Speaker 1: Oh, it could happen here. Which is the podcast that
Speaker 1: this is? I'm Robert Evans with me? Are other people? Hello?
Speaker 1: Other people? Hi? Hello? Uh so this podcast things falling
Speaker 1: about part putting back Together? YadA, YadA YadA. Today our guest,
Speaker 1: well not our guest. Our host is uh, the inimitable
Speaker 1: Andrew Andrew. Hey, Hey, how's it going? What are we
Speaker 1: talking about today? What are we learning? I'm good? I'm good?
Speaker 1: Um today open to tackle another book kind of um.
Speaker 1: This one's not fictional like the past two. UM. So
Speaker 1: I do hope to like explore some of those in
Speaker 1: the future because I think some good conversations come on
Speaker 1: to those. This week, we're gonna be talking about Paulo
Speaker 1: Frere and the pedagogy of the oppressed. Oh yes, for
Speaker 1: those who don't know, Paulo Freire is Brazilian educator and
Speaker 1: one of the leading advocates of well was a Brazilian
Speaker 1: educator and leading advocates of critical pedagogy. Pedagogy is basically
Speaker 1: like the study of education philosophy of education. Um. He
Speaker 1: was born in nine and his experiences kind of led
Speaker 1: him to that path because during his childhood and adolescents
Speaker 1: he was falling behind in school because he was poor.
Speaker 1: His poverty and his hunger affected his ability to learn.
Speaker 1: And so as he got older and he got opportunities
Speaker 1: and he was able to study and so on, and
Speaker 1: he basically realized he needs to do more to uplift
Speaker 1: the lives of the poor, improved lives of the poor,
Speaker 1: um in order to facilitate better educational outcomes. As he
Speaker 1: says and went court, I didn't understand anything because of
Speaker 1: my hunger. I wasn't dumb, it wasn't a lack of interest.
Speaker 1: My social condition just didn't allow me to have an education.
Speaker 1: Experience showed me once again the relationship between social class
Speaker 1: and knowledge. So as he progressed in his studies and
Speaker 1: his writing and stuff, he eventually contributed to a philosophy
Speaker 1: of education which blended classical approaches coming from Plato and
Speaker 1: modern Marxist and post Marxist and anti clonial thinkers. When
Speaker 1: I was reading the book, it really sort of struck me.
Speaker 1: I've got a lot of um and a lot of
Speaker 1: France found on vibes from his work. He died in
Speaker 1: um r I p um, but his greatest contribution um
Speaker 1: to me at least and to most people. It is
Speaker 1: his book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In the book,
Speaker 1: he sort of explores a detailed Marxist class analysis UM
Speaker 1: in the relationship between like the colonize and colonize, the
Speaker 1: oppressed and the oppressed. And he talks about the banking
Speaker 1: model of education that traditional pedagogy has spouses because it
Speaker 1: treats the students as like this bank, this empty vessel
Speaker 1: to be filled with knowledge. Instead, he argues for a
Speaker 1: form of education of pedagogy that treats the lunar as
Speaker 1: a co creator in knowledge. As far as I'm aware, UM,
Speaker 1: and I guess it's kind of is illustrated in the
Speaker 1: book itself. But as far as I know, Fair wasn't
Speaker 1: an anarchist or libertarian socialist of any variety. But he
Speaker 1: still ended up coming to some anarchic conclusions with regard
Speaker 1: to the education system and learning and stuff. I mean
Speaker 1: and I guess have been writing about, you know, like
Speaker 1: youth liberation and the school system and even experimenting with
Speaker 1: new more roles of schooling for a long time. UM.
