Re: [xmca] Re: Propaganda Objectives and Agitation Invectives

[Lucas Bietti <lucas@bietti.org>]

The linguist Teun van Dijk has systematically investigated the relationship
between discourse, cognition and ideology. In his monograph Ideology (Sage,
1998) van Dijk develops an interdisciplinary and socio-cognitive approach to the
concept of ideology -especially focusing on discursive practices. For more
information about his project, books and articles:


http://www.discourses.org/projects/ideology/ ;


Cheers
Lucas














On September 24, 2010 at 10:09 PM Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> Terry Eagleton has a useful book on the history of the concept of ideology:
> 
> <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Jk2h8zoHfcIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=eagleton+ideology&ots=pG3wDZlZHd&sig=vs0ebsCxHw9ur2PNRm3XrZ5iYlI#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> 
> > Mike, perhaps you were thinking of Marx:
> > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm#006
> > 
> > "it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation
> > of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the
> > precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic
> > or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious
> > of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual
> > by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of
> > transformation by its consciousness, ..."
> > 
> > I take it that Marx refers to these "ideological forms" in just the sense
> > that you suggest. I think our earlier discussions about concepts as forms of
> > activity went to the same idea.
> > 
> > I think "introspection, ... as a form of observed behavior" is a strange
> > formulation. How can you observe introspection?
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > mike cole wrote:
> >> Interesting to converge on ideology as ideal culture, David. Is it perhaps
> >> the semiosphere?
> >> 
> >> The idea that was floating around in my head, that I was madly attributing
> >> to Friere, was that bureaucracies can be thought of as institutionalized
> >> ideologies. And/or we can think about what happens to ideas that get
> >> institutionalized in, say, a feudal form of governance, where, again we see
> >> ideology being squozen into packages which it is easy to imagine referring
> >> to pejoratively.
> >> 
> >> About introspection, you wrote: Andy adds that we can use introspection,
> >> but
> >> with caution. Perhaps only as a form of observed behavior?
> >> 
> >> Very interesting position to come to. Both parts. The degree of caution, I
> >> imagine, would depend upon the nature of the claims relative to their
> >> purposes of use. And treating introspective accounts as data was precisely
> >> the methodologically move of many behaviorists, lets call them "verbal
> >> reports" and, which are the core of claims of discursive psychology and
> >> arguments about subjectivity.
> >> 
> >> mike
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:11 PM, David Kellogg
> >> <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >> 
> >>  
> >>> I like the Geertz: ideology is just ideal culture. The word ideology, and
> >>> also words like "propaganda" and "agitation", are just terms for the
> >>> creation, transmission, fission and fusion, asexual and sexual
> >>> reproduction,
> >>> repetition and modification of ideas. It's an objective term, not
> >>> an invective one. Ideology is nothing more and nothing less than
> >>> idea-ology.
> >>> 
> >>> I guess I think of Freire as an agitator rather than a propagandist; a man
> >>> who is taking a few simple ideas and repeating them to large numbers of
> >>> people. I think of Vygotsky as a propagandist rather than an agitator,
> >>> someone who is taking a very large and complex body of thought and
> >>> transmitting it to a very small group of people (which I am blessed to be
> >>> on
> >>> the margins of). I can see that Freire's invective use of "ideology", like
> >>> his "banking" metaphor, is useful for agitation; but I don't think
> >>> Vygotsky
> >>> would want to use it in his propaganda.
> >>> 
> >>> That said, I think it's always a little dangerous to freight words with
> >>> fixed restrictions. In the latest issue of MCA, there is a brilliant if
> >>> somewhat tetchy Commentary by Andy, from which we learn a very great deal
> >>> about the fundamental epistemological differences between a
> >>> phenomenological
> >>> viewpoint and a psychological one: "The subject matter of Phenomenology is
> >>> the stream of subjective consciousness as revealed by introspection; the
> >>> subject matter of Psychology is consciousness as reconstructed by the
> >>> scientific observation of behavior (!) and physiology (?)."
> >>> 
> >>> Andy adds that we can use introspection, but with caution. Perhaps only as
> >>> a form of observed behavior? At any rate, we need to take it with a block
> >>> of
> >>> salt, maybe a whole salt mine. But of course Vygotsky DOES use
> >>> introspective
> >>> data, quite a bit. Egocentric thinking, where it is directed towards the
> >>> activity of consciousness itself (as in the second section of Chapter Six
> >>> of
> >>> Thinking and Speech) can be interpreted as a form of introspection.
> >>> 
> >>> So I'm not sure why we can't use concepts such as "consumer", properly
> >>> salted, Andy. Doesn't Marx use it? Here he is, in Part II of Capital
> >>> Volume
> >>> One, chewing over the words of Condillac and Torrens:
> >>> 
> >>> "In relation to circulation, producers and consumers meet only as buyers
> >>> and sellers. To assert that the surplus value acquired by the producer has
> >>> its origin in the fact that consumers pay for commodities more than their
> >>> value, is only to say in other words: The owner of commodities possesses,
> >>> as
> >>> a seller, the privilege of selling too dear. (....) The distinction
> >>> between
> >>> them is, that one buys and the other sells. The fact that the owner of the
> >>> commodities, under the designation of producer, sells them over their
> >>> value,
> >>> and under the designation of consumer, pays too much for them, does not
> >>> carry us a single step further." (Capital, Chapter Five, Contradictions in
> >>> the general form of capital).
