarchies, he bears the marks of both groups.
since the populist leader simply manipulates, instead of fighting for authentic popular organization, this type of leader serves the revolution little if at all. only by abandoning his ambiguous character and dual action and by opting decisively for the people (thus ceasing to be populist) does he renounce manipulation and dedicate himself to the revolutionary task of organization. at this point he ceases to be an intermediary between the people and the elites, and becomes a contradiction of the latter; thereupon the elites immediately join forces to curb him.
p. 153: the atmosphere of the home is prolonged in the school, where the students soon discover that (as in the home) in order to achieve some satisfaction they must adapt to the precepts which have been set from above. one of these precepts is not to think.
internalizing paternal authority through the rigid relationship structure emphasized by the school, these young people tend when they become professionals (because of the very fear of freedom instilled by these relationships) to repeat the rigid patterns in which they were miseducated. this phenomenon, in addition to their class position, perhaps explains why so many professionals adhere to antidialogical action. whatever the specialty that brings them into contact with the people, they are almost unshakably convinced that it is their mission to “give” the latter their knowledge and techniques. they see themselves as “promotors” of the people. their programs of action (which might have been prescribed by any good theorist of oppressive action) include their own objectives, their own convictions, and their own preoccupations. they do not listen to the people, but instead plan to teach them how to “cast off the laziness which creates underdevelopment.”
they (the professionals) regard as equally absurd the affirmation that one must necessarily consult the people when organizing the program content of educational action. they feel that the ignorance of the people is so complete that they are unfit for anything except to receive the teachings of the professionals.
p. 154: well-intentioned professionals (those who use “invasion” not as deliberate ideology but as the expression of their own upbringing) eventually discover that certain of their educational failures must be ascribed, not to the intrinsic inferiority of the “simple men of the people,” but to the violence of their own act of invasion. those who make this discovery face a difficult alternative: they feel the need to renounce invasion, but patterns of domination are so entrenched within them that this renunciation would become a threat to their own identities.
the fear of freedom is greater still in professionals who have not yet discovered for themselves the invasive nature of their action, and who are told that their action is dehumanizaing. not infrequently, especially at the point of decoding concrete situations, training course participants ask the coordinator in an irritated manner: “where do you think you’re steering us, anyway?” the coordinator isn’t trying to “steer” them anywhere; it is just that in facing a concrete situation as a problem, the participants begin to realize that if their analysis of the situation goes any deeper they will either have to divest themselves of their myths, or reaffirm them. divesting themselves of and renouncing their myths represents, at that moment, an act of self-violence. on the other hand, to reaffirm those myths is to reveal themselves. the only way out (which functions as a defense mechanism) is to project onto the coordinator their own usual practices: steering, conquering, and invading.
p. 156: these professionals, however, are necessary to the reorganization of the new society. and since many among them – even though “afraid of freedom” and reluctant to engage in humanizing action – are in truth more misguided than anything else, they not only could be, but ought to be, reclaimed by the revolution.
“cultural revolution” is the revolutionary regime’s maximum effort at conscientizacao – it should reach everyone, regardless of their personal path.
p. 160: in order to determine whether or not a society is developing, one must go beyond criteria based on indices of “per capita” income (which, expressed in statistical form, are misleading) as well as those which concentrate on the study of gross income. the basic, elementary criterion is whether or not the society is a “being for itself.” if it is not, the other criteria indicate modernization rather than development.
almost always the metropolitan society induces these reformist solutions in response to the demands of the historical process, as a new way of preserving its hegemony. it is as if the metropolitan society were saying: “let us carry out reforms before the people carry out a revolution.” and in order to achieve this goal, the metropolitan society has no options other than conquest, manipulation, economic and cultural (and sometimes military) invasion of the dependent society – an invasion in which the elite leaders of the dominated society to a large extent act as mere brokers for the leaders of the metropolitan society.
p. 166: … the leaders – in spite of their important, fundamental, and indispensable role – do not own the people and have no right to steer the people blindly towards their salvation. such a salvation would be a mere gift from the leaders to the people – a breaking of the dialogical bond between them, and a reducing of the people from co-authors of liberating action into the objects of this action.
dialogue does not impose, does not manipulate, does not domesticate, does not “sloganize.” this does not mean, however, that the theory of dialogical action leads nowhere; nor does it mean that the dialogical human does not have a clear idea of what she wants, or of the objectives to which she is committed.
p. 167: .. as long as the oppressor “within” the oppressed is stronger than they themselves are, their natural fear of freedom may lead them to denounce the revolutionary leaders instead. the leaders cannot be credulous, but must be alert for these possibilities.
p. 181: only in the encounter of the people with the revolutionary leaders – in their communion, in their praxis – can this theory be built.
Paulo Freire, reviving the radical imagination and destroying capitalist systems http://t.co/kXjIqE9avZ
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/HenryGiroux/status/611669344314093568
there is something else..
from Pedagogy of the Precariat by PETAR JANDRIC and HENRY A. GIROUX
on border crossing
Second, we need to revive radical imagination. We need both the language of critique and the language of hope as a way to reimagine the promise of a radical democracy and the myriad conditions necessary to support it. . We need to allow people to realize that capitalism is not all there is. That there is something else. That one cannot act otherwise, unless one can think otherwise. If we want to talk about Paulo Freire, let us be honest. Paulo was the guy who did not believe in reform. He believed in radical change! Paulo was not about reforming capitalist systems. He was about destroying them! He was about getting rid of them! Paulo talked about systems that worked because they are not built on massive amounts of inequity, inequality, wealth, and power. He understood that.