Speaker 1: The Freer movement, for example, experimented with implementing modern schools
Speaker 1: in UM in the US and in Spain. And a
Speaker 1: Goldman was very much involved in that process. And UM,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the experiments were necessarily free of error,
Speaker 1: but I think they did a good job of trying
Speaker 1: something new, trying something with more liberatory in the sphere
Speaker 1: of education, because I mean, for the past several hundred
Speaker 1: years now, UM, we've kind of been going with this
Speaker 1: sort of um Prussian model of education is very strict,
Speaker 1: very regimented, very divided model of education. The rules um
Speaker 1: to sort of ferment nationalism and division, class divisions and
Speaker 1: stuff within the populace. So I think that any experimentation
Speaker 1: in the more limitary and direction is a positive. In
Speaker 1: the preface, um Fair sort of goes into why this
Speaker 1: book came about. He's talking about his experience as a
Speaker 1: teacher in Brazil the time, the observations he made well
Speaker 1: in political exile, and so what he realized as a
Speaker 1: teacher when he was teaching his students is that they
Speaker 1: had a sort of a fair of freedom. It's not
Speaker 1: like a real fair of freedom, it's more a fair
Speaker 1: of the risks associated with freedom because of the experiences
Speaker 1: and stuff that they've had. Um. What he considers the
Speaker 1: most vital, however, to the education system. It's sort of
Speaker 1: just establishing conscientious out or critical consciousness within students, a
Speaker 1: consciousness that commits to social change and human liberation. According
Speaker 1: to Fair, the educational model can only really be successful
Speaker 1: if people are radicalized through it, if people are able
Speaker 1: to see the issues in their current society, think about them,
Speaker 1: stew upon them, criticize them, compare them, and look at
Speaker 1: ways to solve them. And if they don't come up
Speaker 1: with that sort of critical consciousness then as well for not. Basically,
Speaker 1: education system is kind of spinning on top of mud.
Speaker 1: I find it especially interesting that I ended up reading
Speaker 1: this when I did, because, as we've seen in the US,
Speaker 1: a lot of conversations are now attacking anything even approaching
Speaker 1: critical consciousness with this. You know who'll debate going on
Speaker 1: about critical race theory and this sort of even though
Speaker 1: critical race theories are being taught in primary or secondary education.
Speaker 1: This attack, this full front of attack and anything that
Speaker 1: resembles critical thinking and critical study of history and of
Speaker 1: the present m hm. So in chapter one for It
Speaker 1: makes the case for why the patagogy Deppress is necessary.
Speaker 1: He says, a human kind central problem is how we
Speaker 1: affirmor identity as human beings. Everyone is trying to reach
Speaker 1: that sort of affirmation, that sort of human identity, that
Speaker 1: sort of human nous um. But oppression and systems of
Speaker 1: oppression interrupt that process. They prevent people from expressing and
Speaker 1: establishing their full humanity. Where they're talking about racism keeping
Speaker 1: people from reaching the full potential, or sexism preventing people,
Speaker 1: or you know, a patriarchy with the whole limitations and
Speaker 1: such puts upon people's sexuality and gender expression and gender identification.
Speaker 1: One of these systems of oppression are put in place
Speaker 1: to restrict, to confine and bound us below you know,
Speaker 1: our full potential. And so a lot of that and
Speaker 1: a lot of the you know, cultivation and forging of
Speaker 1: one's awareness of you know, the systems around them and
Speaker 1: how to operate within them takes place in the education system.
Speaker 1: And so the education system is should be one of
Speaker 1: the critical junctures in which we which our fight for
Speaker 1: oppressed people. There's a sort of dehumanization that it could
Speaker 1: as a result of oppression, whether it be in the
Speaker 1: form of comparing people to animals, as racists often do,
Speaker 1: whether it be in the form of decreating people too
Speaker 1: it's of childlike status which itself is a is a
Speaker 1: form of oppression because the fact that you know, childlikeness
Speaker 1: and youth is considered to be something less than It's
Speaker 1: just another way they where people are oppressed, and another
Speaker 1: way in which people are prevented from asserting their autonomy
Speaker 1: and their humanity. Oppressors. They tend to treat people as
Speaker 1: objects to be possessed, to see freedom as threatening, and
Speaker 1: in turn, oppressed people end are becoming ill neated from
Speaker 1: each other through oppressure and begin to see their oppressors
Speaker 1: as something to strive towards for. It talks about how
Speaker 1: they oppressed. The whole vision and the whole understanding of
Speaker 1: what being human is is being like oppressors. And so
Speaker 1: a lot of people and you see that even today,
Speaker 1: you know, um, when they strive for freedom, they strive
Speaker 1: to become entrepreneurs. You know, they strive to become business owners.
