英语论文网

a major preoccupation of societies which seek their own recreation by liberating themselves from colonialism. In the struggle for recreation, “the reconquest by the people of their own word becomes a fundamental factor.” This is, doubtless, the struggle for literacy education which Friere ( 1978, p. 72 ) characterises as one dimension of cultural action for liberation which is linked, inextricably, to other aspects such as the social, economic, and cultural politics of dominated societies. The connections are echoed powerfully in references to both John Dewey, the American educator, and Julius Nyerere, the Tanzanian leader and liberator, who are credited with advocating a version of education devoid of naive significance. Nyerere and Dewey are posited as emphasising education, not as education for life, but as critical education, critical understanding of life actually lived ( Friere, 1978: p. 123 ). This vehicle of cultural emancipation is driven by a profound sense of radicalism the liberating educator must use to enter into dialogue with the oppressed whose struggle he is committed to advancing (Friere, 1970: pp. 23 - 24). In this partnership, the very causes of oppression are objects of joint reflection ( Friere, 1970: p. 33 ). Here is advocacy of versions of communication through which the oppressed locate themselves in the existence of educators who position themselves, reciprocally, in the lives of the oppressed ( Friere, 1970: p. 162 ). And in the act of placement, which is humanistic, there is every effort to apprehend historical reality. ( Friere, 1970: p. 52 ). It is clearly the case that he sees no distinctions between learners and teachers. He makes this position quite evident in the statement: If the dichotomy between teaching and learning results in the refusal of the one who teaches to learn from the one being taught, it grows out of an ideology of domination. Those who are called upon to teach must first learn how to continue learning when they begin to teach. ( Friere, 1978, p. 9 ). The involvement of learners - he adds - in defining educational content is of indisputable importance. They have rights, as active participants, to define what they need to know. ( Friere, 1978: p. 106 ). One of the most cogent conceptualisations of this stance emerges from the pronouncement that education must be initiated with efforts to solve the teacher-student contradiction, a reconciliation of difference, so that members of both groups are, simultaneously, teachers and students. ( Friere, 1970: p. 59 ). In the collective, persons become teachers-students with students-teachers. ( Friere, 1970: p. 67 ). Goulet ( 1998, p. xii ) offers an appropriate assessment of the conceptualisation by noting that Friere views the successful educator - not as a persuader, an insidious propagandist, but as a communicator who applies his ability to dialogue with educatees in modes of reciprocity. What does dialogue signify? It signifies collective action aimed at removing illiteracy along a plane of equality. Dialogue is not a relation between “I” and “it”. Dialogue is, necessarily, communion between “I” and “thou”, two subjects, for whenever “thou” is altered to “it”, “dialogue is subverted and education is changed to deformation.” ( Friere, 1998: p. 52 ). The sense of communion implies reflection, as well as, knowing, which is very specific to Friere ( 1998, pp. 100 -101 ). Knowing necessitates the curious presence of subjects wh