Every learner brings to the situation of education a particular historical location. That is to say they bring to the situation of education their particular identity that has been constructed through history and culture. Humans are historical beings who always have an ideological debt in the creation of their identity to the past.1 This sets the precedent that there will be a diverse range of differing histories in the democratic classroom including the location of the teacher as well. But it is
1
the crucial ontological characteristic of “being human” that Freire persistently identified in so far as humans produce history and culture, even as history and culture produces them, and as such an education for democracy must “ take the people’s historicity as their starting point”.2
Without learners having a conception of the way in which they are both made and make history, they lack the ability to grasp the connections between themselves and others and the world. This ability is essential if learners are to develop an important foundational characteristic of a critical consciousness; that of authentic refection. Authentic reflection always takes the learners relationship with other people and the world as its basis. It does not consider abstract persons or the world without people3 but instead the connections and relations of people in and with the world. By acknowledging their own historicity, learners discover that their ideologies are not privately owned but are instead connected to the world around them. Helping individuals to understand the connectedness of their own ideas and those in the larger society is also necessary to combat dualistic thinking.4
What this requires is that learners reflect upon their perspectives of the world and those of others in the world through understanding the actions in the past that have formed these perspectives. Education that is committed to taking people’s historicity as its starting point denies that humans are abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality apart from people.5 By comprehending how their personal history is embedded in larger social forms, learners begin to discover their inherent link to the collective. The experiences and ideas that individuals have formed are related to and with the world and with other people in it.
The task of realising one’s own historicity is not a trivial matter for learners to contend with. Often the process requires conceptualising aspects of history that contain many actions of oppression or dehumanisation that are incorporated in the ideological debt of the individual’s identity. Alternatively the individual may find
2
P. Freire. Pedagogy of Freedom: ethics, democracy and civic courage, p.65
3
P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed
4
R.A, Breault, “Dewey, Freire, and a pedagogy for the oppressor.”
5
examples of a lineage of oppressors in their collective identities; history that is unsettling to acknowledge. Perhaps this contributes to the reluctance sometimes found in some learners to delve deeply into history to uncover truths and untruths that may contradict the individual learners current views of the world and others. Yet Freire understood that as the oppressed take more control of their own history, they assimilate more rapidly into society, but on their own terms.6 In an interview with Pepi Leistyna, Freire acknowledged some of the difficulties learners face when addressing their historicity by stating:
While it is true that people need to use their historical location as the place to begin to reflect upon the object of knowledge and to create meaning, the problem is that they often neglect to question their own self or others…However, even within the limits of my position, and under historical and cultural influences, my job as a learner is to connect it to the rest of the world. In other words, I need to be able to make linkages with other historical events so as to gain a greater comprehension of reality.7
It is this willingness to discover the truths of the past and to become aware of how these truths are constructed and change over history that needs to be cultivated with the learner. The world begins to open up for their intellectual imagination when the connections between past and present become revealed to them. What is vitally important is that in reflecting on the historical past a realisation is reached that being conscious of their historical location provides them with the tools to see history as an opportunity and not as determined. The praxis that defines human existence is marked by this historicity, this dialectical interplay between the ways in which history and culture make people even while people are making that very history and culture.8
Recognition that the learner is an historical being is recognition that they are also incomplete in their history. People thus know that they are unfinished and are aware of their incompleteness.9 As they conceptualise that their reality, including much of what they, (presently) are, is the corollary of human action in the past10 they are awakened to the connections between human actions and reality and that the actions of the present will create the future. The future is not determined by
6
P. McLaren. “A pedagogy of possibility: Reflecting upon Paulo Freire’s politics of education,”p.50.
7
P. Leistyna. Presence of Mind: Education and the Politics of Deception,p.3
8
R.D, Glass. “On Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education,”p.16
9
P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed.
10
the past but will be created by human action with, and in, the world just as the past was also. When students see their own actions will create their future realities, they become agents of their own human ‘being’.