Speaker 1: They strive to become billionaires and CEOs and all these
Speaker 1: sort of images of what, you know, what being human
Speaker 1: looks like. Because people are striving to be free, and
Speaker 1: if the only way you can get a measure of
Speaker 1: freedom is by becoming an oppress yourself, and it makes
Speaker 1: sense a lot of oppressive looking to try to do that.
Speaker 1: Of course, as Fair himself says, and he oppress says
Speaker 1: themselves are not fully free either, because by denying the
Speaker 1: oppressed people their humanity, they robbed themselves of humanity. The
Speaker 1: fight for liberation, as Fair argues, must consist of two stages,
Speaker 1: reflection on the nature of oppression and the concrete action
Speaker 1: needed to change it. And that's sort of reading that
Speaker 1: that that line are paraphrasing, but it reminds me of
Speaker 1: the process of prefigurative politics, where not only are you
Speaker 1: bringing about the consciousness of people to recognize these systems
Speaker 1: of oppression and understand how they operate, but the concrete
Speaker 1: action to change it is one that is intended to
Speaker 1: reflect the society that we wish to establish in the future.
Speaker 1: Fare does one um that, you know, leaders and stuff
Speaker 1: must engage in dialogue with oppressed people rather than becoming
Speaker 1: like oppressors. But as the book goes on, I think
Speaker 1: he relies a bit too much on this concept of
Speaker 1: leaders as well. He wants against them existing above the people,
Speaker 1: but he's still sort of uphold that distinction between the
Speaker 1: leaders and the people. As the book progresses, um he
Speaker 1: begins to compare the concept of the banking model to
Speaker 1: the concept of the problem posing model of education. As
Speaker 1: he calls it. In the banking model um quote, he
Speaker 1: the teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized,
Speaker 1: and predictable. Where Else he expands upon a topic completely
Speaker 1: alien to the existential experience of the students. His task
Speaker 1: is to fill the students with the contents of his narration,
Speaker 1: contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality
Speaker 1: that engendered them. I could give them significance. Words are
Speaker 1: emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and
Speaker 1: alienating verbocity any being that sentence is quite proposed. But
Speaker 1: on the contrary, banking education maintains and even stimulates the
Speaker 1: contradiction to the following attitudes and practices, which mirror oppressive
Speaker 1: society as a whole. The teacher teachers, and the students
Speaker 1: are taught. The teacher knows everything, and the student knows nothing.
Speaker 1: Teacher thinks and the students are thought about. Teacher talks
Speaker 1: and the students listen meekly. The teacher disciplines, and the
Speaker 1: students are disciplined. Teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and
Speaker 1: the students comply. The teacher acts, and the students have
Speaker 1: the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher.
Speaker 1: Teacher chooses the program content and the students, who were
Speaker 1: not consulted, adapt to it. The teacher confuses the authority
Speaker 1: of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which
Speaker 1: they set in opposition to the freedom of the students.
Speaker 1: The teachers the subjective learning process while the pupils and
Speaker 1: their objects. I think um Flaire needed to incorporate some
Speaker 1: more gender neutral language and that so I had to
Speaker 1: kind of correct him there. Um. But that quote, that
Speaker 1: that quote in full, it really reminds me, um of
Speaker 1: my schooling experience. UM. As some people they knew I
Speaker 1: was actually home schooled for the majority of my learning experience.
Speaker 1: I actually didn't know that. Oh oh now you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I was. I was home schooled, um for I woulday,
Speaker 1: the majority of my education experience. And then after I
Speaker 1: went into college and stuff. But before then, I didn't,
Speaker 1: um make it through the school system. And even though
Speaker 1: it was a really long time ago, my memories are
Speaker 1: still crystal clear of that process. You know, UM, I
Speaker 1: remember seeing students being disciplined, Um I myself was kind
Speaker 1: of a teacher's pet. But that doesn't surprise me, and
Speaker 1: the best possible way I'm not sure I to take it,
Speaker 1: I'll take it in a good way because me not
Speaker 1: me also doesn't surprise teachers or cops. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: my pre anarchists. I wasn't you know, I didn't. I
Speaker 1: wasn't jumping out the booth canal with a black flag,
Speaker 1: you know. Unfortunately a cab includes the person who tried
Speaker 1: to get me to read Catcher in the Rye was
Speaker 1: a good book. It was a good, perfectly fine book.
