Paulo Friere and #classroomactivism

            Paulo Freire forced me to admit things about myself and I’m grumpy about it. I had told myself I wouldn’t take any necessarily personal approaches to these blog posts, but Freire has elicited such a strong reaction from me this semester that I feel it would be inauthentic to approach his work with any sense of detachment. I found myself at somewhat of an epiphany while reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed, particularly when Freire outlines the criteria for effective pedagogical dialogue. These criteria for dialogue, “an existential necessity” (88), are as follows:

1.     Dialogue is the encounter between men and women, mediated by the world, in order to name the world.

2.     Dialogue is not a simple exchange of ideas.

3.     Dialogue must not be a situation where some name on behalf of others.

4.     Dialogue cannot exist in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people.

5.     Dialogue can – WAIT WHAT?

I had just read 80+ pages of the most inspiring and convincing approach to pedagogy that I had been exposed to when I was told that, in order to effectively practice these methods, I must have a “profound love” for people! Freire continues, “Dialogue further requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in their power to make and remake, to create and re-create, faith in their vocation to be more fully human (which is not the privilege of the elite, but the birthright of all)” (90). No problem. I do believe human beings have the power to make and remake systems of oppression, create and re-create systems of their oppression, and become human (i.e. more self-serving and evil). See, I can still salvage this relationship. On the next page: “Nor yet can dialogue exist without hope… Hopelessness is a form of silence, denying the world and fleeing from it” (91). Now I am entirely at a loss.

I have often questioned whether my interest in social justice stems from a desire to make the merciless challenge of life easier on others, or a desire to see perpetrators of prejudice and evil held accountable.  Although I had struggled with this at an interpersonal level, I never took it quite as seriously before I read Freire. My question, then, is the following: Freire was pretty popular in class. If I recall, only bell hooks had a more positive response. Do you believe that Freire correct when he insists that effective pedagogical dialogue can only come from the genuine expectation that people want to find alleged goodness within their humanity? Is it irresponsible to approach communication studies pedagogy with a suspicion for the motives and desires of all students? Is it possible to make effective use of dialogue in the classroom with little hope that students in positions of power actually want to identify and challenge their methods of oppression?

Asking for a friend,

Daniel