NLA Discussion: Dewey and Freire

[Andres Muro]

George and others: 

I am a lot less familiar with both Dewey and Freire than George is, so my
perspective may not be accurate. However, I find this discussion highly
instructive and I would like for George and others to comment on my own
perspective (This is kind of like having a private teacher and not paying
for his services). Furthermore, I would like for the EFF people to
participate. 

I am approaching my reading of Dewey and Freire  from a
pragmatic/pedagogical approach while it seems to me that George is
looking at the these individuals from the ideological /pedagogical
approach. Pedagogically, both individuals are similar while ideologically,
they both have different readings of the world and the implications of
their pedagogy in practice. While Dewey saw that his pedagogy would
lead to a realization of democracy, Freire saw that his pedagogy would
result  in structural transformation a la Marx. 

Decontextualizing pedagogy from context (if this is possible, or even
allowable) I would like to see a Deweyan pedagogy implemented and see
the results of such practice. I tend to believe that the realization of this
pedagogical process would be ultimately more Freirian than Deweyan
with the oppressed. I guess it would all depend on the students and the
context. 

I am also interested to see what kind of theoretical background does the
EFF model has (Dewey, Freire), and what realizations EFF people expect
to see from their pedagogical model. For example, it seems that EFF is
proposing some kind of open pedagogy which would lead to students
clearly understanding and realizing their potential contribution to society.
However, there seems to be a catch in the EFF model. The ultimate
purpose of EFF is for people to be able to fully participate in a global
economy. 

I believe that if an honest (whatever this means) pedagogy is
implemented poor people will see that the global economy sucks. So,
from my own logic, the premise of EFF is unfulfillable. 

George, please assess my analysis of Freire and Dewey, and Sondra, et
al, please comment on my perceptions of EFF. Lets dwell some more in
these issues. 

Andres 

>>> GEORGE E. DEMETRION <gdemetrion at juno.com> 09/21/98 07:59pm
>>>

Andres and others:

My appropriation of Dewey and Freire is highly partial.  Dewey wrote for
60 years on psychology, philosophy, politics, ethics, education, logic,
religion, and art.  There's much about his work I haven't grasped.  Much
of what I've written about Freire is critical, but that, too, is based on
my own rhetorical (in the good sense, I hope) for writing.  On another
reading, I might be much more favorably inclined to draw parallels
between Freire and Dewey if my strategic purposes led me there

In the broadest sense, I see Dewey in the reconstructive mode.  That
is, his primary project was to identify hope and possibility within what
he believed was an open national identity and political culture that
would bring out the untapped potential of  Jeffersonian democracy for
the
20th century society.  He sought to realize the idealization of the 
American political culture in a manner that would exude an ethos of
individual and communal fulfillment (or "growth") culminating in what he
referred to as The Great Community.  That is, he sought to reconstruct
and fulfill his vision of an ideal America.

Freire, of course, writes from a more radical perspective and speaks
more
of transformation, liberation, and emancipation.  Freire, too, like
Dewey, had strong pragmatic leanings in taking a strategic approach to
social change within particular moments of history.  Nonetheless, he
remained grounded in a utopian vision of a radically transformed
society/culture as the dynamic motor of his praxeology.  So many US
based
literacy workers who studied Freirian pedagogy in graduate school
experienced a lot of disillusion once they encountered the reality of our
mainstream literacy and ABE institutions.  For many (not all) this
created a wide chasm between theory and practice and idealism and a
realpolitic cynicism or resignation.  If Freireian pedagogy in some real
fundamental sense does not fit the context of literacy practice in the US
(critique of banking pedagogy excepted), then those who have initially
staked so much on that are left in a sort of wilderness in making meaning
of the field. Others have staked out important areas of operation, but at
the expense of dispensing with a strong theoretical basis and implicitly
reinforcing the anti-intellectualism of American culture.

Much of the work of Freire is based on variations of neo-Marxism and
other radical strains of the European intellectual tradition.  I never did
read Freire when I first entered the field.  I heard of him, but the
little I saw or heard of his work, didn't interest me.  In my academic
training I did a lot of work in American intellectual history.  In that
field there has been a revival of Dewey's work dubbed as
neo-pragmatism
and it was that literature which compelled my interest and ultimately led
me to Dewey, the "primary source."  Both pragmatism and
neopragmatism
have a lot of strains, but one of its most important dynamics is the
impulse to reconstruct an already open social universe starting from the
given to whatever potential can be realized within the context of a
living history defined as the perpetual reconstruction of the present.

