Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
- In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
- Why is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
- Freire argues that the inherent contradictions, which he feels are constitutive of the banking model of education, will eventually lead the oppressed to “turn against their domestication and […] attempt to domesticate reality (pp. 74 of original).” What are the inherent contradictions that he is referring to? And, what would an attempt to domesticate reality look like?
- Freire argues for a problem posing pedagogy in order to subvert and counteract the damage caused by the banking model of education: what are the primary differences within these educational paradigms (pp.79)?
It is strongly connected to the correlation between adaptation level of the oppressed and their consciousness. Given that the situation is optimized for the banking system that the oppressors utilize, the more the oppressed get accustomed to the situation, the more their awareness as the oppressed is manipulated to the degree that they have no hint to realize they have been oppressed. Therefore, changing the situation that already is permeated into consciousness of the oppressed would be the least case that the oppressors wish for. Instead, the oppressors use social protocol in accordance with a paternalistic social action in order to bind the oppressed within typical model that is considered as “good”.
ReplyDeleteThe real beauty of the banking system is managing money. Whether clients want money in their account or not, it is true that we have to first receive and deposit money in the bank in order to use it for later. In this point of view, the banking system that some teachers use has partially generative side. The only matter is that they don’t give students pin number of the account. In other words, students are taught not how to apply knowledge but how to accept knowledge.
I like the analogy you offered. That said, it does not capture the true (and utter) absurdity of this asymmetrical power dynamic. Not only do teachers who adhere to the BMofEd withold the pin number, as you so elequently penned, what ever capital they do manage to pass on is expected to be returned to them, almost immediately. This is evidenced by the the reality that regurgitation is privileged above all else. More specifically, students ability (or lack thereof) to memorize and recit the information that was deposited into their vessel becomes overdetermined. Memorization, then, is fetishized and subsequently, in a perverse turn of events, comes to (erroneously) instantiate learning.
ReplyDeleteSorry this is a super late post.
ReplyDeleteIt is in the best interest of the oppressor to "change the consciousness of the oppressed” because it is changing something external to them. This means they don't have to alter anything about the system that they are employing, but rather they can force those on the receiving end to conform to their own ways. From the oppressor’s point of view, they have the advantage in the banking system because they are the ultimate authority. The oppressed have the short end of the stick, but like the first post says, they become so accustomed to the system that they don’t even realize that the system is oppressing them. As a student, I can personally attest to this sentiment. Throughout most of my education, I was trained to be able to take tests and regurgitate information to a satisfactory standard so as to excel in the system our education has in place. I can do this so well, that I disillusioned myself to believe that I am learning the material when in fact, I am merely memorizing facts given to me, without truly thinking about it. Changing the situation that oppresses them would require the oppressors themselves to change because they are the ones perpetuating the system. Even if they wanted to change the situation, the task itself seems so daunting. Because the system judges based on grades and how well you do in school, teachers are mainly focused on getting their students to that level, where they can score well, and in the process forgetting to make sure they actually learn the material. So even if teachers aren’t intentionally employing the banking model, the educational system almost forces them to, and this, in effect, works to change the consciousness of the oppressed, rather than the situation that oppresses them.
Freire outlines two incompatible, opposing pedagogy: the banking method and the problem-posing method of education. In the banking method, children are blank slates, they're viewed as a deposit box in which a teacher dumps information and the child mindlessly and quietly defers to this information as fact. Under this model, the students are indifferent and they passively comply with anything the teacher offers. They subscribe to the teacher's viewpoint and put up no resistance or investigation as to why a teacher is standing by a certain belief or way of thinking. This is an oppressive system because it immobilizes people and paralyzes any critical thinking on the part of the student. The student is coaxed into adhering and accepting a teacher's outlook in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteThe problem-posing model opposes the banking method in that it's rooted in an open discourse between that of a student and teacher. Learning is continuous and unending because there is an ongoing interchange that students and teachers actively engage in.