Speaker 1: I'm just being an asshole. But but like Andrew, what
Speaker 1: are you alluding here? Is that like stoicism is something
Speaker 1: that is weaponized in the education system. Stoicism, stoicism being
Speaker 1: like no emotion delivering like right right, right, because I
Speaker 1: was thinking the philosophy, but because you're like a vessel
Speaker 1: for quote unquote facts and knowledge to be like injected
Speaker 1: into you for you to like hold as as Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's we're seeing a resurgence in this type of saying
Speaker 1: all the albeit probably a little bit less eloquently stated
Speaker 1: in some of like the anti schooling anarchist literature. That's
Speaker 1: been coming out in the past few years, or at
Speaker 1: least has been gaining more traction the past few years.
Speaker 1: M Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, because this and that's kind
Speaker 1: of that's kind of the funny thing about it, because
Speaker 1: most people in their school and experience can recall it
Speaker 1: being in some ways negative, even if they look at
Speaker 1: it in a positive light. We can at least, even
Speaker 1: if they don't go in that fully radical direction, most
Speaker 1: people can look at some of the elements to their schooling,
Speaker 1: of the education and see that that wasn't right. You know,
Speaker 1: it's something messed up about that, even something as simple
Speaker 1: as having to like ask, you know, the teacher to
Speaker 1: go on and use the toilet. It's just this is
Speaker 1: those sorts of little ways of control, like as I
Speaker 1: was seeing in my school and experience back when I
Speaker 1: was in primary school. I was very adorable. I'm sure
Speaker 1: I could guess, but I remember seeing these students being disciplined.
Speaker 1: They had the bell had rung for um, you know,
Speaker 1: the end of break, and he supposed to, you know,
Speaker 1: fire back into class. But I think there was a
Speaker 1: school next door that was having some kind of events
Speaker 1: and they were playing like music, and so a bunch
Speaker 1: of students in my class. Not me, but a bunch
Speaker 1: of students in my class were you know, um, dancing
Speaker 1: at the side of the school, enjoying the music, having
Speaker 1: a good time or whatever. Um. They heard the bell
Speaker 1: and they didn't go because they were, you know, they
Speaker 1: were having a good time. They were like six seven eight, um.
Speaker 1: But then afterwards the teacher, after you know, I sit
Speaker 1: down and stuff, leacher goes and finds them and brings
Speaker 1: them in. And this is prior to at least of
Speaker 1: my knowledge, prior to the corporal punishment being phased out
Speaker 1: of school. So I just remember seeing them having to
Speaker 1: you know, like lay out their hand and receive punishment
Speaker 1: for daring to have joy after hours, you know, daring
Speaker 1: to enjoy themselves. Um, what it was supposed to be
Speaker 1: class time and they're supposed to be in class. I'm
Speaker 1: sure people have similar experiences, at least of a kind
Speaker 1: of punishment and controul. I mean, this is not the
Speaker 1: same kind of punishment, but I think to your point
Speaker 1: of being controlled, like even just like not even being
Speaker 1: aware of it, just like being forced to stand up
Speaker 1: and say the pudge of allegiance. In America, for example,
Speaker 1: it becomes this like repetitive culty thing every morning that
Speaker 1: you're expected to do and if you don't do it,
Speaker 1: um personal experience. If you refuse to do that, you
Speaker 1: have to go to the principal's office and explain why
Speaker 1: it happens over and over again. And I think it's
Speaker 1: like you're you're questioned and you're punished even for like thinking,
Speaker 1: not like differently, or questioning not even thinking, just questioning reality. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: yeah yeah. And in Syria when I was I went
Speaker 1: to school in Syria when I was really small and
Speaker 1: me my sister ate really slow and we would get
Speaker 1: hit with a ruler on our hands because we did
Speaker 1: we didn't finish lunch fast enough. Um. So yeah, mine
Speaker 1: isn't that intense. But the school I went to when
Speaker 1: I was a little kid in Oklahoma, number one, they
Speaker 1: paddled us. That was legal as a public school. But
Speaker 1: my first grade teacher was obsessed with the fact that
Speaker 1: like it was bad to be left handed, and you know,
Speaker 1: she couldn't, she couldn't do the ship that they used
Speaker 1: to do right. They used to like funck kids up
Speaker 1: for using their left hands. But she would every single
Speaker 1: day like chide me and tell me that I should
Speaker 1: use my right hand to write and stuff that it
Speaker 1: wasn't like proper that it was like bad that I
Speaker 1: could if you if you if you're not aware, if
Speaker 1: you're not left handed, when you're like do stuff with
Speaker 1: a pencil and you're left handed, you get a bunch
Speaker 1: of like, yeah, pencil stuff on your on the side
Speaker 1: of your hand. Right. It's just like because of the
Speaker 1: way that unless you're using like those weird left handed
Speaker 1: notebooks and ship which no one ever has. UM, and
Speaker 1: she would like she gave me so much ship for
Speaker 1: being dirty because like I would get stuff on my hand.
