freire,praxis,

7/28/2019 Freire,Praxis,

1/12

American Educational Research Association

On Paulo Freire's Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation EducationAuthor(s): Ronald David GlassSource: Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Mar., 2001), pp. 15-25Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594336

Accessed: 06/11/2009 10:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toEducational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594336?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aerahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aerahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3594336?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/12

I I

O n P a u l o F r e i r e ' s Philosophy o f P r a x i sand the Foundations of Liberation Educationby RonaldDavid GlassThisessayexamines he ontologicalandepistemologicaloundationsof Paulo Freire'sphilosophyof praxisandcritiquesthe structure ofhisargument. toutlinesa more consistent historicist nterpretationof liberationeducation that retains the liberatorypower of mod-ernismand its critiqueof dehumanization, ecognizesthe malleabil-ity andcontradictionsof identity,embracesepistemicuncertaintiesand the varieties of reason in knowledge,and respects the pluralconceptionsof the good which canshapemoral andpolitical ife.Fi-nally, he essay argues hatthisunderstandingf liberation ducationrequiresan ethicsgroundedin militantnonviolence.

Nearlyfouryearsafterhis death,a worldstill mournsPauloFreire.Freire'stheoryabout the relationship etween iberationand educationhas inspiredand informedcountlesseffortstomakelife morehumanefor thoseoppressedby economicandideological tructureshatdeniedthem theirdignity,rights,andself-determination. he ideas nPedagogyftheOppressed1970)have beenappliedon everycontinent, n projects anging romgrassroots asicliteracyprogramso nationaleducationalpoli-cies.Manypeopleengagedn progressivetrugglesorjustice-teachers, tudents,communityorganizers,workers,movementactivists,andcitizens romeverywalkof life-who readFreirefoundreflections f theirownthinking;manywho heardFreirespeak oundshapefortheir own words;manywho studiedhiswork discoveredpracticesworthtranslatingnto theirowncon-texts. Freire'slegacyis unprecedentedor an educator:Noneotherhas nfluencedpracticensucha widearray fcontextsandcultures,orhelpedto enableso manyof theworld'sdisempow-ered urneducation oward heirowndreams.Livesandinstitu-tionalspacesarestillbeing ransformedyhiscontributions,hestrugglesf theoppressedtilldraw romhisinsights, nddemoc-raciesareenrichedby the voices of the poorandworkingclassamplified hroughFreireanprojects.Freire's deashave enterededucational iscourseromthe mostcosmopolitan enters o themost remote orners f theearth,andnot sinceJohnDeweyhavethe thoughtsof a philosopherof educationimpactedsuch abroadsphereof public ife in the U.S.The20thanniversaryf thepublication fPedagogyfthe Op-pressed, globalbest-sellerwith more than half a millioncopiesin print n Englishalone,prompteda numberof scholars o un-dertake reshanalyses f Freire'sworkandto situate t histori-callyas the progenitor f a new domain of educationalinquiryandpractice Giroux& Macedo, 1994;McLaren& Lankshear,

Educationalesearcher,ol.30. No.2, pp.15-25

1994;McLaren&Leonard, 993), ustas tpromptedFreire im-self to reflectcritically n the strengths nd limits of his theory(Freire,1994b).Freire's eath nMay1997stilledhis own voiceand haltedhispersonal ontributionso criticalpedagogy,eav-ing it to us, the survivors, o sustainhis legacy,translatehisvision,andcomplete hetasksremainingo buildjust,democra-tic societies.A pedagogy f theoppresseds asneededtodayaswhen Freirefirstarticulatedt. Globaleconomic orcesand domesticpoliticspressU.S.publiceducationoward vermorenarrow ndconser-vativeagendas,husreinscribingndjustifying overty ndpow-erlessnessthroughheirassociation ithparticularil)literaciesndfailure n standardizedests Shannon, 998).Low-income mer-icansfacean increasing ducationgapas the testingstakesgetraised ndaspublicschoolresourcesremorebroadly rivatized.Vouchersandschoolchoiceplansreinforceand extend educa-tional, economic,andsocialinequality Carnoy,2000). At thesametime,voter initiativecampaignsmarginalizehe voicesofnon-Englishpeakersnschoolsandreinvigoratenexclusionarylinguistic olonialism Macedo,2000). Alltheseeffects,coupledwith the growing ncomegapbetween he rich andpoor(Cen-ter on BudgetandPolicyPriorities, 000), promisepredictablenegativeconsequences or historicallydisadvantaged opula-tions,and evenmore sowhen there s a downturnn the overalleconomy.The dominant(neo)conservative iscourseblames the vic-timsof thesepoliciesfortheir own suffering, uggesting hatamoralpovertyprefigures heir social and economic predica-ments (Bennett, 1996), and the ideologicalattack on publicschools and teachersthreatensdeeply groundeddemocraticpossibilities n the culture(Berliner& Biddle, 1995). Mean-while, the reformism f the (neo)liberals roduces ittlechangein eitherurbanschoolsor theirlargercontext (Anyon, 1997),andthuslittlechange n thedaily ivesof thepoorwho arecon-centrated here. Most multicultural ducationapproachesailto addressinjustice and the challengesof transforming n-equitablepowerrelations McCarthy,1990; Nieto, 2000), andevenantiracistpedagogies an succumbto accommodation othestatusquo(Flecha,1999).Without aclear ocus on thepol-itics of schoolingand the need for communityorganizing obuild and sustainmeaningfulreform,little has been accom-plishedeven n urbandistrictswherepeopleof coloroccupyed-ucationaland civicleadershippositions(Henig, Hula, Orr,&Pedescleaux,1999).Freire's ritical"pedagogyfpossibility"ffers heoretical ndpractical lternativeso both the (neo)conservativend(neo)lib-eraldiscourses ndpracticesMcLaren, 999).At theclassroom


3/12

level,curricula imedatempowering oungchildrenanddevel-oping theircapacities o resistinterpersonal ias andpromoteequalityhavebeen findingwider audiences(Derman-Sparks,1989;Schniedewind& Davidson,1998), and more teacher d-ucators are encouragingcriticalpedagogicalpracticesamongtheirstudents,generatingvenwidereffects Wink,2000).' Theorganic iteraciesof the workingclass arebeing harnessed ocontest the deformingmessages f the dominantschool culture(Cushman,1998;Finn, 1999), and workersarefindingcriticalliteracy killsuseful n workplace truggles Hull, 1997). Socialmovements ndactivistshave ranslated reire'sdeas nto orga-nizingprogramswithbroadapplicabilityArnold,Burke, ames,Martin,& Thomas, 1991;Findlay,1994).2Althoughsystemicschoolreform ffortsbasedon Freire'stheoryhavebeenlimitedlargely o the Brazilian ontext(Freire,1993;O'Cadiz,Wong,& Torres,1998), at least one majorproject s underwayn theU.S.3Beyondallthis,Freire ontinues o be mustered o servicein awiderangeof theoretical attles, rom thepoliticsof differ-ence,to cultural tudies, o feminismand racematters Steiner,Krank,McLaren,& Bahruth,2000). Interestn Freire'sunda-mentalideasis strongenoughto promptthe HarvardEduca-tionalReview o reprinthis 1970 seminalessayson culturalac-tion forfreedomFreire, 998b,1998c),andforacademicpressessuchasBerginandGarvey,Routlege,Falmer, nd SUNY to de-vote bookseries o criticalpedagogy.Freire'sife andtheory n-spirecontinuingrevolutionary reams McLaren, 000) andawide arrayof transformativeprograms seethe special ssue ofConvergenceuesteditedbyAllman,Cavanagh,Hang,Haddad,& Mayo,1998, for a sampling).Despitethevastpanoplyof activities ndtheoreticalormula-tionsthat claimallegianceo or derivation romFreire'sheory,important uestions avebeenraised bout tssoundness.tseemsthatoftena blindeyeis turned oward hesetheoretical ifficul-ties,andinsteadan adoringgazetreatsFreiremoreas icon andmyththanasa radicalphilosopherubjecto thelimitsof historyandanecessarilyituatedperspectiveWeiler,1996).Itis true hatFreireookto heartone of Marx'scritiques f Feuerbach-"Thephilosophersaveonlyinterpretedtheorld, nvariousways; hepoint,however, s to changet"(Marx& Engels,1978, p. 145;emphasisn original)-and accomplishedhispoint on a scalehonoringMarxhimself.However,while Marx'sand Freire'slegacies reassuredn the thickness f life,thedurability f theirargumentss farless certain.Freireacknowledgedhe limits ofhis theoretical tatements,but steadfastly efended he coreofhistheoryandjuxtaposednconsistenciesnhistheoryagainsthismorecongruent adicalpractice ndhisright o evolvemorenu-ancedarticulations f hisview(Freire, 994b;Freire& Faundez,1992). Giventhe Marxianphilosophyof praxisat the centerofhis theory,Freire's laimfor his practice o be the most tellingbasis orjudgmenthas tsmerits,butthis defensedoes notabro-gateourobligation o examinecloselyFreire'sanalysis.Radicalsdo not havethe luxuryof cursory r idolatrous tudyof Freire'stheorysinceanyimprovementso it offerpossibilitiesormoreeffectivestruggle, ndmanytheoretical ndpractical hallengesmust be faced n order o realizeFreire's ision andhope.The remainder f thisarticle ketches hephilosophicaloun-dationsof Freire's iewof liberation ndeducation,andpresents

