Pedagogy of the Oppressed (II) & Modern Education

Of any movement, of any change, education is vital. It is the beginnings of new ideas, and it must be given special attention to ensure it is doing its proper purpose. However, the initial question is, what is the purpose of education? What does it mean to be educated?

Today we are in an age where measure of achievement are standardized -- a "one size fits all" approach to teaching and assessments. Divergent thinking is disregarded, and replaced with single-solution scenarios that involve little thought outside the limitations that are given to the pupils in the classroom. It turns education into a chore rather than a passion.

Granted, there are many reasons for this, but its primary reasons lie in its creation during the age of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Fundamentally speaking, although the Enlightenment was a beautiful period of intellectual growth, it corresponded with the industrialization of much of the, then, "modern world." Likewise, many of the concepts attributed to the industrial model were applied to education: standardization, divisions, and hierarchy. All of these functioned in the interests of industrialization, and in the image of it. Perhaps the most important externality that was brought the industrialized education, however, was a similar form of alienation. Specifically, the alienation of the pupil from the work he or she was creating in the classroom. It is this dilemma that cripples intuition and advancement, and rather makes students into pawns molded into a pre-manufactured consciousness. It is an impediment to growth. Even worse so, to think outside the realm of normal studies is downgraded and displeasing, because conformity and efficiency are key in an industrial model of practice.

Paulo Freire addresses these concerns in his masterwork "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," and attempts to properly describe the educational system and articulate its flaws. He starts by categorizing the teacher-student relationship in dialectic terms, with a lack of real struggle. 

"A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character. This relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient, listening objects (the students).... education is suffering from narration sickness" [52].

Most importantly though, is the lack of significance in the teaching itself. The dialogue is hollow, and consists of "alienating verbosity." It does little to motivate the students, and it furthermore categories them as objects ready to absorb what the instructor is telling them, without fruitful interaction; it teaches them little to nothing on the fluidity of history, making them cautious when witnessing change, and it does little to awaken the aspirations the pupils might have. The language lacks any transforming power, and learning becomes overly-mechanical rather than engaging. 

"The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, status, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic completely alien to th existential experience of the students" [52].

It is based on these observations that Freire theorizes on what he calls "the banking concept of education." 

"Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits" [53]. 

Bearing this mind, education must first solve this crux before it can go any further. The teacher-student contradiction must be properly handled before a true libertarian education can take root, that would eliminate the ignorance and encompass true transformation and radical praxis. Freire than goes on to delve into this contradiction, and I feel the quote deserves to be posted in full: 

"The solution is not (nor can it be) found in the banking concept. On the contrary, banking education maintains and even stimulates the contradiction through the following attitudes and practices which mirror oppressive society as a whole.  

(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught
(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing
(c) the teachers thinks and the students are thought about
(d) the teacher talks and the students learn -- meekly
(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined
(f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply
(g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher(h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it
(i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students.
(j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects" [54].

This is the major issue, and the contradiction between the teacher-student relationship. For the commoners, education does little to change the condition which oppresses them, rather it only changes the consciousness of the oppressed. This is why the need for a radical new pedagogy is paramount -- one that is free from the alienating aspects of industrialization, horizontal in its power structure, involving in its dialogue, and promoting of inquiry and understanding. In a proper educational setting, it is not only the student that learns; it is both the pupils and the teachers that intellectually grow. They expand on their knowledge through dialogue and conversation, thereby heightening their consciousness and crushing their once-held ignorance. This is the goal of radical education, of revolutionary pedagogy -- the humanization and realization of one's potential.

The Politics of Historical Revisionism

The American republic has been steadily degenerating in recent years - and it seems some want to resuscitate some lost patriotic zeal of the American dream with obscurity and contradictions. A deliberate false historic revisionism is happening; a 'rereading' of American history in an effort to make it fit with today's United States. This is the modern system that the founders envisioned, they argue, and we have to keep the status quo 'alive and well.' They are trying to put a square peg in a round hole and they have an entire rightist movement fooled. 