An invitation is thus extended to the learner to critically reflect on the past and decide which aspects of it serve them in the reality they choose. This does not entail that they must do away with tradition or religion or culture but rather that they reflect on the different aspects of these things through historicity in relation to the reality they wish to live in. Freire has often been criticized as having a western view of this reflection concerning culture yet it is the people themselves who would make the decisions regarding their culture after reflection. It can be said that no culture on earth is complete in its becoming and therefore not needing reflection from the people who are immersed in it. Freire clarified this concept by saying:
First of all, I think that all cultures have their own identity, a reason for being, and they should undoubtedly struggle to preserve it. This does not mean that cultures don’t carry within themselves weak dimensions…So, I think that cultures should struggle to reinforce what is already valid and to promote what needs to be validated – especially that which has yet to be recognized – and, obviously, understand and eradicate what is negative.11
The purpose for the learner becoming aware of their historical location and reflecting on the ideologies of the past that contributed to shaping this is not for them to dismiss the past and adopt a uniform view of the world. It is the diversity of ideologies and historical locations that are an inherent part of a Freirean education and of what makes life interesting and exciting on earth. Furthermore, it is our different experiences, with interpretations of, and social relations within the world that provide the substance for interactivity between two or more people12 which is a crucial practice in Freire’s pedagogy. As Freire has contended:
I cannot understand human beings as simply living. I can understand them only as historically, culturally and socially existing…I can understand them only as beings who are makers of their “way”, in the making of which they lay themselves open to or commit themselves to the “way” that they make and that therefore remakes them as well.13
11
P. Leistyna. Presence of Mind: Education and the politics of deception,p.4
12
P. Roberts. “ Pedagogy, Neo-liberalism and Post modernity: Reflections on Freire’s later work,” p.460
13
Every learner who comes to the object of knowledge brings with them a different historical location and a different ideological perspective to contribute to the educational setting. In the traditional banking system students would not see the benefits that their different historical locations bring to the classroom because there is only one set of prescribed answers that are validated within this setting. Banking theory and practice, as immobilizing and fixating forces, fails to acknowledge people as historical beings: in contrast problem – posing theory and practice takes people’s historicity as their starting point.14 In the Freirean concept of education, knowledge is created and not prescribed so the knowledge and ideologies that students bring to the object of knowledge become important commodities. No one can know everything, just as no one can be ignorant of everything.15
Knowledge thus takes a very different form in a Freirean pedagogy. It is not a process of absorption or memorization but rather a process of construction and creation. People learn by actively constructing knowledge, weighing new information against their previous understanding, thinking about and working through discrepancies,(on their own and with others), and coming to a new understanding.16 The objective is to create something new, not to transmit knowledge from the past. It is not only the students who bring their particular historical locations to the learning process but, of course, the teacher as well. In the endeavour to create new knowledge, the teacher and the students come to the learning situation as possessors of past knowledge, albeit of different sorts.17 An important moment in the learning process is when the student critically evaluates what she knows and not only simply for the purposes of overcoming these knowledge’s.18
Each participant in the act of education begins with her historical location in the world and her associated ideologies as the starting point to the process of creation of knowledge through dialogue. These assorted locations are recognised as being part of a wider society that the participants share. Peter McLaren makes a valid
14
P. Freire. Pedagogy of the oppressed, p.71.
15
P. Roberts. “ Knowledge, Dialogue and Humanization: Exploring Freire’s philosophy,” p.172.
16
A Kohl. Punished by Rewards, p.219
17
P. Freire. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic courage.
18
point with regards to Freirean education and the historical locations of people in the current era:
…(consequently) a Freirean pedagogy of liberation is totalising without being dominating in that it always attends dialectically to the specific or local “acts of knowing” as a political process that takes place in the larger conflictual arena of capitalist relations of exploitation, an arena where large groups of people palpably and undeniably suffer needless privations and pain due to alienation and poverty.19
Through the learners’ recognition that they are historical beings, and by the evaluation of their current historical location to gain an understanding of the capitalist influences in its creation, they may begin to critically assess if the many aspects of the capitalist system are applicable to the reality they wish to create. Freire thinks that if we fail to grasp how the capacity for historical, cultural, and linguistic praxis makes us different from the rest of the organic and inorganic world, we will fail to be able to transform society toward a vision of justice and democracy.20 This possibility is precisely one that learners need to be introduced to when approaching the subject of democracy.
In Pedagogy of hope (1994), Freire spoke about his concept of history and his vision of an authentic democracy being intertwined. Rather than accepting the current capitalist conditions in the world he reminds people to keep the hope for a new reality alive as an ontological potential. He states:
The understanding of history as opportunity and not determinism, the conception of history operative in this book, would be unintelligible without the dream, just as the deterministic conception feels uncomfortable, in its incompatibility with this understanding and therefore denies it.21
In contrast to the traditional banking theory of education, which stills learners’ imaginations by submitting them to the rigours of prescribed knowledge, a Freirean pedagogy would encourage - indeed necessitate - imagination as a tool to conceptualise the reality of the future as one that will differ from the present. It would require the ability to imagine other realities than the one that currently
19
P. McLaren. “A pedagogy of possibility: Reflecting upon Paulo Freire’s politics of education,” p.52.
20
R.D Glass. “On Paulo Freire’s philosophy of praxis and the foundations of liberation education,” p.17.
21
exists including other distributions of power, wealth and cultural meanings and other ways of relating to one another.