some of the critiques hatundermine he argumentativetruc-tureof thetheory. t outlinesa moreconsistentundergirdingoreducation sapractice f freedomas "akindofhistorico-culturalpolitical psychoanalysis"4nd a more defensible"progressivepostmodernism"Freire,1994b,p. 55, p. 10) thatpreservesheethicalandpolitical hrustat the coreof Freire'sdeas.The chal-lengeis to constructa viewthat retains he liberatory owerofmodernismand its critiqueof dehumanization, ut thatrecog-nizesthemalleability nd contradictions f identity(atboththelevel of the individualand of classes,races,and genders),em-braces he ineliminable pistemicuncertainties nd varietiesofreasonn ourknowing,andrespectsheplurality f compellingconceptions f thegoodwhichcanshapemoralandpolitical ife.Insofarasthischallenge an be met, Freire'sphilosophic egacywill endure.Education as a Practice of Freedom:Freire's ArgumentFreiredeveloped isconception f education sapractice f free-domfroma critical eflection n various dulteducationprojectshe undertook n Brazil n the late 1950s and early1960s (seeGadotti,1994,fora review f thisemergence). hat s,thetheorywas partof a praxis,"reflection nd actionupon the worldinorder o transformt"(Freire,1970, p. 36). At the sametime,Freire'stheory was based on an ontological argumentthatposited praxisas a centraldefining eatureof humanlife andanecessary ondition of freedom.Freirecontendedthat humannature s expressedhrough ntentional,reflective,meaningfulactivity ituatedwithindynamichistorical ndcultural ontextsthatshapeand set limitson thatactivity.Thepraxis hatdefineshumanexistence s markedby this historicity,this dialecticalinterplaybetween the way in which historyand culture makepeopleeven whilepeoplearemaking hatveryhistoryand cul-ture.Humanhistoricitynableshe realizationf freedom, pen-ingupchoicesamongvariouswaysof beingwithinanygivensit-uation.At the level of ourbeinghuman,freedomcan neverbeeliminated romexistence,whileat the levelof our concreteprac-tices,freedom snot agivenbut isalwaysprecariousnd mustbeachieved. n the everydayworld,opportunitieso embodyfree-dom arerealizedthroughcommitments o struggle or one wayof lifeoranother.Freireargued hat the struggle o be free,to be human andmakehistoryandculture romthegivensituation,san inherentpossibilityn the humancondition.Thestrugglesnecessary e-cause he situationcontainsnot onlythispossibilityor human-ization,but also for dehumanization.Dehumanizationmakespeopleobjectsof historyandculture,anddeniestheircapacityto also be self-defining ubjectscreatinghistoryand culture.Thesedehumanizingorcesreside n both thematerial ndpsy-chic conditionsof personsandsituations,so freedomrequirespeople o engage n akindof historico-culturalpoliticalpsycho-analysis.Freireargues hatovercominghelimits of situations sultimatelyan educationalenterprisehat he callsa practiceoffreedom,a permanentorm of culturalre-creationhat enablesthefullestpossible xpressionfhumanexistence.Further, reireholds that democratic ocialismprovides he necessary ondi-tions for eachperson o achievehis or herfreedom, o becomefullyhuman.

I| EDUCATIONAL ESEARCHER


4/12

Beforeexamininghissummary rgumentn moredetail, t isuseful o noteitsoverall tructure. reire ollowsalongtraditionin philosophywhen he links a particularunderstandingofhumannaturewithaconceptionof theproperormation f bothselfandsociety.5Withinthistradition, ometypeof educationand moral ife mediates he cultivationof human nature ntoideal forms of individualandsocial existence.In otherwords,humannaturealone cannotproduce he good life,but must beshapedandnurturednto specific orms hat enable he realiza-tion of what is bestand most fruitful ora community.Educa-tion drawsout thesepossibilitiesromhumannature,and at thesame ime instillsamoralorder apable f resistingmpulseshatthreaten heattainment f whatisgoodforeachpersonandthecommunity.Educationhus sessential ecausewithout t,humanlifewouldnotrise othe evelofexistence utwouldratheremainat the levelof instinctandbasic urvival eeds.AsFreireputit

I cannotunderstand umanbeingsassimply iving.I can under-stand hemonlyashistorically,ulturally, ndsocially xisting...I canunderstandhemonlyasbeingswho aremakers f their"way,"nthemakingfwhichheyay hemselvespen oorcom-mitthemselvesothe"way"hat heymake nd hat hereforee-makeshemaswell. Freire,994b,p.97;emphasisnoriginal)Language, ulture,history,and communityaredependentoneducation,on freedomandthecapacityo create orms("ways")of life. Practical easonandknowledgearecentraln the workofethicalandpolitical ormation,not so much as deliberativeoolsbutasintegral o the actionscreating ultureandhistory.Freire's iewparallels ohnDewey'spragmatism, nda briefcomparisonwill help clarifyFreire'sargument.Dewey had abiological-organiconceptionof human existenceandhe heldthat educationwas a lifelong processof growthand develop-ment intrinsic o individualandsocial self-realizationDewey,1916/1966). He maintainedhathumanbeingsarecreaturesa-pableof socialandcritically eflectiveadaptationo the environ-mentto enable heir uccessfulcoping satisfactionf basicneeds),andthat thisabilitydiffersittle fromwhat othercreatures o inorder o survive.Humanbeings implyhaveparticularapacitiesforintelligence ndsocialorganizationhat enable he formationofculture, nd hemaximal evelopmentfthosecapacitiesnsurethe survival f civilization itselfmerelya successfuladaptation).ForDewey,the most successful daptations equireknowledgeformedandwarrantedn particular ays(Dewey,1922/1930).Mostly,peopleacthabituallynpatternsransmittedia mitatedpractice, equiringittleuseof intelligence.Butnew situationsnwhich habitsprove nadequate r problemsemergemake con-duct becomemoredeliberate.Now, knowledge etsconstructedby forming and testing hypotheses intended to reestablishsmoothfunctioningor enlarge ffectivecopinghabits.This in-telligentadaptationo the environment s subjectn turn to fur-thercyclesof modification nddevelopment.Dewey argued hat the same conditionsthat maximize hisevolutionary daptivepotentialarepreciselyhoselinkedto theformationof the idealsociety: ullparticipation, pencommu-nication with minimalbarriers, riticalexperimentalpracticeaimedatovercomingproblems,andclose attention o the con-sequencesof actions.Theseconditionsexplainboth the powerof science,which refines hem to produce soundlywarranted

