Freire's Dream World

Clearly, Paulo Freire cares (cared) deeply about others’ education, although in The “Banking” Concept of Education he challenges the word’s definition. He envisions a world in which people aren’t taught what they should know, but rather, how they should go about making sure they know.

Freire writes like someone who has seen the oppressive nature of total authority, and, observing such a dynamic in the classroom, is enraged by it. The idea of educators representing authority comes up several times in this article. His disdain for the expectation of students to act “meekly” in response to teachers is apparent.

He champions “problem-posing education” as a means to not only replace “banking” education, but to fight against the effects of it.

However, this isn’t an article about education, at least exclusively; it’s about social revolution. On page 209, Freire describes the individuals who perpetuate the “banking” system of education as people “who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed”. Here, he’s not talking about teachers who prefer their methods, or even principals, superintendents, board members, etc. He’s describing people in political power who, through inaction (at the very least) and intentional sabotage of educational progress (at the worst, and most probable), are able to maintain their positions of political, social, and intellectual power.

“Problem-posing education affirms men as beings in the process of becoming- as unfinished…”(217) It’s the pleasure of those in power to convince others that there is nothing meaningful that can be done to change the current situation- that the status quo is concrete and permanent. Freire is pushing for an education method which results in a populace that, regardless of actual knowledge, has a realistic and pragmatic grasp on the nature of reality. He insists that, since men (people) are both in and of the world, we are the world. He sees the world as changing; therefore people- and our institutions- should be just as able to change.

While the logic of his argument can’t be seriously denied (I’m saying that not only do I agree, but he’s objectively correct), the practicality has to be questioned. This was written about 45 years ago. Social change is slow, but Freire is also not the first to suggest we think critically rather than sheepishly accept our place in the world. I’m identifying a limitation here: if people were able to do this, we would have already. Even as it’s obvious that Freire is right, it’s just as clear that his ideal is impossible.

In an effort to not end on such a depressing note, I’ll point out that the nature of reality as Freire sees it, in all its impermanent, ever-changing eternal flux, pretty much guarantees a time in which oppressive authority is impossible due to critically-empowered masses. Whether we, or even our species, will be around to see it is another discussion.