> >>> 
> >>> David Kellogg
> >>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>> 
> >>> --- On *Thu, 9/23/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Concepts of ideology
> >>> To: "Robert Lake" <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
> >>> Cc: "CultureActivity eXtended Mind" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 5:25 PM
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks for people's help with Friere text. Seems like I was wrong, the
> >>> uses
> >>> of the term, ideology, in
> >>> the text presuppose its meaning while I had (mis) remembered him offering
> >>> something somewhat different. I guess I have to go back and start over on
> >>> that.
> >>> 
> >>> The Geertz link remains relevant to David's discussion of LSV I believe,
> >>> although my interpretation of the relevance may be misguided.
> >>> mike
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Robert Lake
> >>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
> >>> >
> >>>    
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>       Mike, Here is Chapter Two of *Pedagogy of the Oppressed.*
> >>>> * PAULO FREIRE: CHAPTER 2 OF PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED
> >>>> 
> >>>> This reading is from: PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED by Paulo Freire. New
> >>>>      
> >>> York:
> >>>    
> >>>> Continuum Books, 1993.
> >>>> 
> >>>> CHAPTER 2
> >>>> 
> >>>> A careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level,
> >>>>      
> >>> inside
> >>>    
> >>>> or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character.
> >>>>      
> >>> This
> >>>    
> >>>> relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient
> >>>> listening objects (the students). The contents, whether values or
> >>>>      
> >>> empirical
> >>>    
> >>>> dimensions of reality, tend in the process of being narrated to become
> >>>> lifeless and petrified. Education is suffering from narration sickness.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static,
> >>>> compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic
> >>>> completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His task
> >>>>      
> >>> is
> >>>    
> >>>> to "fill" the students with the contents of his narration -- contents
> >>>>      
> >>> which
> >>>    
> >>>> are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered
> >>>> them and could give them significance. Words are emptied of their
> >>>> concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating verbosity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The outstanding characteristic of this narrative education, then, is the
> >>>> sonority of words, not their transforming power. "Four times four is
> >>>> sixteen; the capital of Para is Belem." The student records, memorizes,
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> repeats these phrases without perceiving what four times four really
> >>>>      
> >>> means,
> >>>    
> >>>> or realizing the true significance of "capital" in the affirmation "the
> >>>> capital of Para is Belem," that is, what Belem means for Para and what
> >>>>      
> >>> Para
> >>>    
> >>>> means for Brazil.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize
> >>>> mechanically the narrated account. Worse yet, it turns them into
> >>>> "containers," into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teachers. The more
> >>>> completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teachers she is. The
> >>>>      
> >>> more
> >>>    
> >>>> meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better
> >>>>      
> >>> students
> >>>    
> >>>> they are.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating,
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students
> >>>>      
> >>> patiently
> >>>    
> >>>> receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking' concept of
> >>>>      
> >>> education,
> >>>    
> >>>> in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far
> >>>>      
> >>> as
> >>>    
> >>>> receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store.
> >>>> But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away
> >>>> through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at
> >>>> best) misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis,
> >>>> individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through
> >>>>      
> >>> invention
> >>>    
> >>>> and re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful
> >>>> inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each
> >>>> other.
> >>>> 
> >>>> In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by
> >>>>      
> >>> those
> >>>    
> >>>> who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to
> >>>>      
> >>> know
> >>>    
> >>>> nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary
> >>>> opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own
> >>>> existence. The students, alienated like the slave in the Hegelian
> >>>>      
> >>> dialectic,
> >>>    
> >>>> accept their ignorance as justifying the teachers existence -- but unlike
> >>>> the slave, they never discover that they educate the teacher.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The raison d'etre of libertarian education, on the other hand, lies in
> >>>>      
> >>> its
> >>>    
> >>>> drive towards reconciliation. Education must begin with the solution of
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the
> >>>>      
> >>> contradiction
> >>>    
> >>>> so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This solution is not (nor can it be) found in the banking concept. On the
> >>>> contrary, banking education maintains and even stimulates the
> >>>>      
> >>> contradiction
> >>>    
> >>>> through the following attitudes and practices, which mirror oppressive
> >>>> society as a whole:
> >>>> 
> >>>>   - the teacher teaches and the students are taught;
> >>>>   - the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
> >>>>   - the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;
> >>>>   - the teacher talks and the students listen -- meekly;
> >>>>   - the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
> >>>>   - the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students
> >>>>      
> >>> comply;
> >>>    
> >>>>   - the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting
> >>>>      
> >>> through
> >>>    
> >>>>   the action of the teacher;
> >>>>   - the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were
> >>>>   not consulted) adapt to it;
> >>>>   - the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own
> >>>>   professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the
> >>>>      
> >>> freedom
> >>>    
> >>>>   of the students;
> >>>>   - the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils
> >>>>   are mere objects.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards men as
> >>>> adaptable, manageable beings. The more students work at storing the
> >>>>      
> >>> deposits
> >>>    
> >>>> entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which
> >>>> would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that
> >>>> world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them,
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the
> >>>>      
> >>> fragmented
> >>>    
> >>>> view of reality deposited in them.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the student's
> >>>> creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it
> >>>> transformed. The oppressors use their "humanitarianism" to preserve a
> >>>> profitable situation. Thus they react almost instinctively against any
> >>>> experiment in education which stimulates the critical faculties and is
> >>>>      
> >>> not
> >>>    
> >>>> content with a partial view of reality always seeks out the ties which
> >>>>      
> >>> link
> >>>    
> >>>> one point to another and one problem to another.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in "changing the
> >>>>      
> >>> consciousness
> >>>    
> >>>> of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them," (1) for the
> >>>>      
> >>> more
> >>>    
> >>>> the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they
> >>>> can be dominated. To achieve this the oppressors use the banking concept
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus,
> >>>> within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of "welfare
> >>>> recipients." They are treated as individual cases, as marginal persons
> >>>>      
> >>> who
> >>>    
> >>>> deviate from the general configuration of a "good, organized and just"
> >>>> society. The oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy
> >>>>      
> >>> society
> >>>    
> >>>> which must therefore adjust these "incompetent and lazy" folk to its own
> >>>> patterns by changing their mentality. These marginals need to be
> >>>> "integrated," "incorporated" into the healthy society that they have
> >>>> "forsaken."