knowledge,and the strengthof democracy,which emphasizestheirimplementationn politics.That is, Dewey'snaturalizedphilosophypostulateda biological ubstrateo explain he pre-eminent valueof scientificand democraticpractices Dewey,1920/1957).Freire would agreewith most points in this summaryofDewey's conceptionof human existence.But, in contrast,hebuilthistheorynot so much on the continuitiesbetweenhumanbeingsand the restof the animalworld,buton the discontinu-ities.Dewey'snaturalisticocuson continuitiesperhaps xplainshis relativeemphasison deliberativeprocessesand behaviors(sharedwith otheranimals ndthus moreclosely iedto biology)andthe comparativelyessattentionhe devotes o communica-tive action.Freire's umanisticiew reversesheemphasis ndat-temptsto integratedeliberative nd communicative ctions ntheirparticularnd distinctive ole nproducing ultureandhis-tory.ForFreire,whatis cruciallymportants that humansareanimals hatoperatenot onlyfromreflex,habit,or evenintelli-gentcreative esponse;heyareanimals hat existmeaningfullyin andwiththe worldof historyandculture hat humans hem-selveshaveproduced.Freire hinksthatif we fail to grasphowthe capacity or historical,cultural, inguisticpraxismakesusdifferent romthe restof the organicandinorganicworld,6wewill fail to be able to transform ocietytowarda vision of jus-tice anddemocracy, he goalhe andDeweyshared.FreireandDeweygroundedheirargumentsn ontologicalnterpretationsof humanexistenceand assumed hisasnecessaryo orientanysuccessful ducationalpracticentended o enablehuman lour-ishing, though they had somewhat differentinterpretationsthroughwhichto frame heirtheories.Dewey optedfora natu-ralism hat reliedon a scientific,evolutionary,developmentalapproach,while Freire lecteda humanistviewthatreliedon aculturaland historicistconceptionof freedom hat insists thathumans houldnotbe the mereanimals hatoppressorsndop-pressive ystems ryto turnthem into.ForFreire,heessentially efiningontologicaleature f beinghuman s thatpeopleproducehistoryandculture, venashistoryand cultureproduce hem,andthus boththetheoryandapplica-tion of educationas a practice f freedom"take hepeople'shis-toricityas theirstarting oint" Freire, 994a,p. 65). Thedialec-tical interplaybetween existenceand contextreveals hat anygivensituation,ncludingone'sidentityandself-understanding,is not a necessity.Situations nd identities ongeal n thecourseof time under hepressof historyandculture,butmostimpor-tantlyalsounder he nfluence f humanaction,andtheyare hussusceptibleohuman ntervention,o thepowerof freedom.Theontological ruthof historicityhus not onlydefineshumanna-tureforFreire,butgroundshistheoryof liberation ndprovidestheopening orconcrete fforts o transformoppressiveealities.A practical raspof historicityby the oppressedmeanstheyunderstandheirsituationand themselves ot fatalisticallys anunchangeabletateof affairsas f theirsufferingwasjustifiedbydivinewill or naturalaw,orwas the justdesserts f individualfailures),but rather heyunderstandheirdaily ivesaspresent-ingconcreteproblemsalongwithopportunitiesor transforma-tion.Theyseethat ife(includinghemselves)ould bedifferent,and the moreclearly heydiscernwhy hings and hemselves)reastheyareandhowtheycouldbe otherwise, he more effective

MARCH 001 |117


5/12

their nterventions an be to enablegreaterelf-andcommunity-realization. he oppressed rechallengedo seebeyond ndivid-ualisticexperiencesndparticularituations o discern heforceof systemsandideologies hatpermeate heirdaily ives,struc-tureoppressiondehumanization),nd bindpeople together nlarger, ndsometimesglobal, ontexts.Theconnectionsbetweeneverydayxperience nd theselargerorceshighlight he featuresof problematic"limit-situations"hatmustbe changedby col-lective "limit-acts"hat both contestthosesystemsandideolo-giesand aim at "untested easibilities"r possible utureswithmorespace orself-determinationseeFreire,1994a,1994b).The historical,cultural,and social background hapesthepresentcontext, from the privacyof familylife to the publicspheres f thestateand massmedia. t establisheshefieldwithinwhich free actioncanmove,and even outlinespossiblepsycho-logicalstatesand the most intimateaspectsof aself,from iden-tity to feelingsanddesires.The situational onstraints hatpre-vent freedomare hus alsoalwaysnternal ndnotonlyexternalto individuals.Humanbeings nhabit,andare nhabitedby,thestructures,nstitutions, ocialrelations, ndself-understandingsthatcomprisea people'sculture.The practiceof freedom,as acriticalreflexive raxis,mustgrasp he outwarddirection,mean-ing,andconsequences f action,andalso ts inwardmeaningasthe realization ndarticulation f a self.Therefore, ducationasa practiceof freedommust includea kindof historico-cultural,politicalpsychoanalysishat revealstheformation f theselfandits situationn alltheirdynamicanddialectical elations.Peoplethenbecomecritically onsciousof themselves s theverysortsof creatureshatproduce andareproducedby)theircultureandhistory,and to realizeheir reedom heybecomeengagedn lib-eratory cts hatchallengehe imits internalndexternal) fpar-ticular ituations hat maintainoppression r injustice.Humanfreedomsnotoutsideparticularituations ut isgearedo them.While the context"programs"eople o seeandexperienceheirsituationnaparticular ay, t doesnot"determine"owpeopleareorcanbe (Freire, 994b,p. 98). Peoplearenotfree o choosethetime,place,meanings, tandards,nd so on, intowhichtheyhavebeenthrownbytheirbirth,yet theyareableto takeup spe-cificstanceswithinthat context andmakeof it whattheymay.Freeactionstriveso go beyond hegivenrealityo positand cre-ate a newfuturethrough ffortandstruggle, future hatcannotbesimplydeclaredntoexistencebut must be achieved.Freireargued hatliberation, ppression, ndtheir nterrela-tion arecontingentfacts,while from an ontological point ofview,humanhistoricitymarkspreciselyhepossibilityo chooseonewayof life oranother."Justo, humannature, s it generatesitself in history,does not contain,as partand parcelof itself,beingmore,does not containhumanization,xceptas the voca-tionwhosecontrarysdistortionnhistory"Freire, 994b,p. 99;emphasisnoriginal).Freiredeploys hetheological otion ofvo-cationto build a link betweenparticularontingentchoices, orhumanization, nd universal umanontologicalcapacities.Hewants o invokeatypeof authenticityhatdistinguishes wayofliving that expresses he deepest,most primordialaspectsofhumanexistence.This vocationembodies reedom,andthroughhumanizing ctionpeopleunderstand ndbecomecriticallyn-tentionalabout theircreationof cultureandhistory.Inauthen-ticwaysofbeingdistort hisontological ssenceof beinghuman,

and deny some people the possibilityand rightof being self-defining, elf-realizing,ndself-determining.his denialdefinesdehumanizationroppression.

