Research Topic (Assign. 3) - Social Justice
Social Justice (Optional Topic)
"Gramsci, Freire, and Adult Education: Possibilities for Transformative Action"
By Peter Mayo
What should the goal of adult education be and how should it be achieved? These questions are at the center of Mayo's book, as he attempts to come up with a theory of "transformative adult education," starting with the work of Gramsci and Freire and including recent work of adult educators.
Gramsci and Freire might be considered Neo-Marxists by some. Each "intellectual/activist" believes that there exists oppressors and oppressed in the world. We all find ourselves somewhere in this spectrum of oppression. Taking this to be the case, each writer (and Mayo as well) believes that something must be done to change the status of the oppressed.
Gramsci wrote in the early 20th century - mostly working in Italy. While Freire worked in the second half of the century mainly in South America and passed away about 10 years ago. Each writer discusses what it means to be an "intellectual" and how there are different types of intellectuals. Gramsci believes there is such a thing as an "organic" intellectual, who belongs to a certain class and works to empower (in the case of the oppressed class) or keep the power (in the case of the oppressor class) of his or her class. Freire builds on this theory, writing that social movements must be lead by the oppressed themselves.
Education plays a role in each intellectual's vision of social movement. For Gramsci, education is critical to bringing workers into the communist/socialist cause. For Freire, education is perhaps even more critical to his vision. He believes that people must be taught to read and write within their particular historical context and that they should be given the tools to discover their own history. Instead of a banking model of education in which workers might be given communism (as a banker deposits money in a bank), Freire encourages teachers to give their students the tools and ability to achieve their own path (in the classroom and outside of it).
This is by no means a all-encompassing synopsis, but I hope it provides some idea of what this book is about. I believe each author is worth taking a look at - whether in this book or in others. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paolo Freire was particularly illuminating.
Each author believes in something called the praxis - or the point where thought and action meet. In other words, philosophy must be both thought and action. Learning/Education must include both thought and action. This could translate to active learners in the classroom (as opposed to teachers depositing information into students). This book is about adult education, but it may have implications for us as well. Freire's ideas have apparently been coopted by mainstream American education - though much of the social movement, oppressor/oppressed discussion is mostly left out. In my own classroom, however, I have noticed a need to focus on building blocks. My students seem to need these building blocks (reading, writing, map skills) before they might be ready to firmly tackle oppressor/oppressed issues. Freire and Grasmsci would probably say I was serving my middle class interests by not bringing in some discussion of the dichotomy, however. Mayo and the intellectuals he writes about all seem to believe that education is inherently political - regardless of which decisions we make.
On a somewhat separate note, I watched "Half Nelson" recently. It's about a white inner-city teacher who's dealing with a bad crack habit, but has a very interesting way of teaching history. He calls it "opposites" - the idea that opposites cause change in history. Marx thought that the lower class would eventually overthrow the upper class to seize hegemony and create one class of workers - which would signify the end of history. Of course this has not happened - but there are other opposites (in civil rights: some believe that all men are created equal - opposite believes that they are not - one side wins out...to a certain extent). :) History keeps going...

1 Comments:
This topic is always one that stirs passion in teachers. I think that's because those of us who become teachers do it in the hopes of changing the world, of improving the lot of humanity. Giving a hungry person a fish vs. teaching them how to fish is at the root of empowerment.
You might be interested in this article, Examined Life about Stanley H. Kaplan, the founder of the Kaplan test preparation schools. He began his work because the SAT test was being used to prevent Jewish students from attending universities. Here's a quote from the article: "In proving that the S.A.T. was coachable, Stanley Kaplan did something else, which was of even greater importance. He undermined the use of aptitude tests as a means of social engineering. In the years immediately before and after the First World War, for instance, the country's élite colleges faced what became known as "the Jewish problem." They were being inundated with the children of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. These students came from the lower middle class and they disrupted the genteel Wasp sensibility that had been so much a part of the Ivy League tradition. They were guilty of "underliving and overworking." In the words of one writer, they "worked far into each night [and] their lessons next morning were letter perfect." They were "socially untrained," one Harvard professor wrote, "and their bodily habits are not good." But how could a college keep Jews out? Columbia University had a policy that the New York State Regents Examinations--the statewide curriculum-based high-school-graduation examination--could be used as the basis for admission, and the plain truth was that Jews did extraordinarily well on the Regents Exams. One solution was simply to put a quota on the number of Jews, which is what Harvard explored. The other idea, which Columbia followed, was to require applicants to take an aptitude test. According to Herbert Hawkes, the dean of Columbia College during this period, because the typical Jewish student was simply a "grind," who excelled on the Regents Exams because he worked so hard, a test of innate intelligence would put him back in his place. "We have not eliminated boys because they were Jews and do not propose to do so," Hawkes wrote in 1918: We have honestly attempted to eliminate the lowest grade of applicant and it turns out that a good many of the low grade men are New York City Jews. It is a fact that boys of foreign parentage who have no background in many cases attempt to educate themselves beyond their intelligence. Their accomplishment is over 100% of their ability on account of their tremendous energy and ambition. I do not believe however that a College would do well to admit too many men of low mentality who have ambition but not brains."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home