Speaker 1: It was just like when I tell people that, it's
Speaker 1: like really, this was like the nineties. Yeah, there's there's
Speaker 1: a few of those folks left. I think she was
Speaker 1: extremely Catholic, UM, and I know none seems to go
Speaker 1: on that stuff. I didn't know that Catholic people cared
Speaker 1: about the left handed thing. Catholic Catholic schools. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that, like it's I don't think there's
Speaker 1: anything and like the Catechism about not being left handed
Speaker 1: right right. I mean like in some very strict Muslim culture,
Speaker 1: a lot of it is like phased out but for example,
Speaker 1: your left hand isn't meant to be used as the
Speaker 1: primary hand because it's like a dirty hand, like the
Speaker 1: one you wipe yourself with. Ye. Yeah, there's a lot,
Speaker 1: but like I know you were handed though. Yikes. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: ye yikes, thank you, thank you. You should be concerned.
Speaker 1: I have to makes a number of things frustrating, like
Speaker 1: shearing sheep anyway, whatever. Mm well, everything is designed for
Speaker 1: right handed people for sure, Like it has everything it is.
Speaker 1: You try to speak, but we are the master, right Okay? Sorry?
Speaker 1: Speaking of hands, just out of curiosity, did you all
Speaker 1: have the hand up hand out experience? Hand out? What's
Speaker 1: hand out? Basically? Um, it's just sort of a tool,
Speaker 1: you suggest, sort of a sort of repetitive kind of
Speaker 1: follow instructions kind of thing. So like if the class
Speaker 1: getting too rowdies, like hands up, hands out, hands up,
Speaker 1: hands out, and the teacher does not stop saying it
Speaker 1: until everyone is quiet down, and it's just like like
Speaker 1: a robot, just reason. And I don't think i've experienced that,
Speaker 1: I mean, are you? Um? I wasn't an assistant teacher
Speaker 1: at one point, and for very very young children, I'm
Speaker 1: talking like four to five year olds and I understand
Speaker 1: their frustration of like you're just trying to get something
Speaker 1: done and everyone's gonna while now they just had snacks
Speaker 1: or whatever, and everyone's kind of wild out. But I
Speaker 1: think that says more about like the methods we're using
Speaker 1: than about the shouldering themselves. You know. It's all about,
Speaker 1: like you have to you should adjust more to like
Speaker 1: their cycles and their needs, their stage, rather than trying
Speaker 1: to force and shove them into this sort of militarbotic Yeah, yeah, totally.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, they're not allowed to actually develop naturally or
Speaker 1: like be themselves in a setting like that. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I think what happens like kind of throws me. It's
Speaker 1: like or people have these experiences traumatic and not as
Speaker 1: dramatic in the education system, a lot of people, but
Speaker 1: some people they come out radicalized by it, and other
Speaker 1: people end up being the like most stringent and most
Speaker 1: passionate advocates of it. Like even like this Catholic school
Speaker 1: teacher you're talking about, Robert, Like at some point she
Speaker 1: was also in the education system, and it really makes
Speaker 1: me wonder like what she went through to have to
Speaker 1: come up with that kind of mindset. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think she'd grown up in Oklahoma too, so it