[W]eare hisbeing-a beingof ongoing, urious,earch, hich"stepsback" romitselfandfiom thelifeit leads.... [W]elive thelifeof avocation,acalling, o humanization,nd .. in dehuman-ization .. we live the life of adistortionofthecall-never anothercalling.Freire,994b,p.98;emphasisnoriginal)Here Freire s extendinghis argumentaboutliberation, orby

conjoiningthe theologicalnotionsof callingandvocation,heemphasizeshe particularityf each individualresponse o theuniversal emands f thehumancondition.He maintainedhathumanization s about concretechoices in history,and onlythose certainchoices are true to ourmost fundamentalnature:"Humanizationis the] ontologicalvocationof humanbeing"(Freire,1994b,p. 98).Freireusedthisontologicalanchor o orienthis furtherargu-ments o establish thicalandpolitical laims or aprivileged o-sition for the oppressedn the struggle or liberation.Personalfreedomas expressedn particular hoicesrepresents nly onepolein a dialectic hat embraces hesocialaspectof allelementsof thesituation,ncluding he self."Itwouldbeimpossibleo de-humanizewithoutbeingdehumanized-so deeparethe socialrootsof the calling"Freire,1994b,p. 99; emphasisn original).Both liberationandoppressionarehistorical, ollectiveactionsof classes.Freire'stheologicalontologyshades nto the Marxistpolitics hatreinterpreted egel'sanalysis f the Master-Slavee-lationshipTorres,1994).Theinescapablessence f theoppres-sorclass s that t embodiesawayof life thatdistortswhat s mostfundamentallyuman.7Caughtn an illusionof its ownindepen-denceandfreedom,heoppressorlasscannotmake herequiredcritiqueof and breachwith theconcrete conomic,political, o-cial,andideologicalorders.These ordersactuallypreventboththe oppressor ndoppressed lasses romachieving he deepestpossibilities f humanization nd freedom.On the otherhand,theoppressedlass acesdaily heimpositions f the dehumaniz-ingsystemsof anunjust ociety.Byrefusingo accede o its sub-ordinated ositionandworking o understandhe raison etreofits structuralormation, heoppressed lasshas anadvantagenintervening trategicallyo overcome he limits in the context.Given the ontologicalcapacity or intentionallydirectingcul-turalre-formation owardhumanizing nds,liberationstruggleis alwaysa possibleprerogativef theoppressed.Fortheoppressed, sindividuals nd as aclass, o discern hetruth of their nature, identities, and situation requirestheachievement fa kind of knowledgehatreaches ehind hewaythingsare to grasp hewaythingscameto be. Here we seetheconnection between Freire'sontological and epistemologicalarguments.Epistemically,heoppressed re acedwiththechal-lengeof knowing systematically nd determinatelywhat is al-readyknownexperientiallynduncritically;hat s,theoppressedmust make goodsenseout of commonsense.8The knowledge thatenablessuch a critiqueof the situation, deology,and the self,must ncludeanunderstandingf thedialectical, ermanenten-sionbetweenconsciousnessnd theworld,betweensubjectivityandobjectivity.ForFreire, his interplaydoes not undermineknowledge rcertainty, utonlymakes hedemand ormethods

1811EDUCATIONAL ESEARCHER


6/12

of criticalanalysismoreemphaticand makes hepragmaticestsof knowing more telling. Through focused questioningandanalysis, he "rigorous,ogical, coherentstructure"Freire&Faundez,1992,p. 39) needed o warrantheknowledgeo guideactioncan be achieved, ubject n turnto furtherquestioning.Critical onsciousnesssmindfulof therelationshipsmongcon-sciousness,ction,andworld,andgraspshe whyof the worldinthe constructive ature fknowing.Freirearguedhatknowledgewas not a stateof mindnor a typeof warrantedpropositionhatcouldbe settled n the mannerof a mathematicalequation,butrathert wasa wayofbeing hat reflectedhe deepesthumanca-pacitiesorproducingulture ndhistory.Criticalknowledge n-foldstheknowerandthe known n a dialectical nityembodiedthrough he creativepowersof existence. t is notsomethinghatisstrictlyhepossession rachievementf anindividual, or canit be testedoutside he contextof actionsituatedwithinspecificcultural ndhistorical orizons seeFreire, 994b,pp. 100-105).Freire'sepistemology id not denythescientific ormof truthor thestrengthof its logicforunderstandingndchangingreal-ity,butat thesame ime it did notgivescience he lastword. Heargued hatneither he everydayknowledgeof experience thecommonsenseof themasses) orthesystematic nowledge fsci-ence (the trained ense of intellectuals) rovidesa guarantee ftruth.Freirewarnedagainst rivilegingither ormofknowledge,whichwould ead oakindof"basism" r "elitism"ndwouldob-struct heirunityasrequiredn liberatoryction(Freire,1994b,pp.84-85; Freire& Faundez, 992,pp.47-48).Furthercouplinghisontological ndepistemologicalositions,Freirearguedhat the conditions hatpromote reedomalsopro-duce the humancapacity or criticalknowledge.He translatedtheseconditions nto communicative ndlinguisticmetaphorsthatprescribedertainmethods orthe educational imensionsof his theoryof liberation.Central o thesemetaphorss his no-tionof dialogue.Knowledge ecomes oundedon dialogue har-acterized yparticipatory,pencommunication ocusedaroundcriticalnquiryandanalysis,inkedto intentionalactionseekingto reconstructhe situation(including heself)and to evaluatedconsequences. hedialoguehatdistinguishesriticalknowledgeandcultural ction or freedom s not somekindof conversation,it is a socialpraxis.To beliberatory,t mustrespectheeverydaylanguage,understanding,ndwayof lifeof theknowers,and itmust seek to createsituations n which they can moredeeplyexpress heir own hopesand intentions.Dialogueenablestheoppressedo "speak trueword"and overcome heir"silencing"(Freire,1970, 1994a)not simplyat the communicative r lin-guistic evels,but also n regardo theirformingculture,history,and heirownidentities.Thiscultural ction or iberation evealstheprofoundmportancef languageor apeople'sbeing,know-ing, andcapacity o producereality.Deliberative nd commu-nicativeaction areintegratedo achieve he authentic,uniquelyhumanexistence hat iberation ntails.Theoppressedmustreadand know he worldandthemselvesn a criticalwaythatrevealstheprocessesf historicalormationn order o write heir uture,transcendinghe present imitsandexpressingheirprimordialpowerof humanization.Withoutthestruggleo transformeal-ity, therecanbeneithergenuinecriticalknowledgenorauthen-tic modesof being.

Conscientizations the termFreire sed o capturehecomplexontological, pistemological,ndethical-politicaleatures f ed-ucationasapractice f freedom.Hisanalysis lacedcultural or-mation,knowledge reation, ndlinguisticpractices scentral osituations ndidentityandthus alsoasnecessarilyentral o rev-olutionary oranyother)socialchange.Sincesituationsareper-meatedwithdefiningaxesof powerandauthorityhat establishstandardsndnorms n favorof some ratherhanothers, ibera-tion entailsa people's struggle o be, to feel, to know, and tospeak or themselves. Themorethepeoplebecome hemselves,the better hedemocracy"Horton& Freire,1990, p. 145).As peopletake hold of the indeterminatenessf historyandtheopennessof thefuture, heirhopesand dreams f a morejustlife becomerealizedas the fulfillmentof an "ontological eed"(Freire,1994b,p. 8). Striving o meet theseprimordial umanneeds,andwielding"truthasan ethicalqualityof the struggle"(Freire,1994b,p.8), the politicsof liberationharnesses he on-tologicalandepistemologicaloundationsof existence o over-come the limits of oppression nd builda democratic ocialismthat sustainsdiverse ommunities."[W]e,asexistent, utfit our-selvesto engagein the struggle n quest of and in defense ofequality fopportunity, ythevery actthat,aslivingbeings,weareradically ifferent romone another"Freire,1994b,p. 97).Freireunderstoodhow fragileandcontingent hisstrugglehadto be,andacceptedhatno guaranteesouldwarranthehuman-isticreinventionfcitizenship.Conscientizations thusamodeoflifealwaysntheprocess fbecoming, ne thatenactsongoing ul-turalaction orliberationhataccepts n ethic of the "finenessfthestriving"s"ajobto do inhistory"Freire, 994b,p. 50).Thisethic ndicatespreciselyheimportancef education s apracticeof freedom ora successful evolutionbecauset enables he on-goingreinventionnd recreation f democratic ulture.