Thomas Jefferson, especially, has become a victim to this type of slander. He is portrayed, by the Tea Party and others, in cliché slogans of little to no historical significance. He is used falsely as a rallying call for free market-eteers; serving as an example that the United States was founded on the principles of "modern capitalism and democracy" and that this "still lives on today." In recent memory, he has been attributed to this false quote:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,"

Fits right into the right-wing anti-Obama agenda, seldom a surprise.

Thomas Paine's real reputation has also been ravaged and hijacked, even recently. The former conservative TV host Glenn Beck used to pride himself on being a scholar of the American founding fathers. He attempted to christen Thomas Paine as the new figure of conservatism - an obvious contradiction to anybody with a vague recollection of American revolutionary history. Thomas Paine was a radical leftist, an enemy of privilege and aristocracy, an anti-religious pamphleteer, a skeptic of capital accumulation, and a contrarian of his time. He died penniless and with little friends, a testament to his passion; in no alternate world would he ally himself with a wealthy Christian-conservative TV star. Not only that, he is diametrically opposed to the domestic conservative platform. He is credited as the precursor to the modern 'Social Security System,' in his work titled 'Agrarian Justice' he writes:

"In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period."

He goes on to advocate a 'National Fund' to guarantee such improvement:

"To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:
And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

He then goes into monetary details; breaking down costs in Britain at the time and how the system would be implemented. He also criticizes the institution the private property as being naturally restrictive and, if left to its own ends, would accumulate to a minority elite. He promoted his 'National Fund' idea to cure this malady of capitalism; and bear in mind this was formulated in a predominately pre-capitalist era. This was written over two centuries ahead of his time, remarkable in any respect.

Now, does this correspond with any right-wing rhetoric? This historical obscurity is a symptom of a broken political sphere where revisionism is deemed a valid strategy; this becoming the rule rather than the exception. Trying to push a ideology of 'American Exceptionalism' by disguising the historicity of American figures is dangerous in hindsight for it fools the public into believing that the modern status quo is what was intended at this nation's founding. It is this that perhaps, albeit subtly, discredits anybody questioning today's illusive 'American Dream.' The response has become "you're going against the American tradition." This is a kind of political religion, a type of dogma, and a false one at that.

And one just as the founders intended, surely - or so these modern 'patriots' claim. 

The 18th Century Radical

In the 18th century Europe underwent a cultural and intellectual; sometimes rather violent; revolution that took it to a new form of consciousness and populist fervor. The Enlightenment was a pivotal step in human development, which freed it from the shackles of superstitions and divine titles of power. In Immanuel Kant's essay "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment," he calls it;

Mankind's final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.

It is from this ideology, and its logical conclusions, the radical was born. Radicalism in the 18th century was much more than a realization that man's mind is his greatest tool; it involved being skeptical of the entire system and the very existence of entitlement, aristocracy, and power. And moreover, it was was the realization that liberty is seldom a vice.

Oftentimes, radicalism would violently clash with the forces they were working against; The French Revolution was a climactic bloodbath after centuries of feudal and royal rule - a rebellion against the divinely sanctioned institutions that was oppressing the commoner. It was the first truly violent overthrow of old order based on Enlightenment principles (the American Revolution was arguably not quite as great of an social upheaval), and ushered in the principles of inalienable natural rights, equality of peoples, and 'universal' citizenship. It was also perhaps the first time in Europe that the labouring class was successively mass-mobilized against aristocracy and oppression in regiments called the Sans-culottes; which favored revolutionary proto-Marxist ideas such as socio-economic equality, anti-free market ideologies, direct democracy, and availability of affordable necessities. Radical even by today's imagination.

