Response to Freire's "Fear of freedom"

     Freire considers many of the "oppressed" to be hindered in the process of self-realization and advancement by a "freedom of fear" that is actually taught them by the "oppressor."  The importance that the Object internalize this concept--upon which the Subject relies to maintain dominance-- is essential to the maintenance of the status quo.  This "fear of freedom" is rarely acknowledged by the infected.  In fact, the possibility that the sufferer is unaware of the fear is very real; they may have simply internalized the Subject's vision  completely. In order for the power balance to remain stable, the oppressor must convince the oppressed that they are worthy of the power they possess and create a definition of "success" for the oppressed to strive toward.
    The definition of success-- as posited by the Subject-- is their own condition.  To be successful is to be a part of, and a participant in,  the world of the oppressor.  The oppressed have internalized this idea to such an extent that their desire is not for the improved condition of their class but for the betterment of their own lives as individuals.  They don't strive for freedom; they want security-- to be accepted  and named by the dominant society as one of their own.
     This separation of the oppressed individual from his people is an extremely effective way to maintain the status quo.  It means, basically, the oppressed support and continue the policies of the dominant class.
     When I ask my students why they want to learn English, the answers vary but most contain a component of ownership.  They want to "own" something: a house, a car, land, a business.  They--who are often unable to survive in their countries of origin because the policies of "owners" have depressed wages and educational opportunities into virtual nonexistence--want to enact those same policies on others.  Of course, they say to themselves, they will be fair; they will treat their workers with respect and support their efforts to become "owners" after their own right.  And, they may well be fair; they may pay better wages and treat their workers better; however, they will have done nothing to facilitate or instigate change in the system which is -- by definition -- unjust. I'm sure there were slave holders that treated their slaves relatively well. They may have fed them well, allowed them to marry, not sold their children and perhaps, after years of service, they may have even granted some of them freedom.  Should we regard these "nice" slave holders as a justification for the defense of slavery?  What is more important?  That they treated the people they "owned" well or that they "owned" people-- an idea and practice beyond grotesque.
     We need not look so far back into history to consider successful instances of the Subject convincing the oppressed to maintain the status quo; to work against their own interests and further the interests of the dominant class. Recent cuts in social services including SNAP (food stamps), a no vote for extension of unemployment benefits, cuts in educational services, resistance to the idea that the minimum wage is wholly inappropriate and the most vociferous objections to any type of health care reform are supported, in large part, by Senators and Representatives from Southern states.  States which are the poorest, that have the highest mortality and unemployment rates and the lowest quality of life ratings.  What's up with that?
     

Response to Donald Mecedo's take on Freire's critics

          Macedo feels, and appropriately documents, that Freire's work is often overlooked or ignored by mainstream academics.  In particular, he notes that several "highly literate" colleagues (Gregory Jay and Gerald Graff) find fault with Freire's lack of "language clarity" and criticize a writing style that " speaks of but never to those who oppose its premises." (20) Further, he documents a conversation wherein an unnamed colleague, who he considered to be "politically aggressive and to have a keen understanding of Freire's work," to object to his use of "Marxist jargon."(20) Macedo argues successfully that Freire uses language appropriate to his goal.  By naming the "Subject" and "Object" oppressor and oppressed respectively, he is using the clearest possible language, if not the most palatable to those who seek to initiate social change through persuasion rather than by a show of force.  Persuasion as a means to bring about social change is entirely insufficient- a type of bet hedging- an assertion that we think things should be different but are unwilling to embody the level of force required to bring about change.  
     Force is necessary but not necessarily violent.  Gandhi was forceful. Martin Luther King Jr. communicated his vision to the people without advocating the use of violence.  Both men knew, as Freire did, that radical social change is not about overthrow but about the awakening of people to the reality of their condition. An acknowledgement by the Objects that they have internalized the "fear of freedom" and that they are willing to push through it to facilitate the conditions necessary for improvement of all oppressed people--not just an individual person being oppressed.
     I find very powerful Macedo's criticism of "highly literate" mainstream academics who cite a lack of "language clarity" as a reason that Freire's work isn't presented in some very lofty academic programs.  I concur with his conclusion that the language that's being called for -- accepted by the mainstream as simple and clear -- is actually language that obfuscates reality.  Macedo's examples, "disenfranchised", "ethnic cleansing", and "theater of operation", can be joined with a host of others that can be found in modern American political discourse.  How about using "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture? How about calling Palestinians "internally displaced people"? How about classifying the peaceful protesters from Greenpeace and Pussy Riot as hooligans and incarcerating them? How about saying a state or company supports the "right to work" instead of calling them what they are--absolutely opposed to labor unions and collective bargaining?  This type of language--used to preserve the status quo and even further act upon the Object--is deliberate and has no place in Freire's work which -- start to finish -- seeks to upend the status quo and warn the people against their own desolation.
      

Response to selected passages from Adult Learners in Focus (2008)

Selected passages from Adult Learners in Focus 2008

"Over 26 million adults in the U.S. currently have no high school diploma, more than 3 million have not attended college and are earning less than a living wage, and over 8 million have not attended college and speak little or no English." (7)

This statistic makes clear the growing need for educational services and support in a variety of incarnations both formal and informal. Clearly, intervention is needed in primary and secondary schools.  The increased reliance on standardized testing to measure a students "success" at all levels has put even greater stress on the student population that are already most likely to "fail" to benefit from formal education options offered. However, the percentage of people who need to have postsecondary education in order that our economy and work force be competitive in a global market (according to the article 55 percent,) cannot be reached only by shoring up deficiencies in primary and secondary schools. Programs designed to reach adult students are desperately needed and, judging from personal experience, in great demand. Unfortunately, lack of funding and short-sighted policy decisions seem to be making adult education programs harder rather than easier to access.  The state and federal funding that the English Language Institute (SUNY) needs to provide free ESL programs for adults has been cut three times over the past two years.  The cuts occur in areas where teachers cannot successfully prove that their students are on a straight track to enter college and get a degree.  It's very difficult to "prove" that your students will enter college in a finite amount of time when you're dealing with significant language and literacy deficiencies.


"The good news is that adults are making up an ever larger share of the total enrollment in postsecondary institutions. By 2004, adults made up approximately 43 percent of total enrollment at community colleges (includes full-time and part-time)." (7)

"Nontraditional students-- for example, those who have delayed enrollment in postsecondary education, work full-time while enrolled, or have dependents other than a spouse-- were more likely than traditional students both to participate in distance education and to be in programs available entirely through distance education" (8)

"States vary significantly in their success in moving students through this traditional educational pipeline...But reliance on and attention to the traditional educational pipeline will not be enough." (22)

"The issue of declining numbers of high school graduates, projected in a recent study by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (208), is yet another reason why a focus on the education of younger populations will not be sufficient." (23)
AND
"...13.3 percent of the adult population (26,455,554 individuals)...never completed high school. Many of these adults may face basic literacy challenges as well. One way to help this population is to address skills shortfalls through Adult Basic Education (ABE), gain a high school credential by completing a GED, then enter postsecondary study." (24)