In reflecting on my experience in school, I see a combination of these methods at work. What I find most dangerous about the banking model is that students may unknowingly endorse and maintain the teacher's perspective as their own.
When students are thought as depositories of knowledge, this would be most efficient for spewing forth knowledge on standardized exams. Also the ability to be able to memorize data in order to expel it onto important tests is quite a useful ability. Although it is inherently oppressive, the skills that are associated with the banking model will help students achieve success in our current academic environment, which is fast paced and offers very little hands-on, intuitiveness since education today consists of mainly midterms and finals to determine student capability. It is important to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them,” because if the more oppressed can be led to adapt to the situation which will cause them to be more easily dominated. This is tied down to the concept of “welfare recipients”, where oppressors use the banking concept to tie down people with authoritarian social action. Inherent contradictions that are a result of the banking model of education include the event feeling by students that they are not having a partnership with their teacher. They would eventually want to exchange as the “role of depositor” and emasculate the power of oppression.
ReplyDeleteThe banking model is somewhat of a necessary evil. On some level a teacher has to provide his or her students with the knowledge and information for the course, and that information needs to be stored and regurgitated on tests to prove learning. However, what teachers and pupils do with that knowledge once it has been introduced into the classroom can make the difference between active learning and simply banking. Here is where Freire says that the consciousness of the oppressed must change. Rather than simply absorbing, memorizing and reciting the information, students can take the information they’re given and interpret, analyze ad create with it. Many students study their lecture notes and textbooks to reiterate the thoughts and opinions of their teachers and authors without questioning the content or forming their own opinions. Rather than simply accepting the ‘oppressors’’ opinions as fact, students should learn to question and actively pursue their education. Freire argues that this shift in student perception will create change for the better.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is in the best interest for everyone to change the consciousness of the oppressed. There is an even bigger incentive for the oppressor to not rely on just changing the situation, since you can rely on these types of tactics for only so long until the oppressed finally realize the futility of their education and what they have learned in terms of the actualization of their full human potential. Once this happens, I think that it would be very likely if these people start questioning their educational foundations, and especially the people who began that oppression, knowingly or unknowingly, in the first place. Generally throughout history, it is seen that the longer one keeps getting oppressed, the bigger the rebellion once one realizes what is happening and wants to change it. Thus, the change from once obedient, malleable oppressed to questioning, skeptical individuals will affect and target the oppressors in a proportionally measurable way that the oppressed were once oppressed. Although what is mention above comes from a historical perspective and the magnitude may not be as rebellious as can be imagined, trust will definitely suffer in teacher-student relationships. Changing the consciousness of the oppressed to one where the individual is interacting with the material he/she is learning and fitting it into how it affects them as humans is desirable, as this type of teaching involves communication and a deeper relationship than just teacher-student, oppressor-oppressed, etc.
ReplyDeleteA different viewpoint from which to gain insight of a banking model of education that is re-envisioned from a positive perspective would be that of students as startup entrepreneurs beginning a new business. The education system has an interest in investing in each student, because producing successful students is in the interest of the growth model of the capitalist economic model. More successful students will contribue to the total economic activity in the educational business. Teachers deposit capital (such as knowledge about the systems of power and introduction into the literate culture of power, as well as practical and personal integrity habits) into their students, who use the capital in order to invest in their educational advancement and "educational businesses". I think this metaphor can be used to make sense of the equal partnership in pedagogy between teacher and student. A teacher is there to invest in their students and help them to make smart business choices, and then it is up to the student to run their business effectively and efficiently. It would also help to explain why teachers stop investing in students who have made poor choices with the capital afforded to them by their investors (teachers). If a student squanders the capital given to them by their teacher, then the teacher might not come back to contribute to the students business interests.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important for students to make prudent choices with the opportunities and capital afforded to them by their teachers, and it is their responsibility to make the most from the investment that they are given. On the other hand, this metaphor might have a drawback in the sense that education probably shouldn't be run on the capitalist model, because it would not afford ample support to students that are taking an alternative path in their education.