Sadly many of these egalitarian Enlightenment attitudes evaporated in the aftermath of the Reign of Terror that ensued after the French Revolution, led by Maximilien "The Incorruptible" Robespierre, albeit some were kept alive in the United States in the years following the American Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man however, the most beautiful creation during the French Revolution, seemingly lived on; standing as the ultimate testament to Enlightenment idealism inspired by the works of Jean-Jacques Roussaeu, Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, and the American Revolution. It espoused in Article I, eloquently;

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Although improperly put in practice, it served as an ideal and a reason for struggle for the French in years that followed, especially in the Revolution of 1848.

In the United States, many American radicals were in solidarity with the French struggle for equality, but were somewhat saddened by the widespread violence. Thomas Jefferson, a radical of the Enlightenment and father of the American republic, wrote very favorably of the French in principle, and was captivated by their vigor and passion, but could not ignore the bloodshed and killings of the 'counter-revolutionaries.' He writes in a private letter to American ambassador William Short;

The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen [1793].

Despite the violence, Jefferson remained optimistic of the ultimate end of despotism and tyranny. He writes in great hope and admiration commenting on the ongoing struggle in the French Republic and the Batavian Republic of Holland in a letter to Tench Coxe;

This ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light & liberty go together. It is our glory that we first put it into motion [1795].

This Jeffersonian idealism 'lives on', or rather should, in principle and in policy. The intellectual triumphs of the American and French Revolutions should not be forgotten nor ignored; and the principles written in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, on which Enlightenment social precepts were founded on and which Jefferson revered, will always stand true;

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

It is on this basis that a free democratic society is formed and it is likewise why natural rights should never be forgone - no matter how noble the end result.

The Paradox(es) of Yugoslav Communism & Sovietism

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" it is commonly said. This idiom has proved to be true on countless occasions, and the Communist experiments of Eastern Europe are no exception.

In 1957 Milovan Đilas, a prominent Yugoslav dissident and Communist thinker, published his magnum opus "The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System." In it, he exposed the material privilege the nomenklatura had in Soviet society and the paradox of what has become the 20th century Marxian interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Milovan Đilas believed that Eastern Communism was perpetually in a state of false transition; it was centralizing state power and rendering the revolution(s) fruitless. He was correct in his analysis, and he only validated the well-established idiom of power [quoted above] that was espoused by John Dalberg-Acton in the mid 1800s. The vanguards of 20th century Communist systems did little to nothing in bringing their respective society to classlessness. Rather, they created a new class of wealth and power that were perhaps more oppressive than the system they initially overthrew. This is the true paradox of the 20th century Marxist experiment.

But here lies the conundrum of Marxist thought; how is the transition to egalitarianism achieved, and is the irony of establishing dictatorship necessary in reaching the Communist ideal?

Milovan Đilas would argue that true egalitarianism would not be achieved through an Orwellian vanguard, and I tend to side with his sentiments. Eliminating democracy and ousting dissenters creates an environment based on fear and passivity. Karl Marx, in his criticism of capitalism, noted the systemic alienation of the proletariat from production. He hypothesized that the capitalist means of production separated the worker from the output of his labour and made him surrender his self-autonomy and destiny to maximize the surplus value of the bourgeois; In essence, ripping apart individuals [workers] from their right to be directors of their own actions. The Marxist experiments of the 20th century did very little to fix this and include the workers (i.e reincorporate them into the means of production), rather it perhaps even furthered their alienation, another ironic paradox, through obedience and mass-surveillance, making them puppets of the domineering state.

But what is the missing link to eliminating this unnatural alienating aspect in production? Simply, you must let people be free, rather then servile to the state (state socialism) or corporatist demands (capitalism). In revolutionary Catalonia this was tried and something radical was done to put production into the hands of the workers. Money was abolished, being replaced with a voucher system, and industry functioned on direct democracy. Goods were allocated effectively, and needs were met. Most importantly, some from of horizontal power was reached and there was solidarity in the workplace; it was a beautiful creation and lasted until its demise by the onslaught of fascism in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. While it existed it was a true living example of a tried attempt in eliminating alienation, as Marx described, and real progress toward classlessness.