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #1: Simone de Beauvoir. La Pensee de Droite, Aujord'hui
> >>>>      
> >>> (Paris);
> >>>    
> >>>> ST, El Pensamiento politico de la Derecha (Buenos Aires, 1963), p. 34.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginals," are not
> >>>> living "outside" society. They have always been "inside" the structure
> >>>>      
> >>> which
> >>>    
> >>>> made them "beings for others." The solution is not to 'integrate" them
> >>>>      
> >>> into
> >>>    
> >>>> the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they
> >>>> can become "beings for themselves." Such transformation, of course, would
> >>>> undermine the oppressors' purposes; hence their utilization of the
> >>>>      
> >>> banking
> >>>    
> >>>> concept of education to avoid the threat of student conscientizacao.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The banking approach to adult education, for example, will never propose
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> students that they critically consider reality. It will deal instead with
> >>>> such vital questions as whether Roger gave green grass to the goat, and
> >>>> insist upon the importance of learning that, on the contrary, Roger gave
> >>>> green grass to the rabbit. The "humanism" of the banking approach masks
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> effort to turn women and men into automatons -- the very negation of
> >>>>      
> >>> their
> >>>    
> >>>> ontological vocation to be more fully human.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Those who use the banking approach, knowingly or unknowingly (for there
> >>>>      
> >>> are
> >>>    
> >>>> innumerable well-intentioned bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that
> >>>> they are serving only to dehumanize), fail to perceive that the deposits
> >>>> themselves contain contradictions about reality. But sooner or later,
> >>>>      
> >>> these
> >>>    
> >>>> contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their
> >>>> domestication and the attempt to domesticate reality. They may discover
> >>>> through existential experience that their present way of life is
> >>>> irreconcilable with their vocation to become fully human. They may
> >>>>      
> >>> perceive
> >>>    
> >>>> through their relations with reality that reality is really a process,
> >>>> undergoing constant transformation. If men and women are searchers and
> >>>>      
> >>> their
> >>>    
> >>>> ontological vocation is humanization, sooner or later they may perceive
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> contradiction in which banking education seeks to maintain them, and then
> >>>> engage themselves in the struggle for their liberation.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But the humanist revolutionary educator cannot wait for this possibility
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> materialize. From the outset, her efforts must coincide with those of the
> >>>> students to engage in critical thinking and the quest for mutual
> >>>> humanization. His efforts must be imbued with a profound trust in people
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> their creative power. To achieve this, they must be partners of the
> >>>>      
> >>> students
> >>>    
> >>>> in their relations with them.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The banking concept does not admit to such partnership -- and necessarily
> >>>> so. To resolve the teacher-student contradiction, to exchange the role of
> >>>> depositor, prescriber, domesticator, for the role of student among
> >>>>      
> >>> students
> >>>    
> >>>> would be to undermine the power of oppression and serve the cause of
> >>>> liberation.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between
> >>>> human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the
> >>>> world or with others; the individual is spectator, not re-creator. In
> >>>>      
> >>> this
> >>>    
> >>>> view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she
> >>>>      
> >>> is
> >>>    
> >>>> rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty "mind" passively open
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside. For example,
> >>>>      
> >>> my
> >>>    
> >>>> desk, my books, my coffee cup, all the objects before me, -- as bits of
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> world which surround me -- would be "inside" me, exactly as I am inside
> >>>>      
> >>> my
> >>>    
> >>>> study right now. This view makes no distinction between being accessible
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> consciousness and entering consciousness. The distinction, however, is
> >>>> essential: the objects which surround me are simply accessible to my
> >>>> consciousness, not located within it. I am aware of them, but they are
> >>>>      
> >>> not
> >>>    
> >>>> inside me.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It follows logically from the banking notion of consciousness that the
> >>>> educator's role is to regulate the way the world "enters into" the
> >>>>      
> >>> students.