Speaker 1: must have been a nightmare, like everything in that state. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like why does it have a panhandle anyway? Um, I
Speaker 1: mean the there is a reason for that, and it's
Speaker 1: not fun, but okay, I'm assuming it's slavery. Any fucked
Speaker 1: up geographic thing going on in the South, the reason
Speaker 1: is generally slavery. Yeah, right, right, right right. And so
Speaker 1: she spends a lot of time talking about this banking model,
Speaker 1: and we could go on and on about it. I
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time just talking about the education
Speaker 1: system all my problems with it, and at some point
Speaker 1: I would like to do an episode about differ rare
Speaker 1: schools and part of how those sort of transpired. But
Speaker 1: what Fair proposes um as an alternative is the problem
Speaker 1: posing model, which is, basically, through dialogue, the teacher and
Speaker 1: the students ceased to exist. The teacher of the students
Speaker 1: and the students of the teachers ceased to exist. So
Speaker 1: instead of there being these two separate categories they are
Speaker 1: teacher students and student teachers. There's no operation anymore between
Speaker 1: the one who teaches and the one who has taught. Rather,
Speaker 1: there's a dialogue between the two as they become part
Speaker 1: of this process where all of them can grow. You know,
Speaker 1: you let go of this sort of authoritarian arrangements and
Speaker 1: allow people to teach and be taught two, learn and
Speaker 1: be learned. Two really draw out what it is that
Speaker 1: we have to gain from each other. Rather than being
Speaker 1: sort of docile listeners, the students and the teachers, the
Speaker 1: student teachers teacher students, they become co investigators in dialogue,
Speaker 1: they become critics. They become radicals who are able to
Speaker 1: open up and depathologize the way that reality works with
Speaker 1: human beings exist in the world. Banking education tends to
Speaker 1: inhibit creativity and try to domesticate our consciousness. Throw back
Speaker 1: to when I was talking about human investication the other day. Um.
Speaker 1: But in contrast, in the problem posing model tries to
Speaker 1: it really bases itself on creativity and stimulates rather than domestication,
Speaker 1: a sort of a full flourishing of what someone could
Speaker 1: be unbound and unshackled. So, in summary, banking theory is immobilizing.
Speaker 1: It's it's fixating. It doesn't acknowledge people as people but
Speaker 1: rather objects, whereas the problem posing model it takes people's historicity,
Speaker 1: it takes people's humanity the starting point upon which they
Speaker 1: can grow and learn from each other. I think that's
Speaker 1: what frustrated me the most about the education system in
Speaker 1: the time that I was in it, and even when
Speaker 1: I got back in it in college, even though it's
Speaker 1: not as bad in some ways, because you know, in
Speaker 1: college they tend to emphasize dialogue a bit more on
Speaker 1: certain classes. But I find the issue is that there's
Speaker 1: this assumption in you know, the earlier sections of schooling,
Speaker 1: in the secondary school and primary school and even preschool
Speaker 1: that the children, the youth, you know, they're not there
Speaker 1: to have anything to add. They're just there to recogitate,
Speaker 1: to to study, and to repeat what they've studied for approval,
Speaker 1: not just something I definitely did back in the day.
