Paulo Freire (1921–1997)

I read this at the start of 2013 and reading my review now I feel really embarrassed, it's very arrogant and I don't feel fair at all. So ignore my review and rating. At some point I'm hopefully going to read it again and try harder to understand it.

Fails to answer the super-important question of "*who* is a teacher?" Given that it purports to describe a new method of teaching and tries to make it clear that the oppressor cannot teach the oppressed, the lack of identification of the teacher is problematic, as well as the unresolved contradiction between their role as a teacher and their role as an equal in a dialogue with their students. Is the teacher/student relation even a useful one? not really answered. The word "teach" is loaded with meaning that he doesn't take apart. The problems inherent in the ideas of teaching, leading etc are a constant factor in the book that are never addressed.


Other problems/things:
- The oppressed as liberators of themselves and the oppressers - in the oppressed becoming Subjects, do the oppressers become objects?
- Rejects propaganda, but can the book itself be classified as propaganda? What is the book's relation to the dialogue process?
- A paternalistic attitude - when presented, anecdotes about the "uneducated" making the same realisations and insights as "intellectuals" feel patronising, like a seal in a circus. They're mentioned because they repeated "intellectual" comments in a different form - the book immediately places them in the "intellectual" context, removing the power of the people to make their own insights by changing their words to suit "intellectual" thought patterns and idioms
- This isn't a book about educational methods as such, it's a book about revolution. That people can divorce the ideas about education from the revolution both boggles my mind and stands as a testament to the liberal ability to co-opt anything.
- He says what revolutionary leaders should and shouldn't do but it feels like it boils down to "do good things, don't do bad things." The problem of leadership which doesn't engage in dialogue with the people is obviously a serious one but I don't feel he tackles it other than saying "it's really bad and not revolutionary"
- There's like 10 pages max in the book which talk about the praticialities of his method and they highlight a disconcerting gap between theory and practise. His theory seems to suggest a radical reinvention of the teaching relationship, but in practise it's more like "teaching where the student has input in what he gets taught." He considers the role of the teacher to be as a kind of revolutionary leader, I think, although it's not clear at all.
- He constantly says stuff about people needing to "investigate" the world and its realities but makes a distinction between the investigators and the people, even though there isn't one - the investigators are always part of what they're investigating. At times he seems unsure of this but at other times the distinction is very clear and it's confusing. He performs the same trick of inconsistent dichotomies with the world/humans and revolutionary leaders/the people - they're variously referred to as completely separate, one and the same or different but equal.
- Very repetitious. The same phrases are often repeated as if he was introducing them for the first time, just with different introductions that don't really illuminate the meaning of the phrase
- A weird "epoch" idea is introduced in the middle of one chapter that I didn't really understand - he claims we're in an "epoch of authority" or something, as opposed to other epochs which... didn't have authority? I don't know, I found it hard to understand and didn't see how it helped to explain or describe anything
- Lots about the difference between humans and animals that felt wanky and could probably have been summed up in a paragrah - "humans are different to animals because they can understand their position and attempt to change it" was the main point and it took 5-6 pages to describe
- He clearly has strong admiration for Che, Castro, Marx and Mao and quotes them at various points. His ideas actually remind me to a large extent of Mao's "the Party listens to the people and then the Party transforms the scattered ideas the people have into a coherent form and teaches the people" idea, except puffed up a lot

(Sorry for the kind of scattershot approach)

I wasn't impressed. It felt overly long for what was actually said and didn't really talk about its ideas past stating them multiple times. Some interesting stuff was said and somewhat better than I've read elsewhere but it didn't really have much substance behind sloganeering (which he rails against a few times)… (lisätietoja)

Última obra de Paulo Freire publicada em vida, Pedagogia da autonomia é um livro conciso, de poucas páginas e muitas lições. Aqui Paulo Freire defende o pensar, louva a liberdade, prega a amorosidade, exalta a autenticidade. Ensina cada um a Ser Mais.



Pedagogia da autonomia reafirma o profundo compromisso ético de Paulo Freire na defesa da existência digna. Neste seu último livro publicado em vida, em 1996, o educador aprofunda sua teoria-ética de uma vida voltada para a liberdade, a verdade e a autenticidade dos sujeitos, contra a lógica do capital. A partir do amor revolucionário e do rigor crítico, reflete sobre o que o ato de ensinar exige de educadores e educandos.

Este livro transcende a experiência da sala de aula e, como o grande educador que é, Paulo Freire nos convida a nos tornar seres humanos melhores, mais autônomos, para construirmos uma sociedade mais justa, ética e democrática, em que todos tenham oportunidades. Neste, que é um de seus livros mais importantes, o educador ensina-nos como nos posicionar com respeito, curiosidade crítica e boniteza, reconhecendo-nos como seres sociais e históricos, capazes de transformar a realidade em que estamos inserido. Para isso, devemos estar abertos para conhecer o mundo e os seres, sem nenhuma forma de discriminação, pensando a ética e a convivência na sociedade e conscientes de que, com alegria e esperança, a mudança é possível.

Um livro totalmente necessário, que nos motiva a seguir resistindo em tempos difíceis.

*

Em 1963, em Angicos, interior do Rio Grande do Norte, trezentos trabalhadores rurais foram alfabetizados em apenas 40 horas, pelo método proposto por Paulo Freire. Esse foi o resultado do projeto-piloto do que seria o Programa Nacional de Alfabetização do governo de João Goulart, presidente que viria a ser deposto em março de 1964. Em outubro desse mesmo ano, Freire deixou o Brasil para proteger a própria vida. Apenas voltou a visitar o país em 1979, com a abertura democrática.

Ao longo de sua história, Paulo Freire recebeu mais de cem títulos de doutor honoris causa, de diversas universidades nacionais e estrangeiras, além de inúmeros prêmios, como Educação para a Paz, da Unesco, e Ordem do Mérito Cultural, do governo brasileiro. Integra o International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame e o Reading Hall of Fame.



“Gosto de ser homem, de ser gente, porque não está dado como certo, inequívoco, irrevogável que sou ou serei decente, que testemunharei sempre gestos puros, que sou e que serei justo, que respeitarei os outros, que não mentirei escondendo o seu valor porque a inveja de sua presença no mundo me incomoda e me enraivece. Gosto de ser homem, de ser gente, porque sei que a minha passagem pelo mundo não é predeterminada, preestabelecida. Que o meu ‘destino’ não é um dado, mas algo que precisa ser feito e de cuja responsabilidade não posso me eximir. Gosto de ser gente porque a história em que me faço com os outros e de cuja feitura tomo parte é um tempo de possibilidades, e não de determinismo. Daí que insista tanto na problematização do futuro e recuse sua inexorabilidade.” - Paulo Freire… (lisätietoja)