Thisoverview fFreire'sargumentativetructureorhistheoryof liberationand education dentifiedthe foundational nter-relationshipsamong his ontological,epistemological, thical,andpoliticalanalyses.Freireargued hateducationas a practiceof freedom s actuallya necessary spectof beingfullyhuman.Without this kindofpraxis,humanbeingscease o be the "mak-ers of theirway"andtheybecomesimplywhathistorymakesofthem. ForFreire,o behumanmeans o makeandremake ne'sselfthroughmakinghistoryandculture, o struggleagainst helimiting conditionsthat preventsuch creativeaction, and todreamnto existenceaworldwhereeverypersonhas thisoppor-tunityandresponsibility.Critical Problems in Freire's Theoryof Liberation EducationFrom he outsetandcontinuing oday,awiderangeof criticismechoes he broad horusofpraise or Freire'stheoryof liberationand education.Thesecontrasting ommentaries amefromthepoliticalLeftaswell asthe Right,from both revolutionaryndreactionaryctivists ndacademics.n this sectionof thisessaywill outlinesomeof the criticalproblemsn the foundationsofFreire's iew,andsuggestways nwhichsome of hisconclusionscanbe preserved r bettersupported ven if the specificsof hisargumentsail.On thepublication f PedagogyftheOppressed,ne libertar-ian reviewer ismissed t as a "trulybadbook"and claimed hat

MARCH 001|11


7/12

it wasseriously eficientnrecognizinghestrengthsftraditionaleducation,profoundly nadequate s a revolutionaryheory,andnot as good as many other sourcesfor educationalchangeinNorth America(Friedenberg,971). However his sort of shrillandpedanticcriticismwas neitherthe norm nor accurateandfair.Otherearly eviewers,articularlyhoseworking n thefieldof adulteducation,ound moremerit nbuildingon theinsightsthat Freireoffered(see Grabowski,1973). Educatorsat everylevelmoldedFreire'stheory o theirownneeds,andtheirdesireto maketheirpracticemore consistentwith theirmoralandpo-litical deals ed themto tryto apply he theoryevenwithinin-stitutionsstructurallyesistanto aliberatoryracticesee, orex-ample,Livingston,1986;Shor, 1980, 1987).Freire'sanalyticframeworkhat createdan oppositionbe-tweenbanking nddialogicalormsofeducationgotwidely nter-pretedas a "method" hatcould transform lassroompractices.However,this amounts to a kind of domesticationof Freire'soveralltheoryand intent.AsAronowitz 1993) correctly rguedin hisanalysis f thisdepoliticization f Freire,the ask f thisrevolutionaryedagogys nottofosterriticalon-sciousnessn order o improve ognitiveearning,hestudent'sself-esteem,reven o assistn hisaspirationo fulfillhishuman"potential"....t is to the iberationf theoppressedshistoricalsubjectswithin heframeworkf revolutionarybjectiveshatFreire'spedagogysdirected.pp.11-12)While the liberalmethodologicalappropriation f Freire'sradicalpedagogypredominatedn the U.S., at the same time anew domainofeducationalesearchndtheory mergedhatwasexplicitlyarticulated o variouselementsof Freire's iew. This

emergingtraditionof criticalpedagogy nvestigated he prac-tices andcurricula f schools ortheirrelationshipo dominantideologies Apple,1979, 1982) and for theirpossibilitiesorop-positionand the assertion f democratic alues(Giroux,1983,1988;Giroux& McLaren,1989). In addition, hecriticalped-agogy raditionbecameentwinedwithsomestrands f feministtheory(hooks, 1994; Luke& Gore, 1992), thoughfeministsraised eriousquestionsaboutthe compatibility f this linkage(Ellsworth, 989;Weiler,1991).

Ironically,despite ts embracen educational ircles,Freire'stheoryappearedustat the momentwhena profoundrupturewith its underlyinghumanistandMarxistassumptionsmovedfrom heperipheryo the coreof intellectual ebates n theacad-emy and within oppositionalpoliticalformations.Questionswerebeingdirectedat the foundations f philosophyand of thehumansciences see, orexample,Foucault,1972, 1973;Geertz,1973;Habermas, 971;Taylor,1971)thatundermine heargu-mentative tructure f Freire'sphilosophyof praxis. n lightoftheseproblematics,Freire's heoryappearso be insufficientlyhistoricized,venthoughheplacesahistorical ndcultural raxisat its core.As we will see,thisleads o a connectedgroupof on-tologicalandepistemological uandarieshat require ubstan-tiallydifferentresponseshan Freireprovides. n addition,be-causeof the structure f his arguments,heseproblemsmpactFreire's thicalandpoliticalpositions incehe supportshembyontologicalappeals o human natureand by epistemicclaimsaboutsituations(including elf-understandings).n theremain-der of this sectionof thisessay, heseproblemswill be outlined

froma philosophicpoint of view, and preliminary rgumentswill be suggested o preserveome measure f Freire's heoreti-calapparatusndaimseven f some ofhisspecificargumentsail.First, helogicof Freire'sontologicalhistoricism annotreachhis humanist onclusions.While asoundargumentanconcludethathistoricitythehumancapacityo producecultureandhis-toryeven as cultureandhistoryproducehumanexistence) s adefining eature f human ife,Freire'surther laim hathuman-ization s anontological ocationandcallinghas o bequestioned.Though tmaybemetaphysicallyomfortingosupposehatonlyhumanizations true o ourprimordialature ndthatdehuman-ization s onlya historical ccident, his account ounders.Logicentails hatallhumanactionmust be consistentwithontologicalfeatures fexistence.De)humanizationhusconcerns umanac-tionsthatcanonlybe consistentwith orin contradictionopar-ticularonceptions f howone shouldbe ut not how humans re.Freirehushasto accept hathiscritique fdomination manatesfromaspecifichistorical nd cultural ocationand mustbemadeon the basisof contingentethicalandpoliticalargument atherthanuniversalontologicalappeals McLaren& Leonard,1994;Weiler,1991).Fromthepointof view of thelogicof ontologyandhistoric-ity, personswho dominateoroppressothersarenonetheless tillhuman and expressing ome primordialaspectsof existence.This possibilitywas at the coreof Nietzsche'sarguments boutthe SuperMan as unsurpassed reatorof historyand culture(Nietzsche,1990). In thatview,moralitywas for theweak,andappealsto a vision of humanizationor to equalopportunitywouldmerelybe for those who lacked he will and the capacityforexerting heirpower.Whilethisnihilisticpill is a bitterone,thearguments gainsthaving o swallow t areethicalandpolit-ical.Ontologically, umanbeingsarepurelypossibility, ircum-scribedby theirembodiment n specificsituationsand back-groundsof culture,history,and meaning.In some moments,Freireequivocatedas the forceof this logic pushedagainsthisgeneralargumentassummarizedn the previous ection of thisessay.Forexample,he notedthat humanizations "somethingconstitutednhistory"ndnot"apriorinhistory"Freire, 994b,p. 99). But Freire's ssertion f an ontologicalprivilege orhu-manizationas the onlypossibility or an authenticexistencere-ducesto justthe sort of apriorihistorical laimhe recognizes sfundamentalist,onservative,ndcontradictoryo the positionhe seeks.In the samevein, the logicof the thoroughlyhistoricized x-istence hat is most consistentwith the coreof Freire'stheory sincompatiblewith thenotion of authenticitympliedwith suchconceptsasontological ocationandcalling. fhumanexistencecannotcompletely scape romparticular istorical nd culturalhorizonsthen any claims of authenticitycannot be universal(Adorno,1973). Idealsof personhoodwill shift with time andplaceandtherecan be no ultimate"true ore"of what a personis that stheendproductofconsciousness-raising.oreover,herelationshipbetweenpersonhoodandcitizenship s not neatlysolvablebutinstead ndures sanexistential ilemma o belivedthroughwithuncertaintyMargonis,1993). Ifhumanexistencecannottranscendts rootednessn particularituations o be auniversalpuresubjectof history, he loss of certainty xtends othe emancipatoryguaranteesFreirehoped for from actions