Speaker 1: If what's lacking is dialogue, a dialogue that buyers you know,
Speaker 1: hoop and trust and critical thinking, then liberation you would
Speaker 1: also be lacking. There can't be dialogue without love for
Speaker 1: the world and for people, and for knowledge and for
Speaker 1: bring that knowledge out to people. So as for our says,
Speaker 1: you know, love is at the same time the foundation
Speaker 1: of dialogue and dialogue itself. On the other hand, dialogue
Speaker 1: kind of exists without humility, the naming of the world
Speaker 1: through which people constantly recreate that world cannot be an
Speaker 1: act of arrogance. I remember encountering a lot of arrogance
Speaker 1: teachers and lecturers and stuff in my time to the
Speaker 1: education system. Um are being condescended to multiple occasions, and
Speaker 1: that's the thing. Nobody likes being condescended to. But condescension
Speaker 1: is kind of the default way in which we engage
Speaker 1: with young people, just sort of there's this projected ignorance
Speaker 1: upon them, is that they have nothing of value to
Speaker 1: add or to share. Another contrary, you know, we all
Speaker 1: have something to contribute. If we all closed off, and
Speaker 1: if we are closed off to the contributions of others,
Speaker 1: we can't engage in dialogue with them. If we are fearful,
Speaker 1: if we are um considering people to be like inferior
Speaker 1: in some ways, if we cannot embrace people as equals,
Speaker 1: and how can we engage in dialogue with that? I
Speaker 1: think there's a beauty in the way that he reflects
Speaker 1: on dialogue. He goes on and on about it for
Speaker 1: quite a while. At one point, he says that dialogue
Speaker 1: requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in their power
Speaker 1: to make and rea to create and recreate faith in
Speaker 1: their vocation to be more fully human, which is not
Speaker 1: the privilege of an elite, but the birthright of all.
Speaker 1: And So, finally, when he's talking about action and how
Speaker 1: um this sort of change is brought about, he divides
Speaker 1: cultural action into two kinds, dialogical action and anti dieological action.
Speaker 1: While oppressors use antideological action to protect their power and
Speaker 1: to separate people, radicals can use dialogical action to bring
Speaker 1: people together in the struggle for freedom as a different
Speaker 1: methods of antideological action. Through conquest, through divide and rule,
Speaker 1: through manipulation, through cultural invasion, oppressors were able to put
Speaker 1: the oppressed in the predicament of there in. You know,
Speaker 1: the oppressed wouldn't be the oppressed if not for the
Speaker 1: oppressors oppressing them. That's kind of self explanatory. Um. But
Speaker 1: in contrast, radicals from among the oppressed, using biological action,
Speaker 1: using cooperation, unity, organization, and cultural synthesis are able to
Speaker 1: rise above and push back against this oppression and to
Speaker 1: allow education to flourish among all. And So I think
Speaker 1: that's the beauty of the text um, the hope that
Speaker 1: it abuse in people to really bring about these changes,
Speaker 1: and I think it was a good reading five outs
Speaker 1: of five excellent. And it's not very long, right, it's
Speaker 1: like under two from what I yes, yes, it's like
Speaker 1: four short chapters reatively. Sure. I know back when you
Speaker 1: were talking about how um people are sectors of the
Speaker 1: right specifically are so set on a acting like anything
Speaker 1: related to like critical theory or critical race theory. Um.
Speaker 1: I the the book was was banned like like a
Speaker 1: decade and like over decade ago from the Arizona Schools
Speaker 1: for teaching students that they are oppressed. Well, uh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's how you know, that's to be expected. It's
Speaker 1: a good book. Yeah, yeah, so that's anyway, just a
Speaker 1: just a fun fun fact there. Yeah, we can't we
Speaker 1: can't have kids knowing that, uh, they have shared interests
Speaker 1: as a group, um, and that adults are mistreating them comprehensively.
Speaker 1: That's good. Yeah. God just reminded me of so many
Speaker 1: just moments that mean teachers like really got into it,
Speaker 1: or like the teachers that were condescending that I hated.
Speaker 1: I have to really go through the role dex and
Speaker 1: try to get this out now after we finished recording. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: if you're a child. Why are you listening to this
Speaker 1: rise up in rebellion? Uh destroy the adults. Their joints
Speaker 1: are terrible. Hit him in the knees. They won't recover.
Speaker 1: My joints are terrible. Exactly, some fucking nine year old
Speaker 1: wax you in the knee with like are down. You're
Speaker 1: out of the game. No, I know. My kids would
Speaker 1: break embrace the ancient traditions, make les, and go for
Speaker 1: the fucking joints. Yeah, children of the world, you have
Speaker 1: nothing to lose, which at bed times, that's that's it
Speaker 1: could Happen here production. For more podcasts on pool Zone Media,
Speaker 1: visit our website pool zone media dot com or check
Speaker 1: us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources
Speaker 1: for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone
Speaker 1: media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.