NLA Discussion: Freire at work

[MNoyes1234 at aol.com]

George wrote:

<<Matt's point is that the kind of discussion coming out of Freirian theory is
language that cannot be uttered in DC to be taken seriously at all and as
reformist progresive types representing various ideological strands, we do a
good job in self-censorship and censoring each other to be practical; to get a
little piece of the pie, to be viewed as a player. >>

I appreciate the point he is making, I can't imagine a frank discussion of a
radical pedagogy based on a theory which asserts a need to go beyond
capitalism by means of mass popular organization in Washington DC., but my
point of entry into this discussion is different. I approach "Freire" from the
teaching/organizing standpoint, as a resource and a name for framing the goals
and methods of my work. In the same way, although much more practically, I
rely on materials from Alforja in Costa Rica, Auerbach and Wallerstein in the
US, and The Doris Marshall Institute in Toronto.

The discussion on EFF and Freire/Dewey has been interesting, but again, on a
different wavelength. It's been a policy discussion so far, on the level of
program directors -- to use a crude demarcation -- which most teachers (part-
time, no benefits, top-down staff development, etc.) seldom encounter. This is
not to disparage people who struggle over policy matters, just to note a
difference in our field, a difference of terrain or standpoint.

My initial question was whether there were people "out there" who were trying
to sort out the contradiction posed by pursuing a radical transformational
educational/organizing project in a context that is neutral to such goals at
best, hostile at worst. (It's important to note that I'm referring not to the
stated goals of radical transformation but the actual day to day practice.)
For the teacher, it's an exercise in frustration - you find yourself square in
the liberal, limited practice that, to put it a way that was put to me by a
superior, "allows for problem-posing, but not problem-solving." The best way I
know for teachers to begin a transformational practice is by organizing
themselves as workers and forming unions. That exercise in empowerment is the
best teacher I know. It also raises many interesting and fruitful
contradictions.

I am still in the more limited context of an Adult Education Program at a CUNY
school, but I'm also in a new context, working for the Association for Union
Democracy, an independent organization that promotes the organization of union
members in defense of their rights in their union and on the job. In that
context, I am free to try to develop a practice that I hope will become more
and more adequate to my goals. One key element of that hope is my awareness of
the potential and actual efforts underway by working people to make changes in
their living and working lives. Which reminds me of something Debbie D'Amico
brought up that I think is very important.

Debbie pointed out that Freire's explorations in teaching and the practice of
liberatory pedagogy developed in a context defined by  mass popular movements.
She says that no such movement exists here and now, so one can't expect too
much of a Freireian-type pedagogy. (Debbie, please correct me if this
shorthand is not accurate.)

What I want to challenge is the view that no such movements exist here. In
particular, in the workers movement, there is a great deal of organizing, much
of it along the same lines as in Brazil. (Although, we remain essentially
stuck in the swamp of Democratic/Republican party politics, whereas they have
a real independent left political party.) A recent book by Kim Moody "Workers
in a Lean World" gives a picture of that movement  both in Brazil and the US
and the international links being built. Workers in Brazil formed an
independent federation the CUT, so there is a vital union reform movement
here. The kind of movement initiatives I am thinking of are in groups like
Teamsters for a Democratic Union, whose organizers are exploring the use of
participatory methods in workshops they do with rank and file teamsters all
over the country, often in the face of strong opposition from both employers
and union leaders who fear an organized membership that demands more democracy
and more power in the union and at work.

There are also community based initiatives like the Workplace Project on Long
Island, a workers center, one of whose key organizing strategies is a workers
school which moves explicitly from problem-posing into organized action.
(Jennifer Gordon has described the work of the Workplace Project in an article
for Harvard Law Review, I don't recall the issue.) In addition, Labor Notes,
the newsletter of the union reform movement, also has developed a very strong
series of schools on subjects like how to fight labor-management cooperation
schemes, and union democracy, using educational methods inspired by popular
education. (Their E-mail: labornotes at igc.apc.org.)

These organizations and projects are part of a real movement towards
transformation in the workers movement in the US. There are certainly others.
For me, a vision of popular education certainly has to be developed with
reference to movements for change, as D'Amico said. It also has to be
developed organically, by its practitioners, out of our work, posing and
solving the problems we face there.

So, what I am still curious about is if and how others have grappled with
these issues, particularly at the "class-room" level. How do we see our work
relating to real movements for social change? If we start out in established
mainstream literacy programs, how do we move towards a practice that is
transformational and critical literally? Where, then, do we fit into the
policy discussions, if we do at all?

Matt Noyes