2011EDUCATIONALESEARCHER


8/12


9/12

anyparticular nalysisof reality, elf,or identitycannotescapeperspectivallindspotsandhistorical orizons.This is notquitethe "unitaryunderstanding f the world"(Friere& Faundez,1992, p. 47) allegedby Freire,although he testof truth s notfar romhisproposals.Thetestorthewarrant orontologicalorepistemic laimsbecomesnot solelya matterof logic,theory,ormethod(althoughhesedo not becomemeaningless)ut alsobe-comespragmatic.This conclusion elevates he demandfor anethicsandpoliticsconsistentwithafullyhistoricizedphilosophyof praxis n order o providegrounds or adequateustificationforliberatory ction.Assummarizedarlier, reire erived ispolitics romanotherclaimedontological elosfor humannature, n thiscasea com-mitment o equality f opportunity asedon humandifferences,thathe thenextrapolatedo apreferenceordemocraticocialism.But this claimmustface otherpossible nterpretations. obbes(1968), forexample,argued hat humans n a stateof nature,nthe fullgloryof theirdifferences,wereprompted o a war of allagainst ll,whichwasresolved nlybytheemergence f a domi-nantforceable o subduecompetitors ndextract commitmentto fealty.Freiremakesanotherontological rgumentorhispol-iticswhenhesuggests setofquestionshatpropel he formationof society(Freire,1994b,p. 98). He maybe rightthat humansseekto know the "why" nd the "whither" f existence, inceallhuman societiesseemto offerexplanationsor suchquestions.Butno suchanthropologicalvidence letaloneapriori ntolog-icalreasoning) xtends o his further laimthattheyseek to an-swer"in avor fwhat,againstwhat, orwhom,againstwhom" heculture and society are organized.Although human naturealoneprovidesonlyverythinsupport orparticular thicalandpoliticalpositions,thosewho struggle or liberationandjusticeneednot settle formight makingright,norsuccumbto eithera Machiavellianmoralism r aparalyzingostmodernelativism(on this latterpoint, see McLaren& Farahmandpur,000).Freire'spositionsimplyrequires ifferentargumentation.Therearepossibledirections uchanargument ouldgo thatwouldbeconsistentwithahistoricist,nonfoundationalperspec-tive. Forexample,Hampshire1983) arguedhatpossiblemoralwaysof life areakin to thediversity f naturallanguages,whichmeans hatcompeting oundand validconceptionsof thegoodwouldbeendemic ohumanexistence ven nanidealworld.Yetevenacceptingdiversity sfundamentalo humannature,and acontextof competingvalidconceptionsof thegood,Hampshiremaintainedhatsufficientminimalconditionsexist forgeneralagreement o a thin conceptionof procedural ustice.The at-tributes f thisconceptionareakinto Freire's otion of dialogue(e.g.,everyvoice must be included)andbringmoralandpoliti-cal judgments hemselvesonto the terrainof historically on-testedactionrightalongwithunderstandingsf theself andtheworld.Throughan argumentof this type, the conditions thatFreireadduced hat favorthe possibilityof self-realization ndself-determinationthroughhe creation fculture ndhistory anbeloosely inkedto anontologicalorigin, houghmuchmore sneededto warrant pecificethical or politicalpositions.Freiremaybewelljustified n hispoliticalandethicalpreferentialp-tion forthepoor(McLaren, 999),but therenonethelessanbeno ontologicalpriorityorthisorfor democraticocialism.

Reconstructing Freire's Theory:Concluding ReflectionsThe foregoingcritiqueof Freire'sheoryfocusedon the philo-sophicarguments omprisingts ontologicalandepistemologi-cal foundations.Problemswere dentifiedn thelogicof Freire'shistoricistapproach ecausehe didnotgo farenough n refram-ingsome of the universalistndahistoric lements hatremainedin his position,and he thus expected ustificationsromthosefoundationshattheycouldnotprovide. naddition, heseprob-lems undercuthis ethical and politicalconceptions.However,the line of Freire'sreasoning stablishedworthwhiledirectionsforatheoryof liberationducation ndsetupcertain onclusionscapableof beingsupportedanddevelopedbyotherarguments.Thisconcludingsection of theessay ollowssome of thoselinesand suggestsan ethical and political position, militant non-violence, hatwould needto be central o a moreadequateheoryof educationas apracticeof freedom.Asnotedin the introduc-tion, the aim is to retain he liberatory owerof the critiqueofdehumanizationwhilerecognizinghe malleability ndcontra-dictionsof identity,embracinghe uncertaintiesnd varieties freason n knowledge,andrespectinghepluralcompellingcon-ceptionsof thegoodthatcanshapeajust,democraticociety.As Freire lwaysmaintained,he cultural ndhistoricalpraxisthat s at theheartof beinghuman sunending.We cannot ran-scend ourexistenceas"unconcluded,imited, conditioned,his-toricalbeings" nd this limitactuallyprovides he"opportunityof settingourselvesree" nsofaraswe join the "political trug-gle for transformation f the world"(Freire,1994b, p. 100).Historicitybequeaths his struggle,and it is the core of free-dom. Cultureis a contesteddomainthat providesno escapefromthechallengeo identify ts"negativities"nd"positivities"(Freire,1994b,p. 107) in order o constructbulwarks f resis-tance to dehumanizationas well as constructthe groundsforself-determination.While thereareno guaranteesf trueinsightinto self or theworldto guide iberatory ction,and no guaran-tees that the desiredtransformationsan be achieved,what iscertain s that the odds areagainst hose withoutthe traditionalmeansof power.Thus,

one of the tasks faprogressiveopularducation,esterdaystoday,stoseek, ymeans f acriticalnderstandingfthemech-anisms f social onflict,o furtherheprocessnwhich heweak-nessof theoppressedurnsntoa strengthapablefconvertingtheoppressor'strengthntoweakness.Freire,994b,p. 125)AlthoughFreiredid not acknowledgehis, theseobjectivesareexactlyhestrategy f militantnonviolenceGandhi,1961;King,1963;Sharp,1973).Thoughhepersonallybhorred iolence seeMcLaren,000), Freire eemed o regard onviolence nly ntac-ticalandnot strategicerms.He readilyasserted hat revolutionmightentailviolentmeans,anddeferredquestions boutviolencebytheoppressedo thepriorquestionof theunrelentingiolenceof theoppressorElias,1994;Freire,1970;McLaren, 000).Yet,Freire oted thatthe "ethical ndpoliticalawareness f thefight-ers is of paramountmportance"or the successof liberationstrugglesvenwhentheyaremilitary nes(Freire, 994b,p. 172).Nonetheless,Freireclearlyailed osee thepossibilityhat he the-ory andstrategyof militantnonviolenceoffereda way to con-

21| EDUCATIONAL ESEARCHER


10/12

struct an integratedhistoricist theory of liberation education thatcombined consistent ontological, epistemological, ethical, andpolitical positions.