> >>>    
> >>>> The teacher's task is to organize a process which already occurs
> >>>> spontaneously, to "fill" the students by making deposits of information
> >>>> which he of she considers to constitute true knowledge. (2) And since
> >>>>      
> >>> people
> >>>    
> >>>> "receive" the world as passive entities, education should make them more
> >>>> passive still, and adapt them to the world. The educated individual is
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> adapted person, because she or he is better 'fit" for the world.
> >>>>      
> >>> Translated
> >>>    
> >>>> into practice, this concept is well suited for the purposes of the
> >>>> oppressors, whose tranquility rests on how well people fit the world the
> >>>> oppressors have created and how little they question it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #2: This concept corresponds to what Sartre calls the
> >>>>      
> >>> 'digestive'
> >>>    
> >>>> or 'nutritive' in which knowledge is 'fed' by the teacher to the students
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> "fill them out." See Jean-Paul Sartre, 'Une idee fundamentals de la
> >>>> phenomenologie de Husserl: L'intentionalite," Situations I (Paris,
> >>>>      
> >>> 1947).]
> >>>    
> >>>> The more completely the majority adapt to the purposes which the dominant
> >>>> majority prescribe for them (thereby depriving them of the right to their
> >>>> own purposes), the more easily the minority can continue to prescribe.
> >>>>      
> >>> The
> >>>    
> >>>> theory and practice of banking education serve this end quite
> >>>>      
> >>> efficiently.
> >>>    
> >>>> Verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, (3) the methods for evaluating
> >>>> "knowledge," the distance between the teacher and the taught, the
> >>>>      
> >>> criteria
> >>>    
> >>>> for promotion: everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to
> >>>>      
> >>> obviate
> >>>    
> >>>> thinking.
> >>>> 
> >>>> {Footnote #3: For example, some professors specify in their reading lists
> >>>> that a book should be read from pages 10 to 15 -- and do this to 'help'
> >>>> their students!]
> >>>> 
> >>>> The bank-clerk educator does not realize that there is no true security
> >>>>      
> >>> in
> >>>    
> >>>> his hypertrophied role, that one must seek to live with others in
> >>>> solidarity. One cannot impose oneself, nor even merely co-exist with
> >>>>      
> >>> one's
> >>>    
> >>>> students. Solidarity requires true communication, and the concept by
> >>>>      
> >>> which
> >>>    
> >>>> such an educator is guided fears and proscribes communication.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Yet only through communication can human life hold meaning. The teacher's
> >>>> thinking is authenticated only by the authenticity of the students'
> >>>> thinking. The teacher cannot think for her students, nor can she impose
> >>>>      
> >>> her
> >>>    
> >>>> thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about
> >>>> reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation, but only in
> >>>> communication. If it is true that thought has meaning only when generated
> >>>>      
> >>> by
> >>>    
> >>>> action upon the world, the subordination of students to teachers becomes
> >>>> impossible.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Because banking education begins with a false understanding of men and
> >>>> women as objects, it cannot promote the development of what Fromm calls
> >>>> "biophily," but instead produces its opposite: "necrophily."
> >>>> 
> >>>> While life is characterized by growth in a structured functional manner,
> >>>> the necrophilous person loves all that does not grow, all that is
> >>>> mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all
> >>>>      
> >>> living
> >>>    
> >>>> persons were things. . . . Memory, rather than experience; having, rather
> >>>> than being, is what counts' The necrophilous person can relate to an
> >>>>      
> >>> object
> >>>    
> >>>> -- a flower or a person -- only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his
> >>>> possession is a threat to himself, if he loses possession he loses
> >>>>      
> >>> contact
> >>>    
> >>>> with the world. . . . He loves control, and in the act of controlling he
> >>>> kills life. (4)
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #4: Fromm, op. cit. p. 41.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> Oppression --overwhelming control -- is necrophilic; it is nourished by
> >>>> love of death, not life. The banking concept of education, which serves
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> interests of oppression, is also necrophilic. Based on a mechanistic,
> >>>> static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness, it transforms
> >>>> students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and
> >>>>      
> >>> action,
> >>>    
> >>>> leads women and men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative
> >>>> power.
> >>>> 
> >>>> When their efforts to act responsibly are frustrated, when they find
> >>>> themselves unable to use their faculties, people suffer. "This suffering
> >>>>      
> >>> due
> >>>    
> >>>> to impotence is rooted in the very fact that the human has been
> >>>>      
> >>> disturbed."
