Search results

This chapter highlights Freire's history and ideologies allow the text to act as in introduction work for those interested in looking at education from a Freireian perspective, and as such it also helps pull together the many aspects of Freire's life and ideas. These points are important because a lot of existing texts and journal articles tend to view Freire from very distinctive perspectives. For example, far and away his most popular text is Pedagogy of the Oppressed, but this chapter explores what he wrote about in the 20 other books and dozens of journal articles he wrote. Freire wrote about oppression in education, but also in government, by race and language, and throughout these explorations is a myriad idea about how oppression works, and why the oppressed let themselves be controlled by a minority. Highlighting these facts is a key starting point to the book.

This chapter provides an overview of Freire's primary approach to how governments control people, why governments dictate what is being taught and why they seek out control over educators. This chapter investigates the similarities Freire found between the most oppressive governments and dictatorships that rules by violence, to how our educational institutions are controlled. The stakes might be entirely different in these scenarios, but he knew the ultimate objective in all these situations was to remove power from the people, give it to a powerful few and ensure the people would never be able to regain control once more. These ideas and suggestions are key moving forward because it provides a baseline to understand how Freire thought about manipulative behaviours, and why tactics used in extremely violent situations can essentially be watered down and used to control people in universities in much the same way.

This chapter is focused on what we can learn from oppressive governance, in this case specifically relating to university governance in terms of vice chancellors and presidents, to the deputy vice chancellor and deputy president and down the ever-growing university hierarchy to deans and heads of schools and their deputies, from a Freirean perspective. Freire wrote at length about how leaders ‘controlled’ education and why they did so, but he also wrote at length about how governments control populations – himself being both a political prisoner and a person in exile to escape persecution. This chapter subsequently examines Freire's ideas around what techniques people employ to control populations and applies them to a higher education setting because the similarities are numerous and the tactics familiar.

My aims in this chapter are to discuss alternative ways of doing education and research, and thereby highlight key contributions from Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals-Borda and Dorothy Lee, to active learning, participatory action-research and intercultural dialogue. These scholars were heirs of the university reform movements of the twentieth century, and their vital legacy is alive as shown in this book. The enclosed ideas and illustrations of transformative research and education draw from my academic experience in various corners of the world and points in time.

In the face of the erosion of democracy and the reemergence of authoritarian styles of rule and leadership in the contemporary world scene, the author reintroduces the anthropological and pedagogical insights of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire in the ongoing debate on active learning and higher education. In the case of Dorothy Lee, these insights refer to “valuing the self” of the student, and to the value of learning (values) from “remote cultures” and, last but not least, on the meaning of freedom and autonomy bounded by culture and structure in the teaching–learning process. In the case of Freire, the author selectively points to: (1) the value of community as a sociocultural anchor of identity, freedom, and autonomy, (2) the view of education as a tool for raising awareness, critical thinking, inspiration, hope, empowerment, cultural action, and social transformation, and (3) the view on citizenship education. The author discusses, in this regard, the significant role assigned by Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire to the neglected notions of dialogue, freedom, culture, self, autonomy, and structure. Lastly, the author argues in favor of reincorporating the pedagogical insights of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire in the curricula and structure of higher education and also reminds those concerned with upholding democracy that these formative values and concepts were acknowledged in the early conception and development of active learning.

Here, the authors present a case study of how two professors from different disciplines at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, managed to interweave dialogic components of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy into an institutional context full of requirements and demands that restrict pedagogical choices. Enacting Freire’s ideal of a liberatory epistemology, as Freire calls it, is extremely difficult, because institutional constraints increase the psychological and emotional distance between our students and instructors. In spite of this, the instructors devised ways to create a classroom based on Freire’s dialogic approach to education. Using Martin Buber’s terminology, the authors work to establish their students as “Thous” rather than as “Its.” Together with their students, the authors explore their texts, and generate free discussions based on the notion of co-constructing our classroom and co-constructing what knowledge is and means to us. Establishing this “open space” of inquiry and acceptance involves practicing Freire’s strategies producing authentic dialogue. Here, instructors participate actively with students. They engage in classroom exercises and even write with the students. The atmosphere in the classroom is relational and inter-subjective. Instructors also enact behaviors explained in Julien Mirivel’s Positive Communication model that bridge the gulf of separateness that work to decipher the unknown.

This chapter analyses the other aspect of an oppressor/oppressed relationship by looking at what happens to the oppressed, in this case, the academics and staff not in leadership roles. This chapter looks at why the tactics leaders employ work, and why people do not retaliate, and what systems have been put in place to prevent the people from having any consequential power. This chapter thus looks at how the power of the majority in the academy has been slowly eroded by managerial promises of empowerment, self-governance or having an opinion on the institution's direction when in reality, they have no opinion, and the only decisions they can make are inconsequential. This is why time and time again, we see universities restructure, remove non-profitable courses and increase targets to unrealistic levels to maintain power over the majority.

Colleges of education must do more than expose prospective educators to “best” practices for teaching and leading linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse students. Educators need to develop attitudes, knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to become competent in catering to diverse student populations in schools. In this chapter, we seek to extend this conversation using a critical pedagogical lens. We draw specifically on Paulo Freire’s concept of radical love to interrogate our ways of teaching, leading, and opening up spaces for dialogue toward educating pre-service teachers and leaders who are critically conscious. Additionally, we use Paulo Freire’s concept of radical love to explore the similarities and disjunctures in our pedagogy and positionalities as international scholars of color.

This chapter is a response to the article by Straubhaar (2015), ‘The stark reality of the “White Saviour” complex and the need for critical consciousness: a document analysis of the early journals of a Freirean educator’. Taking up a theme developed by Noah and Eckstein (1988) in relation to dependency theory, the paper argues that a Freirean analysis is an inadequate framework for the analysis of international development and intercultural exchanges. The central argument is that, by imposing a simplistic dichotomy of oppressors and oppressed, Freirean theory blinds the researcher to the nuanced interplay and complex power relationships that are involved in even apparently simple interactions. Most importantly, a Freirean analysis focuses attention on who makes a statement, rather than on what that statement is a statement about and whether it is true or not. This argument is developed through a reanalysis of some events Straubhaar documents in his account of his fieldwork.