Ontological groundlessness and epistemic uncertainty residewithin cultural horizons embracinga diversityof moraland polit-ical goods, and together generate constraints that substantiallyweaken the justifications for violence, even for seemingly justcauses. Ethical theory and the tradition of common law alike rec-ognize thatverystringenttestsmust be met to warrantkilling, evenin self-defense.Similarly,the currentoutcry about the prevalenceof errors n death penaltycases reflects the moral revulsionexperi-enced by people across the political spectrumwhen those testsarenot satisfied.Advocates of just wars (the sort we can assumeliber-ation struggles o be) facemoralhurdles that areexceptionallydif-ficult to surmount in both the decision to wagewarand in its con-duct (Teichman, 1986; Walzer, 1977). The certitude of deathdemands that those who take life possessa level of certitudeaboutthe situation and the self that is perhapsbeyond reach,especiallyin the case of death on the scaleof war. Yet, if Freire s right thatthe strugglefor freedomis the fate of human existence,then waysto fight for one way of life rather han anothermust be found thathonor epistemic, moral, and ontological uncertaintyof a radicalsort. Militant nonviolence preservesFreire'saim to achievehumanfreedom in a just, democratic society without abandoning theconditional, historicist foundations that his theory requires.Cultural action for liberation wedded to militant nonviolencefurnishes an ethical and political framework consistent with ahistoricized and alwayspartially opaque ontology and a histori-cized, perspectivalepistemology (Glass, 1996). This is a methodof radical action unconstrained by meanings and knowledgeclaims that are historically situated and culturally constructed,and that is suited to a polyvocal discourse giving expression toidentities markedby contradictory, multiple, and shifting bound-aries. It gives shape and transformativeforce to struggleswithinintensively contested contexts without reinscribing violence orreinstantiating discourses and relations of domination. Such aninterpretation of cultural action for liberation fortifies the basicprinciples of a pluralistic democracy, and is also capableof com-bating armedforce, defending territory,and facing up to the realpolitics of an armed and aggressive world (Boserup & Mack,1975; Sharp, 1985). The reconstruction of Freire'stheory sug-gested here is consistent with the dialogical practices that he ar-gued were central to education as a practice of freedom, andwith the importance he placed on ideological struggle as a lead-ing element in overcoming oppression (Coben, 1998; Mayo,1999). It provides a political strategy that makes more crediblethe demand for a permanent struggle for liberation since it pre-serves to all equally the power to seek self-determined hopes anddreams.

The critiquesand questions that challenge Freire'sarticulationof a philosophy of praxis cannot diminish the impact Freire'swork will continue to have. As science has long demonstrated,imperfect theories do not render action impossible. Freire's in-sights will endure, and both orient critical pedagogical theoryand liberatoryeducational practice.Freire ndeed capturedsomeof the most telling qualitiesof what it is to be human, and so edu-cation as a practice of freedom will remain pivotal for the real-

ization of whatever ideal of the person or of society one imagines.The legacy of Freire'stheory, just as its origins, is first and fore-most to be found as a lived praxisof liberation in the global, var-iegated efforts to translate it into every conceivable context. Forthe contributions of his theory and his life toward the creation ofmore justice and democracy, a world will continue to mourn thedeath of Paulo Freire.NOTES

Thispaperwasinitiallydraftedmmediately fterFreire's eath or aspecialcollection hat nevercameto fruition.Subsequentdraftsbene-fitedenormouslyromthe commentsandcriticisms f PiaWong,FrankMargonis,EduardoDuarte,andthe Educational esearchernonymousreviewersnd editors.Responsibilityor allremaining bscurities, rob-lems,and errors estssolelywithme.1Wink (2000), andSchneidewind nd Davidson 1998), are n sec-ond editions,andDerman-Sparks's1989) is in its 11thprinting.2 EducatingforChange yArnoldet al. (1991) hadits fifthprintingin 1996.

3 The authorand Phoenix AZ)UnionHighSchoolDistrict,with 12schoolsandmore than22,000 students,half of whomqualify orfree-orreduced-priceunchesand anequalnumberof whomhavehome an-guagesother hanEnglish,arecurrently eveloping ucha project.

4 Freire 1994b,p. 55) reportshat ErichFrommwas "deadright"ouse thisphrase o describeFreire's ducationalpractice.5 FromPlatoandAristotleorwardn theWesternphilosophicradi-tion,and fromMengTzuandChuangTzu forwardn the Chinese ra-dition, hese inkshavebeencentral omanyethical ndpoliticalheories,justastheyare n a widevarietyof religiousdoctrines.

6 Freire's ffort o distance umans romotheranimalshas beenchal-lengedasspecies-istndreflectivef theEuropeanmodesof thought hatpervade isview.Bowers1983)raised heseconcernsn a trenchant ri-tiqueof Freire'sassumptions,harginghattheymask heculturalnva-sionofhistheorywhen tsupportsnterventionsnnon-Westernontexts.

7 Freirenonethelessrecognizedhat individuals romthe oppressorclasscouldcommit a kind of class uicide o berebornandin solidaritywith theoppressedsee,forexample,Freire,1973, p. 18). Elias 1994)discussed he religious anguageandsymbolism hat Freirefrequentlyemployed n referringo thisprocessas anEaster.

8 FreireollowsGramsci 1971) in thisanalysis seeespeciallyFreire& Faundez,1992, andFriere,1998a).Forextendeddiscussions f thetheoretical onnectionsbetweenFreire ndGramsci,ee Coben(1998)andMayo(1999).REFERENCESAdorno,T. (1973). Thejargonfauthenticity. vanston:Northwestern

UniversityPress.Allman,P.,Cavanagh,C., Hang,C. L.,Haddad,S., & Mayo,P. (Eds.).(1998). [Specialssuedevoted o PauloFreire].Convergence,1(1/2).Anyon,J. (1997). Ghettoschooling: politicaleconomyfurbaneduca-tionalreform.New York:TeachersCollegePress.Apple,M. W. (1979). Ideologyndcurriculum. oston:Routledgeand

KeganPaul.Apple,M. W. (1982). Educationandpower.Boston:Routledgeand

KeganPaul.Arnold,R, Burke,B.,James,C., Martin,D., &Thomas,B. (1991).Edu-catingfor hange. oronto:Between he Linesand the DorisMarshallInstitute orEducationandAction.

Aronowitz,S. (1993). PauloFreire's adicaldemocratic umanism. nP. McLaren& P. Leonard Eds.),PauloFreire:A critical ncounter(pp.8-24). London:Routledge.