> >>>    
> >>>> (5) But the inability to act which people's anguish also causes them to
> >>>> reject their impotence, by attempting
> >>>> 
> >>>> . . . .to restore [their] capacity to act. But can [they], and how? One
> >>>>      
> >>> way
> >>>    
> >>>> is to submit to and identify with a person or group having power. By this
> >>>> symbolic participation in another person's life, (men have] the illusion
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> acting, when in reality [they] only submit to and become a part of those
> >>>>      
> >>> who
> >>>    
> >>>> act. (6)
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #5: Ibid., p 31.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #6: Ibid. 7.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> Populist manifestations perhaps best exemplify this type of behavior by
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> oppressed, who, by identifying with charismatic leaders, come to feel
> >>>>      
> >>> that
> >>>    
> >>>> they themselves are active and effective. The rebellion they express as
> >>>>      
> >>> they
> >>>    
> >>>> emerge in the historical process is motivated by that desire to act
> >>>> effectively. The dominant elites consider the remedy to be more
> >>>>      
> >>> domination
> >>>    
> >>>> and repression, carried out in the name of freedom, order, and social
> >>>>      
> >>> peace
> >>>    
> >>>> (that is, the peace of the elites). Thus they can condemn -- logically,
> >>>>      
> >>> from
> >>>    
> >>>> their point of view -- "the violence of a strike by workers and [can]
> >>>>      
> >>> call
> >>>    
> >>>> upon the state in the same breath to use violence in putting down the
> >>>> strike." (7)
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #7: Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York,
> >>>> 1960), p. 130. ]
> >>>> 
> >>>> Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of
> >>>> students, with the ideological intent (often not perceived by educators)
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression. This accusation
> >>>>      
> >>> is
> >>>    
> >>>> not made in the naive hope that the dominant elites will thereby simply
> >>>> abandon the practice. Its objective is to call the attention of true
> >>>> humanists to the fact that they cannot use banking educational methods in
> >>>> the pursuit of liberation, for they would only negate that very pursuit.
> >>>>      
> >>> Nor
> >>>    
> >>>> may a revolutionary society inherit these methods from an oppressor
> >>>>      
> >>> society.
> >>>    
> >>>> The revolutionary society which practices banking education is either
> >>>> misguided or mistrusting of people. In either event, it is threatened by
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> specter of reaction.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of liberation are themselves
> >>>> surrounded and influenced by the climate which generates the banking
> >>>> concept, and often do not perceive its true significance or its
> >>>>      
> >>> dehumanizing
> >>>    
> >>>> power. Paradoxically, then, they utilize this same instrument of
> >>>>      
> >>> alienation
> >>>    
> >>>> in what they consider an effort to liberate. Indeed, some
> >>>>      
> >>> "revolutionaries"
> >>>    
> >>>> brand as "innocents," "dreamers," or even "reactionaries" those who would
> >>>> challenge this educational practice. But one does not liberate people by
> >>>> alienating them. Authentic liberation-the process of humanization-is not
> >>>> another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is a praxis: the action and
> >>>> reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in
> >>>>      
> >>> its
> >>>    
> >>>> entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious
> >>>>      
> >>> beings,
> >>>    
> >>>> and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the world. They must
> >>>>      
> >>> abandon
> >>>    
> >>>> the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it with the posing of
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> problems of human beings in their relations with the world.
> >>>>      
> >>> "Problem-posing"
> >>>    
> >>>> education, responding to the essence of consciousness --intentionality --
> >>>> rejects communiques and embodies communication. It epitomizes the special
> >>>> characteristic of consciousness: being conscious of, not only as intent
> >>>>      
> >>> on
> >>>    
> >>>> objects but as turned in upon itself in a Jasperian split"
> >>>>      
> >>> --consciousness
> >>>    
> >>>> as consciousness of consciousness.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of
> >>>> information. It is a learning situation in which the cognizable object
> >>>>      
> >>> (far
> >>>    
> >>>> from being the end of the cognitive act) intermediates the cognitive
> >>>>      
> >>> actors
> >>>    
> >>>> -- teacher on the one hand and students on the other. Accordingly, the
> >>>> practice of problem-posing education entails at the outset that the
> >>>> teacher-student contradiction to be resolved. Dialogical relations --
> >>>> indispensable to the capacity of cognitive actors to cooperate in
> >>>>      
> >>> perceiving
> >>>    
> >>>> the same cognizable object --are otherwise impossible.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Indeed problem-posing education, which breaks with the vertical
> >>>> characteristic of banking education, can fulfill its function of freedom
> >>>> only if it can overcome the above contradiction. Through dialogue, the
> >>>> teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist
> >>>>      
> >>> and a
> >>>    
> >>>> new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teachers. The teacher is
> >>>>      
> >>> no
> >>>    
> >>>> longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in
> >>>>      
> >>> dialogue
> >>>    
> >>>> with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become
> >>>> jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this process,
> >>>> arguments based on "authority" are no longer valid; in order to function
> >>>> authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it. Here, no one
> >>>> teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. People teach each other,
> >>>> mediated by the world, by the cognizable objects which in banking
> >>>>      
> >>> education
> >>>    
> >>>> are "owned" by the teacher.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The banking concept (with its tendency to dichotomize everything)
> >>>> distinguishes two stages in the action of the educator. During the first
> >>>>      
> >>> he
> >>>    
> >>>> cognizes a cognizable object while he prepares his lessons in his study
> >>>>      
> >>> or
> >>>    
> >>>> his laboratory; during the second, he expounds to his students about that
> >>>> object. The students are not called upon to know, but to memorize the
> >>>> contents narrated by the teacher. Nor do the students practice any act of
> >>>> cognition, since the object towards which that act should be directed is
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> property of the teacher rather than a medium evoking the critical
> >>>>      
> >>> reflection
> >>>    
> >>>> of both teacher and students. Hence in the name of the "preservation of
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> knowledge" we have a system which achieves neither true knowledge nor
> >>>>      
> >>> true
> >>>    
> >>>> culture.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The problem-posing method does not dichotomize the activity of
> >>>> teacher-student: she is not "cognitive" at one point and "narrative" at
> >>>> another. She is always "cognitive," whether preparing a project or
> >>>>      
> >>> engaging
> >>>    
> >>>> in dialogue with the students. He does not regard objects as his private
> >>>> property, but as the object of reflection by himself and his students. In
> >>>> this way, the problem-posing educator constantly re-forms his reflections
> >>>>      
> >>> in
> >>>    
> >>>> the reflection of the students. The students -- no longer docile
> >>>>      
> >>> listeners
> >>>    
> >>>> -- are now--critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. The
> >>>> teacher presents the material to the students for their consideration,
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> re-considers her earlier considerations as the students express their
> >>>>      
> >>> own.