Thus, while the utopian vision of a radically liberatory society/culture
is the motor of Freire's praxeology (the joining of theory and practice),
the perpetually reconstructable present from the given to the potential
is at the heart of Dewey's vision.  Dewey's pragmatism supported
gradualism and piecemeal change and fit in well with the American
Progressive movement of the early 20th century even though at time
Dewey
had more radical leanings. In my view Dewey represents the outer
perimeter of the idealism of American society and culture and pushes the
boundary of what that can be.  His concept of "growth" as the
enhancement
of experience (its reconstruction) through critical reflection becomes
the pedagogic dynamic by which to realize the idealization of society;
what he would call democracy.  In his vision, individual selves are most
realized when they are linked in community for the enhancement of
society
and culture.

What attracts me to this is that Dewey's concept of growth as well as
that of art as the "consummation" of experience fits in so well with some
of the most basic myths of American society and culture.  Most
fundamentally, that of self-realization as well as that of America as an
"open" society and culture.  These myths are profoundly believed by
many,
many adult literacy students as well as many of those who support such
programs.  And if we are honest and really probe the motivational
dynamics of our own lives, we would be hard pressed to deny the
power of
these myths even as we disbelieve them in other ways.  As starting
point,
I argue that these Deweyan myths hold as yet, untapped resources to
reconstruct the field.

I hold to this even as I am simultaneously suspicious.  I am suspicious
because

1.  Historically, Deweyan pragmatism is a failed tradition.  The organic
vision of the Great Community did not come to pass in the early 20th
century and it is not upon us now.  Society remains highly fragmented as
is the field of education.

2.  The radical fulfillment of a Deweyan vision, including a very healthy
community rubs up against the needs of corporate consumer capitalism
to
slot individuals (not like robots, but a powerful element of social
control would be difficult to deny) into proscribed social, vocational
and consumer roles.  Individuals can clearly resist them, but from a
structural-functional perspective those roles must be filled in
statistically compelling ways.

3.  My own understanding and adherance to Christian theology mitigates
against such a naturalistic philosophy as Dewey's

Despite these factors, I sense that Dewey's philosophy (educational and
otherwise) represents a sort of perpetual dynamic that continually
recreates the myth of the open society and personal fulfillment.  It
represents a longing that can be repressed only at great cost.  If we do
not help  students work through such Deweyan aspirations, we will cut
off
a compelling source of motivation that many find (or would find) highly
stimulating.  I write about this stuff in two published essays.  The
first is:

Adult Literacy and the American Political Culture found in D.W. Walling
(1997):  Under Constriction:  The Role of the Srts and Humanities in
Postmodern Schooling.  Phi Delta Kappa.

A Critical Pedagogy of the Mainstream, in Adult Basic Education Journal
(summer, 1998), just about ready to hit the stands.

I've worked on a broader collection that I'm attempting to put together
into a monograph called Literacy as Growth:  Exploring the Middle
Ground.

Thus, my appropriation of Dewey for adult literacy is a postmodern one;
postmodern in the sense that I hold to no foundational position of
evolutionary progress which at least is implicit in Dewey's work. 
America isn't necessarily getting better.  Still I hold to this
pragmatism as sort of a perpetual cultural dynamic in what one author
refers to as The American Grain.  The myths of growth, consummation,
and
community that empower it are so deeply engrained in our national
culture
that if we by-pass them, we will do a great disservice to the field of
adult literacy education.  That will also be the case if we uncritically
embrace them.  Rather, it is my contention that we need to critically
work through these Dewyean dynamics through a postmodern temper,
so that
even if  a more radical politics of literacy is able to hold substantial
ground, it will do so by embracing much (not all) of this Dewyan vision. 
The "Middle Ground" of which I speak may very well fail, and there is
much about it that disatisfies me. But it needs to be fully examined,
explored and worked through  in true pragmatic fashion to see where it
will lead.

Regards and good evening

George Demetrion
GDemetrion at juno.com

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]