MARCH0011123


11/12

Bennett,W. (1996). Bodycount:Moralpovertyndhowto winAmer-ica'swaragainst rime nddrugs.New York:Simon & Schuster.Berliner,D., & Biddle,B. (1995). Themanufacturedrisis:Myths,audand the attackonAmerica'spublicschools.Reading,MA: AddisonWesley.Boserup,A., & Mack,A. (1975). Warwithoutweapons: onviolencennationaldefense. ew York:Schocken.Bowers,C. A. (1983). Linguisticroots of cultural nvasion n PauloFreire'spedagogy.TeachersCollegeRecord,4(4), 935-953.Carnoy,M. (2000). Schoolchoice?Or is it privatization?ducationalResearcher,9(7), 15-20.Centeron BudgetandPolicyPriorities.2000, September ). NewIRSdata howdramaticincomegainst thetop hatfaroutstripncomegains

for the restof thepopulation.Availablenline:www.cbpp.org].Coben, D. (1998). Radicalheroes:Gramsci, reire,and thepoliticsofadulteducation. ew York:GarlandPublishing, nc.Cushman,E. (1998). Thestrugglend the tools:Oraland literatetrate-gies n an innercitycommunity. lbany,NY: SUNY Press.

Derman-Sparks,.,& A.B.C.TaskForce. 1989).Anti-bias urriculum:Toolsfor mpoweringyounghildren.Washington,DC: NationalAsso-ciation or the Educationof YoungChildren.

Dewey,J. (1930). Human nature nd conduct.New York:ModernLi-brary. Originalworkpublished1922)

Dewey,J. (1957). Reconstructionnphilosophy. oston:Beacon.(Orig-inal workpublished1920)Dewey, J. (1966). Democracynd education.New York:Macmillan.

(Originalworkpublished1916)Elias,J. L. (1994). PauloFreire:Pedagogue f liberation.Malabar,FL:KriegerPublishingCo.Ellsworth,E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering?Workingthrough he repressivemythsof criticalpedagogy.HarvardEduca-tionalReview, 9(3), 297-324.

Findlay,P. (1994). Conscientizationnd socialmovementsn Canada.In P. McLaren& C. LankshearEds.),Politicsof liberation: athsfromFreire(pp. 108-122). London:Routedge.

Finn,P. (1999). Literacywith an attitude:Educatingworking-classhil-dren n theirownself-interest.lbany,NY: SUNY Press.Flecha,R. (1999). Modernand postmodernracism n Europe:Dia-logicand anti-racistpedagogies.HarvardEducationaleview, 9(2),150-171.

Foucault,M. (1972). Thearcheologyfknowledge,nd, Thediscoursenlanguage.New York:Pantheon.Foucault,M. (1973). Theorderofthings:Anarcheologyfthehuman ci-ences.New York:Vintage.Freire,P. (1970). Pedagogyftheoppressed.ew York:Seabury.Freire,P. (1973).Educationforritical onsciousness.ew York:Seabury.Freire,P. (1993). Pedagogyfthecity.New York:Continuum.Freire,P. (1994a).Pedagogyftheoppressed20th anniversarydition).New York:Continuum.

Freire,P. (1994b).Pedagogyfhope:Reliving edagogy f theOppressed.NewYork:Continuum.Freire, . (1998a).Pedagogyffieedom:thics, emocracy,ndcivic ourage.New York:Rowman& LittlefieldPublishers.Freire,P. (1998b).The adult iteracyprocess scultural ction or free-dom. HarvardEducational eview, 8(4), 480-498.Freire,P. (1998c).Cultural ctionand conscientization.HarvardEdu-cationalReview,8(4), 499-521.Freire,P., & Faundez,A. (1992). Learning o question.New York:Continuum.Friedenberg, . Z. (1971). Reviewof Pedagogyf theOppressed.om-

parativeEducationReview, 5(3), 378-380.Gadotti,M. (1994). ReadingPauloFreire:His lifeand work.Albany,NY: SUNYPress.

Gandhi,M. K.(1961).Nonviolentesistance.ewYork: chockenBooks.Geertz,C. (1973). Theinterpretationfcultures. ew York:BasicBooks.Giroux,H. A. (1983). Theoryndresistancen education: pedagogyfortheopposition.outhHadley,MA:BerginandGarvey.Giroux,H. A. (1988).Schoolingnd hestruggleforpublicife:Criticalped-agogyn themodernage.Minneapolis: niversity f MinnesotaPress.Giroux,H. A., & Macedo,D. (Eds.). 1994).PauloFreire:History, ed-agogy ndstruggle.Minneapolis:University f MinnesotaPress.

Giroux,H. A., & McLaren,P. (Eds.). (1989). Criticalpedagogy,hestate,andculturalstruggle. lbany:SUNYPress.Glass,R. D. (1996). OnPauloFreire'stheory fliberationndeducation,andnonviolence.tanford,CA:StanfordUniversity h.D.dissertation.Grabowski, . (Ed.).(1973). PauloFreire:A revolutionaryilemmafortheadulteducator.yracuse,NY:SyracuseUniversityPublicationsnContinuingEducation.Gramsci,A. (1971). Selectionsrom thePrisonNotebooks.New York:International ublishers.

Griinbaum,A. (1984). Thefoundations fpsychoanalysis:philosophiccritique.Berkeley:University f CaliforniaPress.Habermas, . (1971). Knowledgendhuman nterests. oston: BeaconPress.

Hampshire,S. (1983).Morality ndconflict.Cambridge:HarvardUni-versityPress.

Harding,S., & Hintikka,M. (Eds.). (1983). Discoveringeality: emi-nistperspectivesnepistemology,etaphysics,ethodology,ndthephi-losophy fscience.Dordrecht:Reidel.

Henig,J., Hula, R., Orr,M., & Pedescleaux,D. (1999). Thecolorofschoolreform:Race,politics,and the challenge f urbaneducation.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Hobbes,T. (1968).Leviathan. .B.MacphersonEd.).Harmondsworth:Penguin.hooks,b. (1994). Teachingotransgress:ducation sthepractice ffree-dom.New York:Routledge.Horton,M., & Freire,P. (1990). Wemake he roadbywalking:Con-versationsn education ndsocialchange.Philadelphia: empleUni-versityPress.Hull, G. (Ed.). (1997). Changingwork,changingworkers: riticalper-spectivesnlanguage,iteracy,ndskills.Albany,NY: SUNYPress.

King,Jr.,M. L. (1963). Letter romBirminghamCityJail.In Whywecan'twait(pp.77-100). New York:Harper& Row..Livingston,D. (Ed.).(1986). Criticalpedagogyndculturalpower.outh

Hadley,MA:BerginandGarvey.Luke, C., & Gore,J. (Eds.). (1992). Feminisms nd criticalpedagogy.New York:Routledge.Macedo,D. (2000). The colonialismof the EnglishOnly movement.Educational esearcher,9(3), 15-24.Margonis,F. (1993). Leftistpedagogy ndenlightenmentaith.Philos-ophyofEducation 993 (pp. 250-262). Urbana, L:Proceedings fthePhilosophy f EducationSociety.Marx,K., & Engels,F. (1978). TheMarx-Engelseader2nd ed.; R.Tucker,Ed.).New York:W. W. Norton.Mayo,P. (1999). Gramsci, reireand adult education: ossibilitiesfor

transformativection.London:Zed Books.McCarthy,C. (1990). Race ndcurriculum. ondon:FalmerPress.McLaren,P. (1999). A pedagogyof possibility:Reflectingupon PauloFreire'sPoliticsof Education.Educational esearcher,8(2), 49-56.McLaren,P. (2000). CheGuevara, auloFreire, ndthepedagogyfrev-olution.Lanham,MD: Rowman& LittlefieldPublishers,nc.McLaren,P., & Farahmandpur,R. (2000). ReconsideringMarxinpost-Marxist imes:A requiemfor postmodernism?EducationalResearcher,9(3), 25-33.McLaren, ., & Lankshear, . (Eds.). 1994).Politicsofliberation:aths

fromFreire.London:Routledge.EI DUCATIONAL RESEARCHER


12/12

freire,praxis,

Documents