> >>>    
> >>>> The role of the problem-posing educator is to create, together with the
> >>>> students, the conditions under which knowledge at the level of the doxa
> >>>>      
> >>> is
> >>>    
> >>>> superseded by true knowledge at the level of the logos. Whereas banking
> >>>> education anesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem-posing
> >>>>      
> >>> education
> >>>    
> >>>> involves a constant unveiling of reality. The former attempts to maintain
> >>>> the submersion of consciousness; the latter strives for the emergence of
> >>>> consciousness and critical intervention in reality.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Students, as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to
> >>>> themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly
> >>>> challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge. Because they
> >>>>      
> >>> apprehend
> >>>    
> >>>> the challenge as interrelated to other problems within a total context
> >>>>      
> >>> not
> >>>    
> >>>> as a theoretical question, the resulting comprehension tends to be
> >>>> increasingly critical and thus constantly less alienated. Their response
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> the challenge evokes new challenges, followed by new understandings; and
> >>>> gradually the students come to regard themselves as committed.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Education as the practice of freedom -- as opposed to education as the
> >>>> practice of domination -- denies that man is abstract, isolated,
> >>>>      
> >>> independent
> >>>    
> >>>> and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a
> >>>> reality apart from people. Authentic reflection considers neither
> >>>>      
> >>> abstract
> >>>    
> >>>> man nor the world without people, but people in their relations with the
> >>>> world. In these relations consciousness and world are simultaneous:
> >>>> consciousness neither precedes the world nor follows it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> La conscience et le monde sont dormes dun meme coup: exterieur par
> >>>>      
> >>> essence
> >>>    
> >>>> a la conscience, le monde est, par essence relatif a elle. (8)
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #8: Sartre, op. cit., p. 32.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> In one of our culture circles in Chile, the group was discussing (based
> >>>>      
> >>> on
> >>>    
> >>>> a codification) the anthropological concept of culture. In the midst of
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> discussion, a peasant who by banking standards was completely ignorant
> >>>>      
> >>> said:
> >>>    
> >>>> "Now I see that without man there is no world." When the educator
> >>>>      
> >>> responded:
> >>>    
> >>>> "Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the men on earth were to
> >>>>      
> >>> die,
> >>>    
> >>>> but that the earth remained, together with trees, birds, animals, rivers,
> >>>> seas, the stars. . . wouldn't all this be a world?" "Oh no," the peasant
> >>>> replied . "There would be no one to say: 'This is a world'."
> >>>> 
> >>>> The peasant wished to express the idea that there would be lacking the
> >>>> consciousness of the world which necessarily implies the world of
> >>>> consciousness. I cannot exist without a non-I. In turn, the not-I depends
> >>>>      
> >>> on
> >>>    
> >>>> that existence. The world which brings consciousness into existence
> >>>>      
> >>> becomes
> >>>    
> >>>> the world of that consciousness. Hence, the previously cited affirmation
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> Sartre: "La conscience et le monde sont dormes d'un meme coup."
> >>>> 
> >>>> As women and men, simultaneously reflecting on themselves and world,
> >>>> increase the scope of their perception, they begin to direct their
> >>>> observations towards previously inconspicuous phenomena:
> >>>> 
> >>>> In perception properly so-called, as an explicit awareness [Gewahren], I
> >>>>      
> >>> am
> >>>    
> >>>> turned towards the object, to the paper, for instance. I apprehend it as
> >>>> being this here and now. The apprehension is a singling out, every object
> >>>> having a background in experience. Around and about the paper lie books,
> >>>> pencils, inkwell and so forth, and these in a certain sense are also
> >>>> "perceived," perceptually there, in the "field of intuition"; but whilst
> >>>>      
> >>> I
> >>>    
> >>>> was turned towards the paper there was no turning in their direction, nor
> >>>> any apprehending of them, not even in a secondary sense. They appeared
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> yet were not singled out, were posited on their own account. Every
> >>>> perception of a thing has such a zone of background intuitions or
> >>>>      
> >>> background
> >>>    
> >>>> awareness, if "intuiting" already includes the state of being turned
> >>>> towards, and this also is a "conscious experience", or more briefly a
> >>>> "consciousness of" all indeed that in point of fact lies in the
> >>>>      
> >>> co-perceived
> >>>    
> >>>> objective background. (10)
> >>>> 
> >>>> [Footnote #10: Edmund Husserl, Ideas-General Introduction to Pure
> >>>> Phenomenology (London, 1969), pp. 105-106.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> That which had existed objectively but had not been perceived in its
> >>>>      
> >>> deeper
> >>>    
> >>>> implications (if indeed it was perceived at all) begins to "stand out,"
> >>>> assuming the character of a problem and therefore of challenge. Thus, men
> >>>> and women begin to single out elements from their "background awareness"
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> to reflect upon them. These elements are now objects of their
> >>>>      
> >>> consideration,
> >>>    
> >>>> and, as such, objects of their action and cognition.
