REGLAS MISCELÁNEAS RELATIVAS AL COSTO DE VENTAS

After all, critical pedagogy has a concrete answer to the challenges of our time. It has been shown above that the language of critique in our age of globalization has to be directed against the ideology of neo-liberalism in order to pave the way for global ethics.

Advocates and practitioners of critical pedagogy take a stance on the issue in multiple ways. Peter McLaren promotes a revolutionary pedagogy that distances itself from a left-liberal position that is reluctant to challenge neoliberal capitalism. (Leban and McLaren 2010: 111) He sees critical pedagogy as a means of exposing ―permanent conditions of oppression and exploitation‖ under the rule of neo-liberalism (Kincheloe 2008: 86) and argues for the teaching of democratic social values to open up possibilities to fight these injustices. (ibid) The focus on democracy becomes also apparent in Giroux‘ work in which he explicitly calls for a critical or radical democracy as a cultural politics that reacts to ―the current assault on democratic public spheres‖. (Giroux 2007: 34) He puts emphasis on social citizenship, liberal freedoms and the equality of resources and entrusts critical pedagogy with the task of bringing fundamental questions such as ―What is the relationship between social justice and the distribution of public resources and goods?‖ or ―What are the conditions, knowledge, and skills that are a prerequisite for political agency and social change?‖ (ibid) into the classroom. (ibid) Giroux calls for critical citizenship education that is able to ―emphasize critical

32

reflexivity, bridge the gap between learning and everyday life, make visible the connections between power and knowledge, and provide the conditions for extending democratic rights, values, and identities‖ (Giroux 2007: 28) In his writing he coins the term educated hope as opposed to ―the dystopian hope of neo-liberalism‖ (33) to refer to the relation of a language

of resistance and possibility.

The longing for a more human society in this instance does not collapse into a retreat from the world; rather, it emerges out of critical and practical engagements with present behaviours, institutional formations, and everyday practices. Hope in this context does not ignore the worst dimensions of human suffering and exploitation; on the contrary, it acknowledges the need to sustain the ‗capacity to worst and offer more than that for our consideration.‘ (Giroux 2007: 32)

Giroux is convinced of the fact that hope is the precondition for civic courage and political engagement. This idea has become central to critical pedagogy that sees the potential for change in a language of critique combined with a language of possibility. The language of

critique involves a critical attitude towards society as well as ―a deconstructive view of

reality and a challenge to fixed interpretative frames‖ (Guilherme 2002: 34) Moreover, it encourages students to question their position in the local as well as global community. Introducing a language of critique to classroom practice ought to lead to critical awareness of current circumstances, which in turn provokes a desire for change. This wish for a better world is the precondition for a language of possibility that enables students to come up with alternatives and increases their willingness to actively contribute to this utopian project. (ibid)

4.4.1. Paulo Freire

The centrality of hope in critical pedagogy can be traced back to the ‗spirit‘ of Paulo Freire, who can be called ―critical pedagogy‘s prophet of hope.‖ (Kincheloe 2008: 72) As he is often cited as the founder of critical pedagogy, scholars in the field, including Giroux and McLaren, based their work on his thought. In fact, critical pedagogy cannot be addressed without making reference to his ideas and concepts because he has gained the reputation of the ―inaugural philosopher of critical pedagogy‖, (McLaren 2000 quoted in Kincheloe 2008: 70) to use McLaren‘s words.

Paulo Freire also offers a theory of education that can cater for the specific pedagogical needs under the prevailing reign of neo-liberalism and corresponding cynicism. Originally, he was concerned with the improvement of the lives of oppressed and marginalized people he was surrounded by in Brazil, his native country. (Kincheloe 2008: 69-70) In spite of the fact that

33

Freire‘s ideas developed under these specific circumstances, his later works expound the problem of neo-liberalism and its oppressive force (Mayo 2005: 164) and thereby render his thoughts relevant in the context of global citizenship in the 21st century. His final book

Pedagogy of Freedom aims at helping teachers as well as learners to struggle against

neoliberal hegemony. According to Freire, it is insufficient to inform students about social evil without empowering them to fight against it. He argues that we have to become aware of our ―unfinishedness‖ in the world and accept change as the ―only constant in history‖. (Freire 1998a paraphrased in Van Herrtum 2010: 217) One of his key ideas is that the world has been constructed by human beings and can consequently also be reconstructed by them. All man- made is changeable and therefore hope exists. (Freire 1998b paraphrased in Van Herrtum 2010: 217) He refers to this notion as critical consciousness as opposed to naïve

consciousness.(Kincheloe 2008: 72) He describes individuals as ―conditioned‖ but not

―determined‖ and attributes the power of revolt to humans. He clearly distances himself from the deterministic attitude of neo-liberalism, ―founded on a vision of reality dominated by extreme individualism, instrumental rationality, and, though unstated, subjects as essentially passive receptors of the events that surround them.‖ (Freire 1998b paraphrased in Van Herrtum 2010: 217)

Freire proposed different strategies for a more critical approach to learning that developed into key concepts of critical pedagogy due to their generalizability and applicability in different contexts. At this point they should only be shortly introduced, whereas in chapter 5 their meaning becomes more explicit. First and foremost, Freire (1970) sharply criticizes banking pedagogy that sees teaching as the mere transmission of knowledge by the teacher and neglects the integration of the learners‘experiences into classroom practices. He calls for a problem-posing approach to education that is carried out in the form of dialogue. According to him, dialogue helps individuals to develop an understanding of the reality that surrounds them and also constitutes an opportunity for the negotiation of transformative ideas. (Van Herrtum 2010: 217-218) Ultimately, problem-posing and dialogue should lead to

conscientization-―the act of coming to critical consciousness‖ (Kincheloe 2008: 73) and the

production of critical thinkers, who reject a ―normalized‖ future growing out of a ―normalized past‖ and perceive learning and education as a means of social improvement. (72-74) Conscientization is also related to critical or emancipatory literacy suggested by Freire. He generated a theory of literacy as cultural politics that goes beyond seeing literacy

34

as the ability to read and write and views it as a practice that either performs the function of empowering or disempowering people. He maintains that texts always have to be examined thoroughly in order to identify whether they aim at reproducing existing social structures or rather promote emancipatory practices. (Patel Stevens and Bean 2007: 5) Even though the concept of critical literacy was originally applied in the context of illiterate oppressed groups in Brazilian society, it can be expanded and related to advanced societies and their incapability to read the world critically. (Morrow and Torres 2002: 144)