Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Chapter 2

Wowzer, I need to start devoting more time to writing these responses, certainly this one. I did not have enough information to read this. There were so many parameters for the absolute that were not established, and left me saying okay. Particularly in that there was no relation to practicality without the suggestions of completely changing the function of the world as it stands now. Though I do completely understand what he is getting at initially about a straight sage on the stage “this is the only reality” for everyone in society, when for the dominated it is often not. Also, I would like to say that “empirical dimensions of reality” may be one of the best lines I’ve ever read. Anyway, as Prof. Agriss says these readings are introductions, so for me there is a giant ellipsis at the end of the page.  

During my sophomore year of college I scribbled in the margin of my notebook “education is communication.” It was during whichever 200 level CMST class I took, and while that class was rather piddling, I was very near changing my major because I was making a fundamental realization about why I like to teach: I am fascinated by the communication of information. It is the same reason why I truly enjoy writing and admire literature. Thus rather than go through every point of confusion, which there are many, in the reading I will simple elucidate my view of education after having read this chapter.  

This is my model of education. First, a definition: education is communication; it is the conveyance of a concept (this includes skills) and/or empirical datum to another individual via any mode of communication. There is no single permanent communicator; as Freire says, it is a solidarity between consciousnesses. Individuals simply transfer information with the intent that the information be comprehended identically and build to an understanding. Though that understanding is in no way perpetually fixed as it was transferred. In practice, i.e. a classroom that I am likely to find myself in, the educator, yes in this instance is a subject, presents “empirical dimensions of reality” and an interpretation(s) of them according to their values. Ideally the distinction between the interpretation and the dimensions is complete. These values are commonly equivalent to the pupil’s. Then the dynamic shifts to a partnership where the “true communication” of interpretations, the arguments and counterarguments that form critical thinking may occur to either accept qualify or reject the original interpretation in either’s consciousness.