> >>>> 
> >>>> In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive
> >>>> critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they
> >>>>      
> >>> find
> >>>    
> >>>> themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a
> >>>> reality in process, in transformation. Although the dialectical relations
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> women and men with the world exist independently of how these relations
> >>>>      
> >>> are
> >>>    
> >>>> perceived (or whether or not they are perceived at all), it is also true
> >>>> that the form of action they adopt is to a large extent a function of how
> >>>> they perceive themselves in the world. Hence, the teacher-student and the
> >>>> students-teachers reflect simultaneously on themselves and the world
> >>>>      
> >>> without
> >>>    
> >>>> dichotomizing this reflection from action, and thus establish an
> >>>>      
> >>> authentic
> >>>    
> >>>> form of thought and action.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Once again, the two educational concepts and practices under analysis
> >>>>      
> >>> come
> >>>    
> >>>> into conflict. Banking education (for obvious reasons) attempts, by
> >>>> mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which explain the way human
> >>>> beings exist in the world; problem-posing education sets itself the task
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> demythologizing. Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing
> >>>> education regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which
> >>>> unveils reality. Banking education treats students as objects of
> >>>>      
> >>> assistance;
> >>>    
> >>>> problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education
> >>>> inhibits creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely
> >>>>      
> >>> destroy)
> >>>    
> >>>> the intentionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from the
> >>>> world, thereby denying people their ontological and historical vocation
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> becoming more fully human. Problem-posing education bases itself on
> >>>> creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality,
> >>>>      
> >>> thereby
> >>>    
> >>>> responding to the vocation of persons as beings only when engaged in
> >>>>      
> >>> inquiry
> >>>    
> >>>> and creative transformation. In sum: banking theory and practice, as
> >>>> immobilizing and fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men and women as
> >>>> historical beings; problem-posing theory and practice take the people's
> >>>> historicity as their starting point.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings the process of
> >>>> becoming -- as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise
> >>>> unfinished reality. Indeed, in contrast to other animals who are
> >>>>      
> >>> unfinished,
> >>>    
> >>>> but not historical, people know themselves to be unfinished; they are
> >>>>      
> >>> aware
> >>>    
> >>>> of their incompletion. In this incompletion and this awareness lie the
> >>>>      
> >>> very
> >>>    
> >>>> roots of education as an human manifestation. The unfinished character of
> >>>> human beings and the transformational character of reality necessitate
> >>>>      
> >>> that
> >>>    
> >>>> education be an ongoing activity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Education is thus constantly remade in the praxis. In order to be, it
> >>>>      
> >>> must
> >>>    
> >>>> become. Its "duration" (in the Bergsonian meaning of the word) is found
> >>>>      
> >>> in
> >>>    
> >>>> the interplay of the opposites permanence and change. The banking method
> >>>> emphasizes permanence and becomes problem-posing education -- which
> >>>>      
> >>> accepts
> >>>    
> >>>> neither a "well-behaved" present nor a predetermined future -- roots
> >>>>      
> >>> itself
> >>>    
> >>>> in the dynamic present and becomes revolutionary.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Problem-posing education is revolutionary futurity. Hence it is prophetic
> >>>> (and as such, hopeful). Hence, it corresponds to the historical nature of
> >>>> humankind. Hence, it affirms women and men as who transcend themselves,
> >>>>      
> >>> who
> >>>    
> >>>> move forward and look ahead, for whom immobility represents a fatal
> >>>>      
> >>> threat
> >>>    
> >>>> for whom looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more
> >>>> clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the
> >>>>      
> >>> future.
> >>>    
> >>>> Hence, it identifies with the movement which engages people as beings
> >>>>      
> >>> aware
> >>>    
> >>>> of their incompletion -- an historical movement which has its point of
> >>>> departure, its Subjects and its objective.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The point of departure of the movement lies in the people themselves. But
> >>>> since people do not exist apart from the world, apart from reality, the
> >>>> movement must begin with the human-world relationship. Accordingly, the
> >>>> point of departure must always be with men and women in the "here and
> >>>>      
> >>> now,"
> >>>    
> >>>> which constitutes the situation within which they are submerged, from
> >>>>      
> >>> which
> >>>    
> >>>> they emerge, and in which they intervene. Only by starting from this
> >>>> situation -- which determines their perception of it -- can they begin to
> >>>> move. To do this authentically they must perceive their state not as
> >>>>      
> >>> fated
> >>>    
> >>>> and unalterable, but merely as limiting - and therefore challenging.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Whereas the banking method directly or indirectly reinforces men's
> >>>> fatalistic perception of their situation, the problem-posing method
> >>>>      
> >>> presents
> >>>    
> >>>> this very situation to them as a problem. As the situation becomes the
> >>>> object of their cognition, the naive or magical perception which produced
> >>>> their fatalism gives way to perception which is able to perceive itself
> >>>>      
> >>> even
> >>>    
> >>>> as it perceives reality, and can thus be critically objective about that
> >>>> reality.