The only similar attempt made by the self-described Communist states was in Yugoslavia, where Tito attempted to institute independent socialism which was one of the reasons for their split with the Soviet Union [known as the Informbiro period]. Milovan Đilas was very much involved, advocating workers' self management in state run industries. However after Đilas' imprisonment, the main architect of the workers' experiment was Edvard Kardelj who favored decentralized workers communes rather then state-controlled industries. Sadly, the project failed to get the traction it needed. Although Yugoslavia was distinctively better than its Communist counterparts in Eastern Europe and Asia, it still failed to give the workers the sufficient power over production they so deserved - however they should be applauded for attempting it, albeit insufficiently.

Thomas Jefferson, a champion of the Enlightenment, eloquently wrote:

 "...every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

This is the issue of 20th century vanguardism that we cannot overlook. The creation of a "New Class" is an major issue in leftist thought and we must be weary in calling for its future reestablishment. An examination of 20th century failures would be wise in formulating the basis for Post-Marxist thought, and we must always remember that freedom should never be compromised; because someday we might find little of it left. Slavoj Zizek in his essay "A Permanent Economic Emergency" published in the New Left Review writes,

 "What was wrong with 20th-century Communism was not its resort to violence per se—the seizure of state power, the Civil War to maintain it—but the larger mode of functioning, which made this kind of resort to violence inevitable and legitimized.." 

He goes on to say that when a state believes that it is the "instrument of historical necessity" it has no limitation on the terror it can inflict in achieving its ends. This is the danger, and I stand by localized, decentralized power as a probable solution; and if not that, a less oppressive vanguard of weaker stature that derives its true might from the regional workers' communes rather then from itself. This, I feel, is fair and truly progressive in the Marxian sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zizek's 'A Permanent Economic Emergency'
Tito on Self-Management

The Invaluable Right of Freedom of Speech

It is certain that in the west, secularism has prevailed; Well, at least in Europe, replacing religious ethics with cultural hedonism that is paradoxically more restrictive than religion ever was. Hedonism, rather then being the construct of a divine text, is directly derived from the individual. This creates something of a more limiting environment. The west has embraced this pleasure-seeking ideal, but not without a few strings attached. The west's hedonistic culture has in itself created artificial walls of conduct that has proved to be more restraining than dogma at times, because it is a product of something much more fundamental; one's own mind; and we must cherish this right and not let it be dwarfed in the name of "protection from offense." This is where I fear most of all that the west, especially Europe, might relinquish their Voltairean principle of free speech.

In January of 2012, France passed the 'Armenian Genocide Bill' which criminalized the denial of it happening. Although noble in writing and true in its intent, this type of legislation is particularly dangerous. Why are we constructing a society free of offending? The real purpose of free speech, as espoused in the age of Enlightenment, is for the protection of unpopular speech; popular speech has little to be protected from. It is this dilemma from which I fear the subtle censorship that is present in European society, which is done in the name of protection from offense. As Christopher Hitchens, the prominent journalist, eloquently put it in this video; "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" simply because you are in majority. If one person disagrees, and says so, then there should be special protection bestowed to that individual because what that person has to say is intrinsically more important. Now, this is not because that person has something more of substance to say; it is because what that person has to say is vital to reverifying truths that may be taken for granted. It refreshes the principles of the majority, in this case the recognition of the Armenian genocide. And moreover, if your opinion is truly the correct one you should not fear the dissenting opinion of one mere individual to the point where you have to resort to censorship.

Furthermore, who is going to protect you from the offensive language? When you empower the state to censor your society, to decide who is the harmful speaker, you have relinquished your right to dissent; and pity you when you need that right of speech, if you ever do.

The largest threat to limiting our fundamental right of speech, it seems, is those claiming to be protecting in the name of religion. Islam, especially, in European society feels it is entitled to special protection under the law. In the case of the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, where pictures of Muhammad were drawn and printed in a newspaper, they were said to be "offensive" by some Muslims in the community. They protested the cartoon, and there was a global movement where they called for the Danish government to bring it down. Self-censorship ensued. Is this the society we've grown into, where it's forbidden to offend and exercise one's right to say what he or she wishes? Retrospectively this is offensive to us, those who follow the Enlightenment, to have to see our rights of speech slandered for the religious. No creed deserves to special protection under the law, for then it becomes tyranny to all those not under the that umbrella of "tolerance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchens on the Danish riots.

Christianity and the Founding of the United States

In response to an individual who used the founding of the United States to justify opposing gay marriage:

Well I would expect you to at least give me one example as to why [the right to marry established in Supreme Court cases overturning interracial marriage laws] doesn't apply to gay marriage, or to recall your statement that marriage is a "privilege" but I suppose that would be too much to ask:

And don't justify your religious agenda by using "this nation was founded on theistic religious belief." This is the most overused, and misrepresented argument uttered by conservatives in defense of injecting religion and legislating morality in public policy. No, this nation was not founded on "theistic religious belief" and let me elaborate;

Firstly, many of our Founding Fathers were deists or anti-clerical, but most importantly they were children of the Enlightenment, believing in empiricism and the worth of scientific endeavors to support a seemingly naturalistic world view. This isn't to say they were all deists, some were religious, one being John Jay who believed that Christians are best fit to serve this country, but does not represent a public policy position. For that, you have to look at the ideas that were behind the Founding Documents.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was vehemently opposed to religion. In his letters to Adams, he talks of the religious superstitions of Christianity as "one day being amongst the likes of Jupiter and other false gods." He authored the Jefferson Bible, where he rewrote the New Testament taking out the supernatural, believing strongly in the ethical teachings of Jesus but denying his divinity. Jefferson was the first to note and advocate the "wall between church and state" of the Founding Fathers, initially used by the founder of Rhode Island Baptist Roger Williams. He demonstrated his support of this separation in public policy as well apart from his private letters, writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which would become the basis for the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, has expressed in countless letters his original secular intent of the government, calling for the "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" in a letter he wrote to Edward Livingston in 1822. He even expressed opposition to Congressional chaplains and days of prayer.

George Washington was arguably a deist, or at least a nonreligious man, although not expressing it in public, but rather his personal letters. He refused to take Holy Communion on Sundays. Benjamin Franklin was a deist, denouncing religion in many of his writings; "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." John Adams expressed doubts, especially in his writings to Jefferson. And Thomas Paine was perhaps the most outspoken of them all, completely denouncing religion and despising it in his book "The Age of Reason" and his other writings.

Also you should note, the Constitution makes no mention of "Jesus Christ, divinity, Bible, Creator, Divine, or God." And the Declaration of Independence, although mentioning the rights "endowed by our Creator," this does not make it explicitly Christian, it was simply the reiteration of a Lockean concept that Jefferson elaborated on.

And lastly one of the most important pieces of evidence for the secular intent of the United States is the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is the direct quote from it, and was passed unanimously in the Senate, being read out loud on the Senate floor and copies being passed out for each Senator to read. There were no objections, because the secular intentions were clear, no matter how religious these Senators were they agreed on this basic concept of separation because they feared religion in politics would be destructive in the United States, as it had been in Great Britain. It was even published in the Pennsylvania Gazette with no public backlash. Although this treaty is now defunct, it makes the position of the Founding Fathers quite clear; that we were to be seen as a secular nation throughout the world, that we do not profess any particular faith, and that we are a nation that allows all different creeds none of which would ever hold an advantage or special privilege in the rule of law.

I hope that clears everything up for you, and I hope you also realize that even if all of this nation was Christian that would not make the United States a Christian nation. We are, at least our original intent was, to be a secular republic that does not succumb to mob rule of the majority; where the rights of the peoples are protected, and this includes their right of religion or belief not to be infringed by the legislating power of another. It was a pure product of the intellectual followers of the Enlightenment, and its importance cannot be understated.