> >>>> 
> >>>> A deepened consciousness of their situation leads people to apprehend
> >>>>      
> >>> that
> >>>    
> >>>> situation as an historical reality susceptible of transformation.
> >>>> Resignation gives way to the drive for transformation and inquiry, over
> >>>> which men feel themselves to be in control. If people, as historical
> >>>>      
> >>> beings
> >>>    
> >>>> necessarily engaged with other people in a movement of inquiry, did not
> >>>> control that movement, it would be (and is) a violation of their
> >>>>      
> >>> humanity.
> >>>    
> >>>> Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not important;
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them
> >>>>      
> >>> into
> >>>    
> >>>> objects.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This movement of inquiry must be directed towards humanization -- the
> >>>> people's historical vocation. The pursuit of full humanity, however,
> >>>>      
> >>> cannot
> >>>    
> >>>> be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and
> >>>> solidarity; therefore it cannot unfold in the antagonistic relations
> >>>>      
> >>> between
> >>>    
> >>>> oppressors and oppressed. No one can be authentically human while he
> >>>> prevents others from being so. Attempting to be more human,
> >>>> individualistically, leads to having more, egotistically, a form of
> >>>> dehumanization. Not that it is not fundamental to have in order to be
> >>>>      
> >>> human.
> >>>    
> >>>> Precisely because it is necessary, some men's having must not be allowed
> >>>>      
> >>> to
> >>>    
> >>>> constitute an obstacle to others' having, must not consolidate the power
> >>>>      
> >>> of
> >>>    
> >>>> the former to crush the latter.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Problem-posing education, as a humanist and liberating praxis, posits as
> >>>> fundamental that the people subjected to domination must fight for their
> >>>> emancipation. To that end, it enables teachers and students to become
> >>>> Subjects of the educational process by overcoming authoritarianism and an
> >>>> alienating intellectualism; it also enables people to overcome their
> >>>>      
> >>> false
> >>>    
> >>>> perception of reality. The world -- no longer something to be described
> >>>>      
> >>> with
> >>>    
> >>>> deceptive words -- becomes the object of that transforming action by men
> >>>>      
> >>> and
> >>>    
> >>>> women which results in their humanization.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the
> >>>> oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to
> >>>> question: Why? While only a revolutionary society can carry out this
> >>>> education in systematic terms, the revolutionary leaders need not take
> >>>>      
> >>> full
> >>>    
> >>>> power before they can employ the method. In the revolutionary process,
> >>>>      
> >>> the
> >>>    
> >>>> leaders cannot utilize the banking method as an interim measure,
> >>>>      
> >>> justified
> >>>    
> >>>> on grounds of expediency, with intention of later behaving in a genuinely
> >>>> revolutionary fashion. They must be revolutionary -- that is to say,
> >>>> dialogical -- from the outset.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> *
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> References
> >>>> 
> >>>> Freire, P. (1971). *Pedagogy of the oppressed*. New York: Seabury.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Freire, P. (1973). *Education for critical consciousness *(1st ed.). New
> >>>> York: Seabury.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). *Literacy: Reading the word & the
> >>>>      
> >>> world*.
> >>>    
> >>>> South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Horton, M. & Freire, P. (1990).* We make the road by walking.*
> >>>> Philadelphia:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Temple University Press.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). *Mind in society: The development of higher
> >>>> psychological processes.*
> >>>> 
> >>>> * *Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.**
> >>>> 
> >>>> Vygotsky, L. S. (1986).* Thought and language.* Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Vygotsky, L. S. (1987).* The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky* (N.
> >>>> Minick, Trans. Vol. 1).
> >>>> 
> >>>>            New York: Plenum.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Wertsch, J. (1985). *Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.*
> >>>> 
> >>>> Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> >>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>> Social Foundations of Education
> >>>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> >>>> Georgia Southern University
> >>>> P. O. Box 8144
> >>>> Phone: (912) 478-5125
> >>>> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> >>>> Statesboro, GA  30460
> >>>> 
> >>>> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> >>>> midwife.*
> >>>> *-*John Dewey.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>      
> >>>>>>> mike cole
> >>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>            
> >>> 9/22/2010 10:50 PM >>>
> >>>    
> >>>> David's interesting discussion of the meanings of "ideology" got me
> >>>> wondering about the relation of the conception used by Vygotsky and other
> >>>> conceptions. Could anyone help me by looking in *Pedagogy of the
> >>>>      
> >>> Oppressed"
> >>>    
> >>>> and posting Friere's definition of ideology? I remember it being
> >>>> interesting
> >>>> but my copy has gone missing.
> >>>> 
> >>>> For those interested, the discussion by Geertz may also be relevant:
> >>>> http://www.gongfa.com/geertz1.htm
> >>>> 
> >>>> mike
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> >
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>      
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> >
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>    
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  
> > 
> > -- 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


Lucas M. Bietti
Macquarie University
Universitat Pompeu Fabra

lucas@bietti.org
www.collectivememory.net
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca