III. Reinventions of Freire's Idea of Oppression

Home , Social pedagogy

MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

Yolanda Ochoa Dorger

Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Dr. Denise M. Taliaferro-Baszile

______Reader Dr. Lisa D. Weems

______Reader Dr. Sally A. Lloyd

______Reader Dr. Michael E. Dantley

______Reader Dr. Gwendolyn Etter-Lewis

______Graduate School Representative REINVENTING OPPRESSION: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF PAULO FREIRE‘S PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED ABSTRACT

by Yolanda Ochoa Dorger

This dissertation is a archaeological analysis that traces the reinventions of Paulo Freire‘s idea of oppression in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by using Foucault‘s archeological method; it describes ―radical transformations and discontinuities‖ in the reinvention of oppression in different cultural and political contexts by examining the work of Latin American and United States scholars. I focus on the use of Freire‘s work to redefine the interconnections between literacy, cultures and education that potentially create new theoretical formulations in the United States and Latin America. I emphasize the importance of recognizing the contexts that gave birth to Freire‘s ideas as well as the proliferation of various meanings and other concerns that grow out of the cultural and political contexts of those peoples and places that continue to speak to the power of Freire‘s ideas. I focus on the insights and analytical tools that are especially significant to understanding the forces that underwrite Freire‘s theory and practice.

REINVENTING OPPRESSION: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF PAULO FREIRE‘S PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Leadership

Yolanda Ochoa Dorger Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2008

Dissertation Director: Dr. D. Taliaferro-Baszile

Yolanda Ochoa Dorger 2008

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...... 5

CONTRIBUTION ...... 11

STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ...... 12

II. METHODOLOGY ...... 14

PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE, DISCOURSE, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND POWER ...... 14

ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE ...... 18

GENEALOGY ...... 20

METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF FOUCAULT‘S ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 22

INTERPRETING FOUCAULT‘S ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 23

THE BEGINNING ...... 24

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ENGINEERING ...... 30

ACADEMIC DISCOURSES ...... 31

NARRATIVE AND VOICE ...... 32

DATA COLLECTION ...... 39

NODES ...... 42

CODES...... 42

HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CENTER OF REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR THE

EDUCATION OF ADULTS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (CREFAL) ...... 49

III. REINVENTIONS OF FREIRE’S IDEA OF OPPRESSION ...... 53

FIRST SERIES ...... 57

FREIRE‘S BIO-TEXT, OPPRESSION‘S REINVENTIONS AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 58

SECOND SERIES ...... 72

THIRD SERIES ...... 92

COROLLARY OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE‘S PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED 102

IV. CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES ...... 107

GRAPHIC OF CROSS DOMAIN ANALYSIS ...... 107

REFERENCES ...... 114

List of Figures Figure Num. Page Figure 1 . ARCHAEOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS ...... 29 Figure 2 . FREIRE‘S SYNCRETIC THINKING ...... 45 Figure 3 . TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE‘S PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED ...... 46 Figure 4 . CONTINUITIES OR DISCONTINUITIES OF FREIRE‘S IDEA OF OPPRESSION IN THE WORK OF A SELECTED GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES SCHOLARS ...... 47 Figure 5 . CONTINUITIES OR DISCONTINUITIES OF FREIRE‘S IDEA OF OPPRESSION IN THE WORK OF A SELECTED GROUP OF LATIN AMERICA SCHOLARS ...... 48 Figure 6 . TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE'S IDEA OF OPPRESSIONFIGURE 6. TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE‘S IDEA OF OPPRESSION ...... 108

I. Introduction

This dissertation is about the issues of cultural understanding and the transculturation of knowledge. It is about the flow of meaning and understanding of ideas that emerge in one context and move into another where can be changed, transformed and reinvented. One of the dilemmas of our understanding about education is our limitations on the approaches of the meaning from a position based on culture, location, and language that defined every context. The bigger mission here is to contribute to and stress the importance of cross-cultural dialogue and translation. My understanding of Paulo Freire‘s work from a Latin American context encountered many questions, challenges and reflections when I was exposed to the differences of interpretation and application of Paulo Freire‘s work in the United States. It became very important to me to move from a contextual interpretation of Freire‘s work into a cross-cultural dialogue for re-interpretation of the same work. Freire‘s work has been present in my life as student and later as a teacher twice. My first encounter was in a Latin America context. Later in my time as student at Miami University I encounter Freire‘s work but with a different perspective in comparison with my previous experiences. It appeared to me that these two voices did not talk to each other. The meanings and part of the translations were saying something different. There I notice the importance of the culture from where something has been said. This first reflection pointed me to look critically at the reinvention of Freire‘s work, specifically his concept of oppression from the two different context and try to find and trace the radical transformations, continuities and discontinuities of the reinventions of Paulo Freire‘s (1970) concept of oppression using archaeology as a method of description and analysis of a discourse to help to reveal the social and political forces within this field of discourse. It allows me to describe the perspectives of Latin America and United States and their notions of unity, continuity, tradition and influence. Paulo Freire is one of the most important educational philosophers of the 20th Century. He proposed a synthesis of the traditions of Hegelian dialectics, Marxism and Liberation Theology arguing that the psychosocial method of literacy had the possibility of transforming an act of simply knowing to an act of intervention throughout grass roots political activism. His

Literacy programs as political consciousness became a catalyst of such political intervention in contrast to the traditional functional literacy programs that had distilled inertia. Freire was a revolutionary educator who worked with the peasant populations in the poorest region of Brazil in the 1960‘s. He engaged the ‗‖readers‖ with ethics, politics and pedagogy by inviting them to commit with life, justice and liberation and challenging the fatalist immobilizing ideology that supports the liberal discourse that insists that nothing can be done to change social reality. He saw that a ―culture of silence‖ and illiteracy were the roots of oppression and proposed a ―problem-posing‖ model of education that encouraged mutual communication. Freire, an idealist, a communist, a ―theologian in disguise,‖ a phenomenologist and an existentialist, the dreamer of utopias, the friend, the Christian, the critical thinker and the educator, was concerned with the impossibility of dialogue between antagonists. His voice had invited the voiceless of the affluent world to join a dialogue of hope. Some had gathered around the efficiency of his literacy method, that at times had looked misrepresented and other disfigured; others, found possibilities of decolonization of the Third World walking the way of liberation. The light that guided the path offered a glimpse of men‘s and women‘s vocation to be more, their transcendence and their praxis of making history by reading the word and reading the world. Freire (2004) talked about education as a process of humanization, as the ontological vocation of mankind and its non-neutrality. He recognized the need for a pedagogy of the oppressed that could be the path to gaining awareness of their oppression and as liberating cultural action. He has been criticized for his approach to revolutionary violence, ambiguity, myths, and impracticability, and sometimes identified as an oppressor (Taylor, 1993). Nevertheless, his critique of the oppressiveness of traditional education has been widely accepted by cultural and curriculum scholars and educators around the world. Freire (2004) refused to offer ―prescriptions‖ for educational planning or practical general programs for liberation. He invited the educators of the world to reinvent his ideas. Today, Freire is consider a legend, with almost cultic status, the greatest educator, a master and teacher, a revolutionary in the fight for social justice and transformation in Latin America, Africa and the United States (McLaren and Leonard, 1993). Cornel West, for instance, recognizes him as:

the exemplary organic intellectual of our time … Freire has the distinctive talent of being a profound theorist and a passionate activist … dares to tread where even Marx refused to walk—on the terrain where the revolutionary love of struggling human beings sustains their faith in each other and keeps hope alive within themselves and in history. (Cited in McLaren and Leonard, 1993, pp. xiii-xiv) One of Freire‘s most influential contributions to our understanding of libratory education has been Pedagogy of the Oppressed that proposed a process of problem-posing education as essential technique with the aim of critical thinking. Freire‘s theorization of the relationship between oppression and education has been employed in literacy campaigns in Nicaragua, Cuba, Portugal, Chile, Mexico, Angola, Tanzania, and Guinea-Bissau [and the United States], in developments in social work education, economics, sociology, liberation theology, participatory research, and critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1993). His theorizing is grounded in philosophical anthropology, psychoanalytic theory, existential Marxism, humanism, and one might say a secular liberation theology. Building on the work of Freud, Reich, and Fromm, Freire insists that ―oppression is not only externally imposed but that the oppressed introject, at the psychological level, domination… [T]he implication is that the oppressed have an investment in their oppression because it represents the already-known‖ (Aronowitz, in McLaren and Leonard, 1993, p.14). His interpretation of oppression initially focuses on the process of decoding everyday life identities that adapt to the capitalist system and prevent people from being more fully human, considering this a distortion of their ontological and historical vocation (Freire, 2004). In his later works, Freire re-interprets oppression moving from the idea of revolution as individual transformation toward the idea of revolution as the seizure of power (see for example Paulo Freire: Cartas a Guinea-Bissau, 2000). I was first exposed to Freire‘s work in 1978 when I worked on an adult literacy program in Mexico that used Freire‘s ideas to educate many of Mexico‘s working class and poor. I continued my studies of Freire‘s work in 1993 with members of the Regional Center for Adult Education in Latin America (CREFAL). The center‘s main work was about the development of an educational approach that aimed to teach critical consciousness, to redefine the power relations between teacher and student, and to promote dialogue across the economic, political and educational lines that divide society and inspire action on the part of the underclass.

In the United States, in 2004, I had the opportunity to study Freire‘s work again as part of my doctoral studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. I noticed some critical differences in how Freire‘s work was thought about and used in the United States as opposed to Mexico. In the United States, Freire‘s work has been formulated into a new theory and practice called critical pedagogy that is ―more interested in collective action so individual criticality is intimately linked to social criticality‖ (Burbules & Berk, 1999, p. 55). Critical pedagogy with its foundations in Marxist critiques of schooling and society focus on social class. However, Issues of race or gender had been addressed by a number of researchers who aligned theories of race with notions of liberatory pedagogy and practice (Ladson-Billings, 1995, Lynn, 1999). This political view of curriculum has generated an implosion in the production of scholar work in the field of curriculum field (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 1996) and due to the lack of homogeneity cannot be departmentalized in any school or university (Giroux &McLaren, 1995). Reflecting on my experience with Freire‘s work in the field, in the classroom, in research centers and in different languages caused me to look at the many meanings of Freire‘s ideas from different translations, contexts, locations and systems of knowledge that give them significance. In this dissertation I look critically at the reinvention of Freire‘s work, specifically his concept of oppression. I conduct an archaeological and genealogical analysis tracing the continuities and discontinuities of the reinventions of Paulo Freire‘s (1970) concept of oppression. I use Foucault‘s archeological method in an effort to describe the ―radical transformations and discontinuities‖ in the reinventions of oppression in the differing cultural and political contexts of Latin America and the United States. Archaeology is useful as a method of description and analysis of a discourse because it helps to reveal the social and political forces within this field of discourse. It allows me to describe the perspectives of Latin America and United States and their notions of unity, continuity, tradition and influence. My research questions are as follows: 1) How has Freire‘s concept of oppression been ―reinvented‖ by Latin American and United States scholars? 2) What are the continuities and discontinuities between these reinventions? Doing an archaeological and genealogical analysis of the reinventions of Freire‘s concept of oppression makes several important contributions to the body of knowledge on Freire‘s work in general, and his concept of oppression in particular. First, it illuminates the many different

translations, contexts, locations, and systems of knowledge that describe the discourses in which such an idea of oppression has been circulated, exchanged and utilized. Second, drawing on scholarship from Latin America and the United States allows for both a multicultural (different cultural perspectives) and a transcultural (looking across cultural perspectives) dialogue about the significance of Freire‘s work. Third, the multicultural and transcultural lenses also provide the opportunity to analyze the interconnections between literacy, cultures and education in Latin America and the United States as they contribute to a transnational perspective on oppression. Purpose of the Study Freire warned us against reducing his ideas of pedagogy and political project into a ―method‖ (Freire, 1998b) or ―a mere set of techniques associated with the learning of reading and writing‖ (Freire, 2005, p. x). He was quite concerned with such reification of his work, and emphasized that, ―It is impossible to export pedagogical practices without reinventing, re- creating and rewriting my ideas‖ (Macedo and Araujo-Freire, in Freire, 2005, p. x). It is this idea of reinvention as Freire proposed that ―is true to the spirit of a liberatory pedagogy; it is an open invitation of solidarity; it is an act of empowerment‖ (2002, p. 151). In stressing the importance of reinvention Freire not only acknowledges the incompleteness of his work but also the significance of the cultural and political contexts from which it emerged and in which it will take on new possibilities. The purpose of this study, then, is to illuminate and provide a better understanding of the differing ways that Freire‘s concept of oppression has been taken up and reinvented in the work of scholars in Latin American and the United States. To achieve my purpose, in the following sections I 1) define important terminology, 2) speak to the significance of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 3) elaborate on Freire‘s conception of oppression in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and, 4) identify different trends in the Latin American and U.S. literature on Freire‘s work. Different Trends in Freirean Scholarship in Latin America and the United States Given the significance of the specific contexts from which Freire‘s thoughts on oppression emerge, how is the concept taken up differently—reinvented—by scholars living in the Third World economy of Latin America and the more racialized capitalist economy of the United States?

There is a vast body of literature that demonstrates both Freire‘s influence as well as his limitations on issues of oppression in the work of both scholars in Latin American and the United States. Pedagogy of the Oppressed has been studied by numerous political activists, Leftist intellectuals, liberation theologians, and radical educators. His ideas have been applied by school teachers, academics, adult literacy coordinators, development theorists, church leaders, counselors, psychologists, social workers, health professionals, prison rehabilitation workers, and language learning specialists, among others (Roberts, 2000, p. 1). Due to the extensiveness of this literature, I chose to look at a random sample of 8 studies from Latin America and 8 studies from the U.S. and to organize the scholarship into four categories for each context (Latin America and the United States): critical literacy, political pedagogical projects, critical pedagogy and pedagogy of transformation. Critical literacy as the response to popular education rejects liberal capitalism and UNESCO traditional definitions of literacy and functional literacy. Freire‘s most important work in this field took place in Chile from 1965-1969. Political pedagogical projects are the core of revolutionary literacy campaigns in Grenada, Cuba and Nicaragua as response to UNESCO‘s community development that promoted fundamental education in Latin America, tied to Alliance for Progress policy and boosted through the collaboration of CREFAL (Regional Centre for Functional Education in Latin America) based in Mexico in 1960‘s. Critical pedagogy provides an opportunity for the student‘s voice, their awareness, their dignity, the examination of their meanings and perceptions as response to the dominant rationality. The most relevant work in this field of study has been proposed in the United States from 1970‘s to 1980‘s. And, pedagogy of transformation proposed the transformation of teachers and students from authoritarian to democratic as response to authority-dependence of students and teachers present in traditional schools. The most relevant work has been developed in the United States in the last two decades. Looking across these categories, there are three major distinctive trends between these two bodies of work. First, while Latin American scholars tend to address Freire‘s work mainly as it applies to adult literacy and popular education, United States scholars tend to focus their efforts on a variety of educational contexts. For example, in a sample from CREFAL (Regional Center for Adult Education in Latin America), major and most recognized data collection of Freire‘s work in Latin America, I chose eight studies by Latin American scholars, the majority

focused on adult literacy (Mariño, Cuevas and Fandiño, 1996, Rodriguez, 1977, Veloso and Fiori, 1968, Escobar, 1980, Schelling and Carott, 1990, Nunez, 2003, Souza, 2004 and Cabrera, 2004). In contrast, in the United States, using digital search linked to major libraries, I chose eight studies, and in this selection there was more emphasis placed on philosophy of education (Hassett 1994, Seals 2006, Bartlett 1994, Haigh 2007, Snow 1984, Frankenstein 1983, Coulson and Thomson, 2006 and Rabinove 1990). The second major difference between the two bodies of scholarship reflects different understandings of the concept of oppression. In Latin American scholarship, such works as Paulo Freire, Christian ideology and adult education in Latin America, (Retamal, R., 1981), Propuestas de Paulo Freire Para Una Renovación Educativa (Casali, Nuñez Hurtado, and Llama, 2005) and Paulo Freire:Su Pensamiento y el Paradigma de la Impugnación (Cabrera, 2004) are representative of the tendency of Latin American scholars to view oppression generally in class terms. In the United States, however, the concept of oppression takes on a variety of inflections. Some like Steiner and Krank (2000) focus on class, while others like Ladson-Billings (1997), and Murrel Jr. (1997) focus on race. In the case of Weiler (1996) the focus is gender. Still others such Esteva (2005), Bowers (2005), Stuchul and Prakash (2005), Elias (1976, 1994), Refingo (2005), Arias (2004) and Ross and Gibson (2006) focus on Western assumptions and the problematic nature of dichotomous thinking. Oppression in the United States is defined in class terms but including also elements of race, gender and the awareness of an imposed Western way of thinking. The third distinction, which I suspect grows out of the first two, reflects different interpretive approaches to Freire‘s work. In Latin America the scholarship tends to reflect more of an acceptance of Freire‘s invitation to solidarity, as many of the works take up and elaborate, expand on, or contextualize his ideas. For example, in Aportes: Dimensión Educativa, Mariño, Cuevas and Fandiño (1996) discuss Freire‘s ideas and myths and the evolution of the pedagogical campaign in Colombia. This study focuses on personal dialogue that gives voice to the student, personalism and consciousness that recognizes personal experiences as an approach to reality and consciousness as self-reflection of reality, as elements needed in education that promotes autonomy, self-realization and creativity for liberation. In Vigencia del pensamiento de Paulo Freire, Nuñez (2003) discusses the validity of popular education as a relationship between

the ethical and sociopolitical commitments in service of the masses. Since this popular education followed Freire‘s literacy program, it is expected that the same Freirean values would follow. So an evaluation of this worked was needed to confirm such statement. In Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización, Proaño (1989) presents Freire‘s ideas in working documents for training literacy workers. He emphasizes the educator‘s virtues: coherency, balance between the word and silence, working critically, tension between subjectivity and objectivity, the difference between here and now, avoidance of spontaneity, linking theory and practice by living intensely the relationship between practice and theory, practicing a patience that is impatient, and knowing how to read the text from reading the context. In De la Palabra Conciencia-de-la Opresión A La Palabra Proyecto-de-la-Esperanza, Cirigliano (1993) presents Freire‘s ideas from a non- conventional perspective, noting that for Freire each word fits into a certain time—pre-time, against-time or out of time—that determines its validity and meaning. In Una Educación para la Libertad: la Concepción de Paulo Freire, Silva (1973) presents Freire‘s ideas as a method adopted as a base for literacy campaigns in Guatemala, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, Argentina and Bolivia. This work explains that the essence of education is neither about teaching liberation nor the effort needed to adapt to the world, but the possibility of perceiving reality and the comprehension of the horizons opened by this perception. In Lo Etico y lo Político: los Valores en la Propuesta Educativa Actual, Casali (2005) presents Freire‘s ideas of ethics and politics as a contribution to the questioning of values in education, stating the need for comprehension of the relationship between theory and practice, implying a need to begin with concrete reality and use theory only as mediation for a deeper understanding of the ordinary concrete. In La Educación de Adultos en el México de Hoy, Alonso (1984) presents an interview with Freire and his analysis in the use of ―practice‖ and ―evaluation‖ as a dichotomy in the process of planning, programming and budgeting indigenous adult literacy programs. In Una Lectura Política, Sánchez (1981), discussed with Freire the use of syntaxes and orthography as vehicles for ideological content. He explores how these vehicles are link with power to determine the use of language and culture in different social classes. Thus the trend in Latin America, as mentioned before, focused on adult literacy. However, in United States, while there is certainly a large body of work that builds on Freire‘s ideas, there is also a growing body of work that criticizes Freire for not addressing many

oppressive dynamics beyond his personal scope, ―ignoring the historical specificity and the politics of transculturation or transformation of theories in ways not intended by their original authors‖ (Arias, in Rivera, 2004, p. xiii). For example, those who regard education as a ―neutral or technical process‖ complain that Freirean approaches politicize teaching and learning (hooks, 2003). Those who question the promotion of a critical mode of consciousness argue that Freire‘s approach is unable to recognize the problematic nature of dichotomous thinking (Bowers, 2004). Those who point to the lack of deepening about class theory claim that Freirean pedagogy, contrary to its professed aims, ―constitutes a form of cultural invasion‖ (Roberts, 2000, p. 2). For example several works like The Texts of Paulo Freire, (Taylor, 1993), Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power (Weiler, 1988), and Why Doesn‘t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy (Ellsworth, 1989), criticize Freire for not calling to question his white male privilege. Taylor (1993) states, for example, that Freire totally ignored that women‘s literacy is devalued and thus reflects a male definition of literacy that is validated in a cultural and social patriarchy. She argues that Freire‘s codifications are much more directive, manipulative and imbued with the educator‘s values than Freire ever imagined. Weiler (1988) also contends that Freire never systematically analyzed racism because he did not problematize his conceptualization of liberation and oppression in terms of his own male experience, thereby discounting the deep significance of patriarchy as a practice of oppression. Weiler also points to the potential presence of different oppressions within a single classroom, mainly around issues of race, gender, and institutional power, where some may perceive others in the class as oppressors, and dialogue and discussion of generative themes are potentially destructive. In kind, Ellsworth (1989) calls the Pedagogy of the Oppressed the ―oppressed‘s pedagogy‖ and states that it is a contradiction because it should be expressed as a narrative of the learners and not as the discourse of the teacher. Youngman (1986) argues that it is hard to see how any educational endeavor can avoid some element of ―banking‖ education as deposits of knowledge from the teacher to the student. Lovett (1983) argues that Freire over- emphasizes the importance of methodology and that what counts is the political purpose of liberatory education, even if this involves a degree of ―banking‖ education in the transfer of essential knowledge and skills.

Works such as Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis (Bowers, 2005), From a Pedagogy for Liberation to Liberation from Pedagogy, (Esteva, Stuchul and Prakash, 2005), and Nurturance in the Andes (Rengifo, 2005), take up concerns about Freire‘s Western perspective. Bowers (2005) for example, notes that Freire did not recognize that his Western cultural assumptions could not be reconciled with addressing the cultural roots of the ecological crisis. He failed to understand that his emancipatory vision promotes the Western model, by ignoring the diversity of cultural ways of knowing and the ecological crisis that separates people into the ―knowledge capitalists‖ and the ―destitute.‖ Esteva (2005) states that Freire was unable to bring his critique of ―banking education‖ to the modern enterprise called ―education.‖ Stuchul and Prakash (2005) state that Freire failed to understand the connections between critical reflection as the only approach to knowledge and the promotion of a modern Western form of consciousness. They question the role Freire assigns to educators as interventionists, particularly when they lack a deep knowledge of the culture where they are intervening. Rengifo (2005) states that Freire‘s literacy program places emphasis on an individualized perspective and its separation of humans from nature, contrary to the indigenous perspective where all relations are nurturing relationships. What seems evident to me in these various works is that there is no consideration of how the cultural and political contexts of different locations render different meanings and different possibilities for Freire‘s work. Freire‘s main complaint was that ―his critics often harped back to his earlier works and refused to recognize evolution in his thinking‖ (Kane, 2001, p. 50). Steiner and Krank state that ―any attempt to merely mimic Freire and his work is more than a disservice to his legacy, it is an irrational act‖ (2000, p. xii). For all too many of these scholars, ―reality had become a ‗text‘, a subject for deconstruction, but with little concrete action in solidarity with the oppressed‖ (Apple, in Slater, Fain and Rossatto, 2003, p. x). Selected aspects of Freire‘s work have been uncritically appropriated and decontextualized ―from his larger political project of struggling for the realization of a truly socialist democracy,‖ (McLaren, 2000, p.13) domesticating it and making it fit into the political contexts of the critiques. Since the domain of my dissertation research is language as archaeological analysis (Macdonnell, cited in Mills, 2004, p. 20) or ―anthropological analysis‖ (Foucault, 1972), I describe the functioning of discursive systems tracing the reinvention of this concept in the work

of specific Latin American and United States Freirean scholars, discussing how differences in meaning emerge from each country‘s specific cultural and political contexts.

Contribution In explaining how I view the contribution of this study, to the field of education, I relate to Deleuze‘s idea that ‗―discourse is in fact a political commodity whose ‗anonymous murmur‘ emerges from a specific site such as in the case of education‖ (Jones & Ball cited in McLaren and Giarelli, 1995, pp. 41-42). As political commodity, discourse exhibits ―immanent principles of regularity‖ therefore, most research says little that is striking or interesting because, as Jones and Ball (1995) argued ―new statements are rare and they are bound by regulations enforced through social practices or research methods and protocols and discourse is also deeply involved with programs designed to shape social reality‖ (p. 42). As Gordon (1991) noted, we live in a world of programmes, ―a world transverse by the effect of discourses whose object is the rendering rationalizable, transparent and programmable of the real‖ (p. 39). And, as Nietzsche pointed out ―language and discourse do not reflect upon the world. They are part of the world. But the world, in turn, has its nervous system constituted by what is said in it‖ (cited in Cooper, 1981, p. 8). Then, I am following the program by practicing the expected use of the approved research methods (such as Foucault‘s methods), the protocols assigned by the university (such as the handbook for writing a dissertation and the formal rules of the discourse governing the structures contained within academic papers—appointed by the referees‘ gatekeepers), rationalizing concepts (drawing on other academic articles and citing recent publications by other academics—being careful with quotation marks) and making it transparent (by the uses of the vocabulary and formal language recognized as appropriate for such writing for the specialized audience—and opaque for others), in a language (such English, plus the transculturation of the translations from Spanish and sometimes from Portuguese) that is already messy and cannot reflect ―the real world.‖ Then I end up doing what Jardine (2005) warned us: manipulating my ―concerns in line with those discursive structures‖ (p. 13). But by acknowledging the imperfection of the discursive structures that prevail in the

educational system I find a chance in the cracked walls of such structure for my voice to find echo and an opportunity to bring another perspective to difference in meaning emerging from two specific cultural and political contexts. Nevertheless I choose to follow Freire‘s encouragement, ―don‘t let the fear of what is difficult paralyze you,‖ (1998a). By allowing myself to be creative and play with discourses, I elaborate on my understanding of Foucault‘s methodology, how I applied it to my data collection, organization and analysis procedures and what I see as the limitations of this study.

Structure of the dissertation This archaeological analysis traces the reinventions of Paulo Freire‘s idea of oppression from Pedagogy of the Oppressed by using Foucaultian methodology. With the different trends revealed in both Latin America and the United States, I then examine the work of selected scholars from both contexts. In chapter 2, I explain the methodology. Here I provide the elements that are involved in this Foucaultian perspective. I explain why I selected archaeology and genealogy, usefulness and limitations in the field of education. I present my contribution to the body of knowledge on education and my own mathematical interpretation of Focuault‘s archaeology and its justification. I offer a description of data collection, nodes, codes and a brief historical background of CREFAL, my most important source of information for Latin America. In Chapter 3, I look at the continuities and discontinuities in the reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression by analyzing the eventualization or conditions in the constructions of texts, emergencies or occurrence of concepts that define oppression, enunciations as statements preserved through time and exteriority as historical description. I present Freire‘s bio-text, the context, historical background and statements for the archaeological analysis. I develop a system of mapping that allows me to verify reinventions and transformations of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the discourses of education. I present a series of functions that represent the discourse interactions in the transculturation, reinvention and transformation of the concept of oppression, delimited by historical events.

In Chapter 4, I offer a summary that presents the points of inflections from the different discourses that gave meaning to Freire‘s idea of oppression. I reveal some critical differences in how Freire‘s work has been used in the United States and in Latin America.

II. Methodology

In order to best answer the proposed questions I conducted an archaeological and genealogical analysis that traces the continuities and discontinuities of the reinventions of Freire‘s concept of oppression in a select group of Latin American and the United States scholars. This chapter begins by addressing the following questions: what does this alternative Foucaultian perspective on research involve? Why archaeology and what it is its usefulness and its limitations in the field of education? Why genealogy and its usefulness in the analysis of power? I am aware, as Scheurich and McKenzie (2005) pointed out, that my elucidation of Foucault ―is not true or accurate representation of Foucault‘s work because such representation is impossible…Foucault‘s work is messy, ruptured, often erroneous, broken, discontinuous, oringinless, fabricated, even a falsification‖ (cited in Denzin and Lincoln, p. 841). Although I could use that as a good reason to avoid the work, what I still have to do is show how archaeology and genealogy are critical methodologies and how they might be applied to this study in the field of education, despite their limitations and my own. What I can do is to review Foucault‘s ideas from a selected ―beginning.‖ For the purposes of my task, which attempts to describe how meaning, discourse, knowledge and power are woven by language, I will begin by explaining the Saussurean idea of language as the initial background, which describes some of the most important ideas of Foucault‘s archaeology and genealogy work.

Perspectives on Language, discourse, meaning, knowledge and power Saussurean linguistics suggests that ―a language was homogenous and that a common code or general system of sounds and meanings, underlay the mass of spoken and written utterances‖ (Macdonell, 1986, p.9). For Saussure the idea of a system as a set of relations prevailed in his understanding of discourse as linguistic communication either spoken or written, and rejecting the idea that sounds and meanings of words exist before the system, he assured that the meanings of a language exist only in their relations to each other meanings and background, which describes some of the most important ideas of Foucault‘s archaeology and genealogy work (Macdonell, 1986, p. 9). However the idea of a single and general system lying behind all discourses was rejected by structuralists. The idea of discourse moved away from structuralism 14

where meaning is inscribed in processes of speech and writing without a possibility of going back into humanism where meaning is inscribed in the author. Therefore, the author was not seen as the source of the meanings of discourses but meanings are ―embodied in technical processes, in institutions, in patterns for general behavior, in forms for transmission and diffusion, and in pedagogical forms‖ (Foucault, 1977a, p. 200). From this perspective, Gordon (1986) considered discourse ―irreducible either to the history of the careers, thought and intentions of individual agents (the authors of utterances) or to a supra-individual teleology of discovery and intellectual evolution (the truth of utterances)‖ (p. 11), suggesting that meaning can be found through the concrete forms of differing social and institutional practices or materiality. Foucault (1972) challenged Saussure‘s idea of discourses when he assured that ―language always seems to be inhabited by the other, the elsewhere, the distant and to describe the enunciative level, one must pay attention to the moment—which is at once solidified, caught up in the play of the ‗signifier‘ and the ‗signified‘—that determines its unique and limited existence‖ (p. 111). From this perspective, Foucault (1972) did not define the notion of structure within a synchronous perspective as Saussure. He defined structure as transferred into a diachronic or historical analytics as language begins not with expression, but with discourse, a transformational structure with no point of departure, no end, and no promise, asserting itself at moments of change as seen from Classical age to the Renaissance and rupture. Andersen (2003) suggested that transformational structures are ―the writer‘s construction of the historical relationships between discourse and institution‖ (p. 3). It is precisely these discursive assumptions that are Foucault‘s fundamental concern when he challenges the writer‘s will and reason and shows how her/his utterances are part of a discourse that obeys certain rules of acceptability. Pêcheux stressed more than Foucault the conflictual nature of discourse: on one hand discourse ―questions the politics of the range of meanings in their material and social construction making them available for analysis‖ (cited in Macdonell, 1986, p. 24), and on the other, ―discourse is always in dialogue and in conflict with others‘ positions‖ (Cissna & Anderson 1994, p. 10). Macdonell (1986) added that discourse requires dialogue and takes form depending on the institution to which it relates, the social practices, who speaks and to whom it is addressed. But words change their meaning according to the positions held by the authors who

use them. For example, the meaning of oppression depends on the words chosen, the given meaning of those words, where they appeared and against what idea they were elaborated. Two groups of scholars from different cultural backgrounds might use the same words with different perceptions and their interpretation of events may also differ. However, Foucault warned us that ―words mislead us, that they make us believe in the existence of things, in the existence of natural objects, of governed subjects, or of State, whereas these things are only correlatives of the corresponding practices‖ (Veyne, cited in Davison, 1997, p. 157). What all these views of discourse have in common is that their own existence and organization depends on practices that accept or reject ideas by making them self-evident and natural and therefore possible to say as in the case of what counts as knowledge and what does not for a scientist (Cissna & Anderson, 1994). As Macdonell (1986) pointed out meanings are not only inscribed in processes of speech and writing without taking into consideration context. Meaning is considered part of discourse because is in the meaning itself that a specific field of knowledge takes form. For Foucault (1977a), meaning is embodied in technical processes as in the case of a library where literature is organized following the author‘s name alphabetically, or in the case of institutions that offer certification of knowledge such as universities and colleges. Meaning is in patterns for general behavior as some of the forms of courtesy, in forms for transmission and diffusion as found in advertisement, and in pedagogical forms that promote teaching and learning from different approaches. Therefore, as Foucautl (1971) pointed out discourse exists as a result of what it does not say and this ‗not-said‘ supports all that is said. The historical conditions of meaning are not enough; a discursive analysis goes beyond the system or structure of language because meaning can be found in social and institutional political ―practices,‖ and in relation to the positions of the authors. So what does political ―practice‖ mean? From Marxism, ―political practice is concerned with changing the social whole, in some non-Marxist work on discourse political practice is focused on what seems local and immediate‖ (Macdonell, 1986, p. 18). It is this local and immediate that concerned Foucault when he focused on the analysis of power challenging the notion that ―power is something which a group of people or an institution possess and that power is only concerned with oppressing and constraining‖ (Mills, 2004, p. 33). He moved beyond Althusser‘s idea of power as repression of

the oppressed by the oppressor to ―an examination of the way that power operates within everyday relations between people and institutions causing resistance to power‖ (Mills, 2004, p. 34). Power is conceptualized as action rather than as description, ―something that does something, rather than something which is or which can be held onto‖ (Mills, 2004, p. 35). Foucault stated it in the following way in Power/Knowledge: ―Power must be analyzed as something which circulates, or as something which only functions in the form of a chain… Power is employed and exercised through a netlike organization… Individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application‖ (1980, p. 98). However, Foucault dismissed the abstract notions of the political and grounded it in local acts and interactions making the analysis of the operations of power relations more complex. As Patton stated, within Foucault‘s reconceptualization of what constituted the political ―one can no longer accept the conquest of power as the aim of political struggle; it is rather a question of the transformation of the economy of power (and truth) itself‖ (cited in Mills, 2004, p. 17). Indeed it is in discourse, as Foucault (1978) stated, ―that power and knowledge are joined together,‖ adding that ―for this same reason, we must conceive discourse as a series of discontinuous segments whose tactical function is neither uniform nor stable but as a multiplicity of discursive elements than can come into play in various strategies‖ (p. 100). Foucault (1978) made clear that ―it is this distribution that we must reconstruct paying special attention to the things said and those concealed; with the variants and different effects—according to who is speaking, his position of power—that it implies; and with the shifts and reutilization of identical formulas for contrary objectives that it also includes‖ (p. 100). Discourse can both transmit (as an instrument) and produce (as an effect) power. According to Foucault (1978) ―there is not, on the one side, a discourse of power, and opposite it, another discourse that runs counter to it, but, discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of force relations‖ (101). Also there can exist different and even contradictory discourses within the same strategy as in the case of various interpretations of the same case in history; they can, circulate without changing their form from one strategy to another because the object remain history but the interpretative subjects speak from their own context, language, and political positions as opposing

strategy. This meaning of the word discourse, as the general domain of all statements, that is, all utterances or text with meaning and effects in the real world, is at the core of Foucault‘s archaeology of knowledge.

Archaeology of Knowledge Foucault (1972) describes archaeology as a method of description and analysis that seeks to ascertain the rules of a discourse, its ―coexistence, maintenance, modification, and disappearance‖ (p. 38). Each discourse can be identified, described and analyzed within each dimension of discourse or ―systems of dispersion‖ by noting significant relationships also called ―nodal points.‖ The purpose in using multiple ―systems of dispersion‖ is to reveal the social and political forces within the field of a discourse. His purpose is evident when he asks: ―What are they? How can they be defined and limited? What distinct types of laws can they obey? What articulation are they capable of? What subgroups can they give rise to?‖ (Foucault, 1972, p. 26) This archaeological description, then, does not attempt to discover the ―reality‖ behind the discursive universe, but to describe it from a particular perspective the relationships questioning the notions of unity, continuity, tradition and influence. In other words, the idea of linear history or narrative, progress and accepted conventions or powerful influences internal or external are questioned. It is essential to look at the differences that guides the archaeology of knowledge by looking at regularity/dispersion of statements, looking at meaning and intention of discourses from their different contexts. Here is particularly important to explain that discourse analysis is in reality an analysis of statements in their positivity. To say that statements are positive events implies the production of existence such as object, subject, conceptual network and strategy through enunciation. Every discursive moment, that is, every statement, need to be observe and analyzed in their appearance, in their positive suddenness as they emerge, in their temporal dispersion which makes it possible to repeat them, realize, transform, effacing until the last traces in the written forms such as books. Statements express intention, context, concern, and meaning. To achieve that and avoid rejecting any reductive or interpretative statement descriptions it is necessary to avoid questions of what or why in relation to statements but only ask how (Andersen, 2003).

Foucaultian methodology is useful in my study because of its particular interest in the relationship between knowledge and power. Knowledge is never disinterested; it is not a neutral speech position as in the humanities and the social sciences that is inseparable from moralizing projects. This is not a new idea. Althusser‘s (1969) idea of meanings, beliefs and practices in which we think and act as ideology supposes that ―ideas have an abstract existence and are shaped by consciousness overlooking the politics of meaning‖ (Macdonell, 1986, p. 27). However, what makes it different and particularly useful here is that Foucault‘s analysis locates knowledge in discourse, in discursive practice, and rejects unifying and interpretive notions as ideology. Foucault used the term ideology as ―an abstraction, namely, the meaning of a practice, and sometimes more or less bookish realities, political doctrines, philosophies, even religions, rationalization, idealization that is, discursive practices; it is an expansive veil‖ and the role of consciousness ―is not to make us notice the world but to allow us to move within … [I]n other words what is made, the object, is explained by what went into its making, the practice, at each moment of history‖ (Veyne, cited in Davison, 1997, pp. 157-161). For the very same reason I do not use the term ideology. I do not want to imply that I am aligning myself to Marxist theories that ―analyze capitalist society as a class society in which the basic relations of production are relations of exploitation‖ (Macdonell, 1986, p. 28) or the idea of ―class struggle as the motor of history‖ (Marx, cited in Macdonell, 1986, p. 62). Instead my analysis will develop in a more complex way than is possible when using the term ideology. Using ―discourse‖ implies a lack of alliance to a clear political agenda and ―views of history and progress that are not clear-cut but messy and complex‖ (Mills, 2004, p. 28). I am not suggesting that power in society can be pinpointed and separated from the social sciences and public institutions. Power is ―present in our approach to things insofar as the objects we relate to are always discursive objects, produced by and in discourse‖ (Andersen, 2003, p. 3). Whereas the framework of archaeology of knowledge is the difference regularity/dispersion of statement, the framework for genealogy is the difference in continuity/discontinuity. As Foucault (1980) stated in Power/Knowledge: If we were to characterize it in two terms, then ‗archaeology‘ would be the appropriate methodology of this analysis of local discursivities, and ‗genealogy‘ would be the tactics whereby, on the basis of the descriptions of these local

discursivities, the subjected knowledges which were thus released would be brought into play. (p. 85) It is Foucault‘s analytic techniques or tactics that help me to investigate the elements of knowledge. Understanding knowledge as the union of erudite knowledge that is certified authorized and sanctioned by powerful institutions and local memories that live in the stories passed from generations. Such union allows me to establish a historical knowledge of struggles and make use of this knowledge tactically (1980). Due to the nature of this dissertation, meticulous analysis of specific historical documents or artifacts is needed for tracing the ways that specific groups of scholars act step by step attaching power to some knowledge and not to others. Genealogy also guides the analysis of how the concept of oppression extends power to some groups and not others. I move now to Genealogy.

Genealogy For this introduction to Foucault‘s genealogy I chose the ―beginning‖ in Nietzsche‘s dissertation On the Genealogy of Morality (1998) where he developed genealogy as a historical analytical strategy that challenged the ―implied supposition about an original essential moral that would appear increasingly clear as one approached its source on tracing it back through history‖ (Andersen, 2003, p. 17). This historical analytical strategy is critical in Foucault‘s article Nietzsche—Genealogy and History (1991); power structures are viewed through an ―effective‖ historical perspective that followed Nietzsche‘s rejection of the traditional perspectives that assumed linear development of social morality and defined the genealogical analytical strategy in opposition to traditional methods of historiography (monumental method, antiquarian method and critical method). Foucault assumed Nietzsche‘s critique of history: ―a historiography that cultivates the connections and continuity of greatness of all times (monumental method), a historiography that cultivates the past for the sake of the past; incapable of breeding life and always underestimating the future (antiquarian method), and a historiography that stands in the service of life (critical method)… maintaining Nietzsche‘s fundamental distinction ―whether the historiography stands in the service of life or death‖ (Andersen, 2003, p. 18). This kind of traditional methods of historiography can be seen in history‘s textbooks that explicitly convey a

linear presentation of facts, a continuous flow of events that give the sense of continuous progress or the exaltation of past events that in contrast with a relative present look greater, always alive and perennial, as in the case of the history of Greek culture or dead as in the case of ancient Sumerian culture. This tension between life and death appears in Foucault‘s work. It is expressed as ―the tension between archaeology as the systematic analytical strategy (Apollonian) concerned with the regularity of the irregular, and genealogy as an analytical strategy (Dionysian)‖, concerned with discontinuities, which brings on life and undermines presuppositions (Andersen, 2003, p. 19). This is more of less the description of an organism that seen as a system presents consistency on the irregularities such as the different functions at different stages of live, and the mutations that occurred as discontinuities such as defense mechanism or self-destruction. Following this idea, Foucault (1991)tries to extend the Dionysian thinking in his genealogies into three critical forms of applications that serve life: reality-destructive use, which opposes the historical motif recollection-recognition—it challenges the way the present recognizes itself in its historical texts; identity-destructive use, which opposes the historical motif continuity-tradition—the purposes of history, guided by genealogy, is not to discover the roots of our identity, but to commit itself to its dissipation; and truth-destructive use, which opposes the historical motif of knowledge. Adding that all knowledge rests upon injustice and the goal is to create in history a counter-memory (cited in Andersen, 2003, emphasis and examples added). It is precisely this ―hazardous play of domination‖ (p. 83) between reality, identity, truth and their destructive use that Foucault (1991) is concerned in his analysis of power relations and their fluctuations over time. An important play of dominations such as the domination of certain men differentiated by race, nationality, language, religion, and so on over others leads to the differentiation of values and class domination as in the case of ownership and property as contingency of full civil and political participation that generates the idea of liberty (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 852) are two of the most important elements in analyzing how the rise of the concept of oppression extends power some groups of scholars no to others. Therefore, Foucault‘s (1991) genealogy does not pretend to go back in time to restore an unbroken continuity that operates beyond the dispersion of broken things; its duty is not to demonstrate that the past actively exists in the present, that it continues secretly to animate the present, having imposed a

predetermined form on all its vicissitudes. Instead, the aim of genealogy is to question the present discourses and practices by referring them to the hegemonic conditions that established them. Beronius surmised that ―to trace the origin of an idea does not simply imply the establishing of the birth of the phenomenon, but rather the tracing of its line of descent‖ (cited in Andersen, 2003, p. 20). The genealogical perspective is useful in this study because, instead of a preliminary definition of the idea of oppression, we investigate how that idea of oppression has been constructed historically in different ways and in different contexts. It offers, as Foucault (1991) proposed, a glance of dissociation, that distinguishes one group of scholar from the other, separates both discourses by language, and disperses their meaning according to their particular contexts; that is capable of liberating divergence that makes possible the coexistence of multiple discourses and marginal elements such as the kind of dissociating view from gender or nationality that is capable of decomposing itself, capable of shattering the unity of man‘s being through which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of his past and instead becomes related to a possibility of discourses without linearity or continuity.

Methodological Limitations of Foucault’s Archaeology I see two limitations of Foucault‘s archaeological methodology. One, as Andersen (2003) noted ―The archaeology of knowledge was never intended to be a methodical description for systematized repetitions and imitation‖, nevertheless, ―it is useful as a catalogue of the analytical-strategic questions that arise in attempts to invoke discourse without taking to structuralism or other forms of reductionism‖ (p. 8). For instance an examination of discursive practices from another culture creates an awareness of my lack of understanding because what I am trying to understand belongs to a text from another context or time. Two, the knowledge, created/constituted, that I had learned in school and culture formed me into their own image to serve the interests and circumstances of this era, and their powerful and pervasive effects forced me ―to see, understand, and know only a small, biased, individualized, singular and unique selection and ordering of what is in the world to know‖ (Jardine, 2005, p. 80) because the academy itself had already made exclusion of knowledge and what it is said is precisely what it has not been said. Therefore, these larger discursive structures shaped my interpretation of texts

and it seems to me that the only thing I can do is to look at discourse in dialogue and in conflict with other positions. In Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault (2000) explained that the analytical terms he used described change when ―the substitution of one discursive formation for another takes place‖ (p. 171). Foucault did not focus on documenting the causes of such transformation because specifying such things was outside the purview of his analysis. His interest was not to focus on how the meaning of each use of a specific concept changed from one document to another but how the concept emerged, dispersed, or vanished by asking questions, by listening for more and delaying judgment about what something means without knowing about the context in which it was uttered and the other persons associations or emotions. Nevertheless, archaeology and genealogy complement each other. Archaeology helps to describe and understand the relationships between the different meaning of Freire‘s idea of oppression by questioning its unity, continuity, tradition or influence, i.e, ideology. Genealogy becomes the tactics that points out to the difference continuity/discontinuity on the basis of the description of the two selected cultural contexts where the subjected knowledges and meanings of oppression were released.

Interpreting Foucault’s Archaeology Foucault successfully described the discourse interactions observed in a given space or culture by paying attention to the transformations of a concept from one system of knowledge and power to another. However, he did not make any reference to a procedure for describing and analyzing such discourse interactions. His advice was an open invitation to the researcher to be creative and devise a system of mapping. Given my experience in the field of Mathematics I used my knowledge in that field to create a method, which basically correlated a graphic model with archaeological mapping. This correlation of ideas helped me to create an alternative model (series of functions) for the discursive analysis that guided the process of analysis in a more schematic way. The narrative of the discovery process for methodological interpretation is presented as mystory (Ulmer, 1994). This genre juxtaposes my personal narrative with my advisor‘s with the ―accepted‖ scholarly discourse, focusing on ―the crossing of discourses—archaeology and

mathematics--that has been shown to occur in the invention process‖ (Ulmer, 1994, p. xii). This narrative offers a non-conventional mode of academic writing that favors theoretical curiosity and encourages learning how to learn (Magolda, 1999). Though it is a singular narrative, it is ―constructed continually unconsciously, by, through, and in us—through our perceptions, our feelings, our thoughts, our actions; and not least, our discourse, our spoken narrations‖ (Abell, 1993, p. 11).

The Beginning After relevant course work, extensive reading, and informal conversations with my advisor, I developed a process of reading, writing, review and discussion, rewriting, more discussion, additional reading, more redrafting, and so on. The work of this thinking process caused me to focus on three main issues: the problem, the methodology, and the significance. Accordingly, the question in this work is as follows: How has Freire‘s concept of oppression been reinvented in the cultural and political contexts of Latin America and the United States? In grappling with this question, I emphasize the importance of recognizing the contexts that gave birth to Freire‘s ideas as well as the proliferation of various meanings and other concerns that grow out of the cultural and political contexts of those peoples and places that continue to speak to the influence of Freire‘s ideas. To explore this idea I focus on the insights and analytical tools that are especially significant to understanding the forces that underwrite Freire‘s theory and practice. The initial draft moved from problem analysis to method considerations and back again, until it reached an acceptable study proposal with technical quality and practical feasibility. This process created successive drafts that eventually developed into a short prospectus. In this phase I worked with my advisor in the development of the problem and the methodology. We began a discussion about the methodological approach for the proposal. Dr. Bazsile drew a graphic display on the whiteboard in her office. This graphic was intended to bring a visual idea that could guide the process. It was a spiral line that represented the arbitrary origin of a life work on a chosen topic. This same idea prompted the suggestion for another graphic representation of the methodology and method to be used in the proposal. With this idea in mind

I started looking at the archaeology of knowledge trying to find any possible graphic interpretation. I realized that this process caused me, using my background on mathematics, effortlessly to recognize a structure in the methodological ―tool‖ that I was analyzing. Since my intention was to look at any possible alternative graphic representation of the archaeological method from Michel Foucault, my experience in the field of mathematics guided my interpretation. I was looking from an interdisciplinary point of view, a perspective that looked fragmented at the beginning, but later little evidence appeared that encouraged me to look now for integration using the idea of function as the correspondences of two sets of elements connected by a regulatory idea or pattern. The more I looked into the archaeology of knowledge as a pattern-based tool; a structure seemed to appear in the background of the ―tool.‖ The most appropriated tool for establishing a pattern appeared to be offered by mathematical patterns. Looking into the archaeological framework of discursive analysis I noticed another type of analysis coming into play; i.e., functional analysis. Functional analysis is an area of mathematics that studies ―infinite- dimensional structures aiming to generalize duality as a view of the big picture of operations that takes place on a large set of functions‖ (Yosida, 1995, p. 1). This initial idea caused me to revise the archaeology of knowledge from a very different discourse. This time I looked at some of the basic concepts from another system of knowledge. Was the analysis of archaeology of knowledge using the very same tools as functional analysis? I think so. There was a striking similarity between both systems of knowledge, to the point that I started drawing sets of concepts and creating correspondences between them. This correspondence gave place to a graphic design for the proposal as shown in Figure 1. This analytical and graphical idea has created the need to justify the graphic display for the methodology and the method used in this dissertation. My analysis of the correspondence of ideas is centered in two strategies, the creation of a dialogue between Foucault‘s ideas and the structure of functional analysis, and the evidence of the connections made by a third interlocutor; in this case my interpretation that creates a continuous conversation with the only purpose being to show the connections. Here I use mystory as genre that juxtaposes my personal narrative with two discourses—Archaeology and Mathematics—and focuses on the crossing of both. This

narrative allows me a non-conventional mode of academic writing that favors theoretical curiosity, encourages what Magolda (1999) proposed: to learn how to learn, and as a method to frame a dialogue that takes place between two fields of knowledge and that is connected by correlating of their similarities. In my research and understanding of Foucault‘s archeological method, I have found that his approach essentially applies a mathematical structure to the task of discursive analysis. I present a graphic of two epistemes—Foucault‘s analytical framework alongside a mathematical framework to suggest the ways in which they correspond (see. Figure1). I play with Foucault‘s (1991) three criteria for the individualization of discourses applying them to both discourses (discursive analysis/functional analysis): 1) criteria of formation as the existence of a set of rules of formation for all its objects (statements- concepts/functions-correspondence), all its operations (politics of translation, positionality/addition and multiplication), all its concepts, (what is said/what is given), all its theoretical options (philosophy, anthropology, psychology, religion/theory of functions, number, spaces); 2) criteria of transformation or of threshold as the units of discourse with a defined set of conditions that made possible such formation (social theory/history of mathematics); and 3) criteria of correlation as the set of relations that define and situate one discourse (archaeology) among other types of discourse (mathematics) and in the nondiscursive context in which it functions (institutions, social relations and political conjuncture). These criteria, as Foucault (1991) stated ―make it possible to describe the divergence, the distance, the oppositions, the differences, the relations of both scientific discourses (discursive analysis/functional analysis)‖ (p. 55). In the following graphic I apply these criteria in order to situate one discourse (archaeology) with respect to the other discourse (mathematics) using Yosida‘s (1995) introductory concepts of functional analysis (pp. 1-20).

 Correlation 

Discursive Analysis Functional Analysis

Formation Formation The vocabulary comes Statement/Oppression from set theory and the theory of = atom of discourse functions.

Set. Intuitively speaking, a set is any collection of objects. Question These objects are referred to as the elements of the set.

Given a set A, we write x Є A if x (whatever it may be) is an element of A. If x is not an element of A, then we write x ∉ Of what What are its What are its A. does distinctive boundaries? Given two sets A and B, ―oppression‖ features? the union is written A U B and is consist? defined by asserting that x Є A U B provided that x Є A or x Є B (or potentially both).

Answer these questions by saying what The intersection A ∩ B

oppression is not is the set defined by the rule x Є A ∩ B provided x Є A and x Є B

The set R of real numbers It is not a It is not a fixed It is not a reified is an extension of the rational structure, term term numbers Q in which there are no language, or holes or gaps. object The operations of How to answer? addition and multiplication on Q extend to all R in such a way that every element of R has an In terms of function additive inverse and every non- In reference to spaces formed zero element of R has a by other operations multiplicative inverse. Defining the possibilities or conditions of appearances and delimitations of what gives meaning to the proposition or the sentences

Field of statements Function. Given two sets Operations : Politics of Translation, Positionality Operations: Politics of A and B, a function from A to B Relations: Philosophy, Anthropology, is a rule or mapping that takes Psychology, Existential Marxism, Liberation Translation, positionality each element x Є A and Theology associates with it a single Regularity : Poverty, Race, Class, Ethnicity, Relations: philosophical element of B. In this case, we Gender write f : A  B. Given an

anthropology , psychoanalytic element x Є B, the expression Method f(x) is used to represent the theoryLiberation, existential Marxism, element of B associated with x Conscientizaçâo by f. The set A is called the Literacy domain of f. The range of f is liberationCritical pedagogy theology , neoliberalism, Transformative not necessarily equal to B but imperialismPhilosophy refers to the subset of B given {y Education Є B : y = f(x) for some x Є A} PoliticsRegu larity: Poverty, Race, Religion R is a field, meaning that Culture class,Intellectual, ethnicity, Gender, addition and multiplication of Civic courage real numbers is commutative and EnvironmentPedagogy of associative, and the distributive Possibility, property holds. Pedagogy of A field is a commutative Revolution Ecopedagogy Philosophy ring (F, +, *) such that 0 does not / Education equal 1 and all elements of F USA function Politics except 0 have a multiplicative Latin America Religion inverse. (Note that 0 and 1 here / stand for the identity elements Weiler Culture Ladson-Billings for the + and * operations Murrell, Jr respectively, which may differ Bowers from the familiar real numbers 0 Esteva and 1). Rengifo Stuchul Prakash Elias Steiner Krank McLaren Lankshear Giarelli Rivera Macedo Torres Giroux

Transformation Transformation Relations, regularities, An axiom in mathematics transformations, intersections is an accepted assumption, to be used without proof. Preferably, Statement = ‗it is said‘ (as totality) = an axiom should be an Describe conditions elementary statement about the

Sentence, fragment, system in question that is so Propositions fundamental that it seems to need Series of signs no justification. Statement it is integrated into operations or strategies and it cannot be displaced in time Analysis was founded on the and space. (intuitive or logical) notion of a continuous quantity. The notion Existence as a ‗statement/oppression‘ = of a continuous quantity was Law of inclusion or exclusion, possibility, replaced by a strictly arithmetical relationships denied or affirmed, domain construction of real numbers. wherein ‗things‘ ‗realities‘ ‗objects‘ or The concepts of analysis were ‗facts‘ may appear or be denied. framed in a purely formal way, bypassing philosophical issues as Formation = position can and must be far as possible. occupied by any

individual (subject) The axiom of Statements operate subject completeness. Every none- f empty set of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper

Enunciative field = Demonstration bound. In mathematics, Banach spaces are one of the central objects of study in functional Rules or relations of Oppression analysis. Many of the infinite- subjective Refers to dimensional function spaces positions in relation Repeat studied in functional analysis are to Freire‘s Idea of Modify examples of Banach spaces. oppression Opposing Commenting

Conditionality O (English) O (Spanish ) O (1960s-2000s)

O(México) f O (USA) f Figure 1 . ARCHAEOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 29

Epistemological Engineering In this project I attempt to analyze what I see as the new mathematization of knowledge in Michel Foucault‘s, The Archaeology of Knowledge. Foucault stated that the intellectual characteristic of the classical age was not so much the mathematization of knowledge, but what might be called the ―applied mathematics‖ or epistemological engineering that placed things in categories and files, in a general and determinate grid or table that represents itself as the immediate order of things, ―a system of signs, a sort of general and systematic taxonomy of things‖ (cited in Cooper, 1981, p. 5). This taxonomy existed by means of the power of discourse to constitute representations of reality. Foucault used the same idea to present his archaeology. To support this statement we need to look at the conditions or rules governing the formation of Foucault‘s discourse, the concepts used in his discourses, and the theoretical opinions, limits, and horizons that he displays or expresses. Using the Foucault‘s tools, the analysis locates knowledge in discourse, in discursive practice, and rejects unifying and interpretive notions as ideology. Using Foucault‘s own critical position, I do not claim to speak from a position of ―truth,‖ because I am a ―subject that can only speak within the limits imposed upon me by the discursive frameworks circulating‖ (cited in Mills, 2004, p.29). Foucault argued that ideology is invariably used ―in virtual opposition to something else which is supposed to count as truth‖ whereas the crucial distinction is not to be drawn at the level of true or false statements, ―but in seeing historically how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false...[I]deology is usually placed in a secondary position relative to something which functions as its infrastructure, as its material, economic determinant‖ (as cited in Howard, 2002, p. 117). What I can do is to look at the correspondence of ideas as a move between mathematics and Foucault‘s archaeology, always following the trail of discursive conversations from one field of knowledge to the other. The idea is to look at the best of all possible worlds. My assumption is that each statement has the same logical structure; therefore I can create correspondence between them. For such statements to be meaningful, one must define the concepts with which they are being compared, and the criterion of ―correlation‖ that is being used to compare them.

To elaborate the characteristics of possibility of Foucault‘s modern discourse is to look in a critical way to the ―old new‖ truth. In mystory I present a parallel discourse of the archaeology of knowledge with mathematics.

Academic Discourses As a justification for the method in the dissertation, I present two discourses that converse to each other from two different epistemes: one, Foucault‘s ―tools‖ that guide a discursive analysis, and two, a story of what has been said in the history of mathematical analysis. Foucault linked very different disciplines by showing similarities in their basic concepts or at least the rules that govern the possibility and desirability of particular concepts. This view led him to the notion of episteme as the ―system of concepts that defines knowledge for a given intellectual era‖ (cited in Gutting, 1994, p. 9). I have chosen to depart from the 18th century because it is exactly where Foucault started his story. He called it the ―classical period.‖ In this case periodization is not a vain exercise; it helps ―constitute meanings in human life by announcing or making articulate patterns of events‖ (cited in Cooper, 1981, p. 3). Foucault (1994) warned us to pay attention to the discontinuity, phase-shifts, strophic transformations and heterogeneity, ―how the themes of ideas are the discipline of beginnings and ends, the description of obscure continuities and returns, the reconstitution of developments in the linear form of history‖ (p. 137). But what if these same features are present in correlation with another story or discourse? Is one discourse creating the background, image and domain of the other? For Canguilhem (1994), ―concepts are ‗theoretically polyvalent‘‖ (p. 8). Concepts can function in correspondence with other concepts in different theoretical contexts. In The Order of Things, Foucault extended and transformed Canguilhem‘s method showing how apparently very different disciplines have similarities in their basic concepts and move farther, from a history of concepts to the notion of episteme as the system of concepts where it is no longer required to define a discipline in its own terms, ―the ground of thought on which at particular time some statements—and not others—will count as knowledge‖ (Macdonell, 1986, p. 87). Following this idea I looked at the ―intellectual subconscious‖ of Foucault‘s archaeological approach to the history of thought that in his owns words history of thoughts is ―the play of individuals‘ thought,

in a given period and disciplinary context, takes place in a space with a structure defined by a system of rules more fundamental than the assertions of the individual‘s thinking in the space‖ (cited in Gutting, 1994, p. 10). It is this period and disciplinary context, the development of Modern Mathematics‘ functional analysis, that Foucault himself was immersed and which influenced his thought. Foucault added that ―there are other criteria for … [T]he discourses whose limits one would have some difficulty in defining…because each discourse undergoes constant change as new utterances (énoncés) are added to it‖ (1991, p. 54) as in the case of giving meaning to oppression in terms of class but not in terms of gender or race. There are: ―criteria of formation, criteria of transformation or of threshold and criteria of correlation… that make it possible to describe, as the episteme of a period, the divergence, the distances, the oppositions, the differences, the relations of its various scientific discourses… it is a space of dispersion, it is an open and doubtless indefinitely describable field of relationships‖ (1991, p. 55). So, to explore if one discourse—functional analysis—is creating the background, image or domain of the other within Foucault‘s archaeology, I look at some of the possible evidence of the relationships created in the ―saying‖ of these stories. Using the idea of relationships, I am trying to make a correlation with what Foucault has been made into, rather than examining the practices involved in the formation of Foucault‘s archaeology. Mystory is a reflection about the history of ideas, the relations of beginnings and ends, the possibility of finding obscure continuities and recurrences, the reconstitution of ideas that can be in linear correspondence. I attempt to describe the interplay of exchanges from one domain to another. My analysis will show how functional analysis takes form in archaeology and it will show how concepts, notions and themes can emigrate from the mathematical field where they were formulated to the field of archaeology.

Narrative and voice The voices in this narrative are: Foucault, History of mathematics and Narrator (N)

N: Mathematical notions offer an understanding of historical prescriptions.

Foucault‘s analysis located knowledge in discourse, in discursive practice, and rejected unifying and interpretive notions as ideology. Foucault (1972) explained that ―historical prescriptions are necessarily ordered by the present state of knowledge, increasing with every transformation and never cease, in turn, to break with themselves as ‗recurrent redistributions‘‖ (p. 5). He made reference to the work of the mathematician Michel Serres as providing a theory for this phenomenon.

N: The mathematical notion of number is shifting from the notion of quantity to the notion of algebraic functions. It is moving from continuity to discontinuity, from finite to infinite against a powerful discourse from the Church that speaks of only one infinite concept: God.

During the 18th and part of the 19th century, many scientists agreed with the idea that mathematics was the ―science of quantity.‖ This science was understood to consist of the geometric or algebraic study of numbers and continuous magnitudes such as lengths and weight or their ―abstract‖ counterparts. So they did not challenge the Church‘s ideas (Ekeland, 2006, p. 24).

N: Discontinuity, phase-shifts, strophic transformations and heterogeneity are emphasized in diagnostic of culture: the history of concepts. The idea of cause-effect, continuity and total history are challenged when ―the new model history is deployed in the dimension of a general history‖ (Foucault, 1972, p. 164).

Foucault (1972) was interested in the force of language, the distinctions between thought and language and knowledge and language, presented as ―discursive events,‖ which define the rules that govern the relationships among ―statements.‖ It is in the ―langue‖ (or language as idiom or tongue) that Foucault locates the existence and dynamics of the relevant concepts needed in this work: ―the statement,‖ the ―discursive formation‖ or ―discursive field,‖ ―discourse‖ and the ―archives.‖ He states that ―discontinuity moved from being the stigma of temporal dislocation to one of the basic elements of historical analysis‖ (p. 8).

N: Mathematical interpretation of number emphasized discontinuity.

During the 19th century, this image of mathematics changed profoundly, and one may reasonably call this change the end of the paradigm of the science of quantity. In Great Britain, a tradition of symbolic algebra emerged in which the symbols of algebra were no longer interpreted as representing necessarily numbers or magnitudes. The notion of number was gradually extended far beyond its earlier limits (Ekeland, 2006, p. 41).

N: Discontinuity and relations of units create series, divisions, limits, differentiation and dependency.

Foucault (1972) paid attention to how ideas are ordered, to the ground on which these ideas become linked and to the modes of being of order. By questioning the order of ideas he suspends generally accepted unities, totalities or discursive grids that allow that order and the emergence or forms. This questioning establishes a shift in perspective that enables an investigation of the rules of formation of these grids. The new history speaks of series, and ―series of series‖ that constitute possible ―tables‖ that determine ―what form of relation may be legitimately described between different series revealing many possible orders‖ (p. 10).

N: Break from the notion of number. Number is related to sets, unities and grids that allow the establishment of a nonself-evident idea. A new series is created when the new concept of number has no correspondences with the previous one, therefore creating a new field.

The traditional relation between the real quantities of analysis and intuitively given magnitudes such as line segments lost its supposed self-evidence, and these intuitive ideas ceased to be viewed as a sufficient basis for technical arguments. The concepts of set and real numbers replaced the 18th century concept of quantity in analysis. It was self-evident to mathematicians of the 18th century that the quantities dealt with in analysis were endowed with meaning in the natural and social world because of the correspondence of series of ideas that unified them and the apriority of continuity.

N: Decentring the sovereignty of the subject, the theme of a continuity of history.

Foucault (1972) stated that the living openness of history opposes ―immobility‖ of structures, ―closed‖ systems and ―synchrony.‖ The history of the sequence of events as formations of a logic occurrence is challenged. Historical analyses use discontinuity, definitions of levels and limits, and description of specific series, and uncover the whole interplay of difference. There is rejection of the relations of cause and effects. In its place ―levels are established as approximations to a point of view, the limits are established as arbitrary selections of a specific time and space, and the series specified a trend under specific levels and limits that originate history‖ (p. 13).

N: Moving away from continuous quantity, static constructions and philosophy.

During the last third of the 19th century mathematicians concentrated their attention on the definition of real numbers. This definition was the base for their investigation of real functions. The approaches to the study of real numbers were: the idea that analysis had to be founded on the (intuitive or logical) notion of a continuous quantity; the notion of a continuous quantity replaced by a strictly arithmetical construction of real numbers; and the idea that the founding concepts of analysis could and should be framed in a purely formal way, bypassing philosophical issues (Jahnke, 2003, p. 291).

Applying Foucault’s Archaeology to Freire’s Concept of Oppression Since I am interested in the force of language, the distinctions between thought and language and knowledge and language, I refer to Foucaultian ―discursive‖ events, to help me define ―the rules that govern the relationships among ‗statements‘‖ (Gutting, 1994, p. 18). Foucault uses two terms, ―langage‖ and ―langue‖ which translate into English as the one word ―language,‖ yet which have different meanings. ―Langage‖ refers to language in general or kind of language; i.e., philosophical languages. ―Langue,‖ a term which Foucault borrowed from Ferdinand de Saussure, refers to ―the total collectivity of signs that make up any natural language; i.e., English‖ (cited in Taubman, 1982, p. 30). It is in the ―langue‖ that Foucault

locates the existence and dynamics of the relevant concepts needed in this work: ―the statement,‖ the ―discursive formation‖ or ―discursive field,‖ ―discourse‖ and the ―archives.‖ Foucault considered a statement as the primary building block of a discourse. It is ―neither an utterance nor a proposition, neither a psychological nor a logical entity, neither an event nor an ideal form‖ (Dreyfus & Rabinow, cited in Mills, 2005, p. 54). Statements are ―those utterances which have some institutional force and which are thus validated by some form of authority‖ (Mills, 2005, p. 55) as true. However, as Foucault (1972) stated ―one would only be in the true if one obeyed the rules of some discursive ‗police‘ which would have to be reactivated every time one spoke‖ (p. 224). Another discursive structure is the archive: Foucault describes the archive in the following terms: ―I mean the set of rules which at a given period and for a definite society define: 1) the limits and forms of expressibility; 2) the limits of forms of conservation; 3) the limits and forms of memory; and 4) the limits and forms of reactivation‖ (cited in Mills, 2004, p. 56). As a first step of the discursive analysis, it is necessary to construct the archive as ―that which regulates what has been said and not been said in a given society‖ (Andersen, 2003, p. 13). I focus on the different types of transformations, or set of derivations, of Freire‘s idea of oppression within a given discursive formation, ―detecting the changes which affect its objects,‖ (Foucault, 1991, p. 56), such as Freire‘s theoretical backgrounds that moved from Christian Personalism to Theology of Liberation, operations, such as the added utterance of race into the interpretation of oppression in terms of class, concepts, such as gender as referent, theoretical options, such as opting for Marxism or Feminist Theory. Thus, I distinguish changes by deduction or implication (a theory from the Third World implying a lack of generalization into the First World); changes by generalization (the application of a theory from Third World context into the First World context, with the consequent appearances of new concepts from the merge of theories, such as Feminist Theory and Critical Pedagogy); changes by limitation (concepts are specified by the original language, such as conscientizaçáo); changes by shift between complementary objectives (from the national literacy program to democratization); changes by inclusion or exclusion (the analysis of ideas from postmodernism supersedes the initial analysis from Marxism).

I focus on the changes which affect the discursive formations themselves. Thus, I distinguish the displacement of boundaries which define the field of possible objects (the object of literacy programs in Brazil in the 1960s cease to be positioned on the idea of revolution as individual transformation; revolution became the seizure of power; the new position and role occupied by Freire in discourse (Freire‘s experience in Brazil focused on nationalism; in exile he focused on globalization; and at his return to Brazil he focused on formal governmental power). I look at ―change‖ as the play of specified modification suspending the general accepted unities (cause-effect), totalities or discursive grids—different societies, periods and discourses— that order and allow them to emerge or form, and to establish an angle of vision, a shift in perspective which enables an investigation of rules of formation of these grids. In what follows, I elaborate on how I applied Foucault‘s framework to Freire‘s concept of oppression. I begin positioning the ―statement/oppression‖ as the atom of discourse. I ask of what does oppression consist? What are its distinctive features? What are its boundaries? I look first at what ―oppression‖ is not. This statement is not a structure. ―Oppression‖ exists, neither in the same way as the ―langue‖—although it is made up of signs that are definable in their singularity only within a linguistic system—nor in the same way as the objects presented to perception—although it is always endowed with a certain materiality—institutional and economic process—and can always be situated in accordance with space-time coordinates—in this case Freire‘s biography. Given that ―oppression‖ is co-extensive with signs, of what does ―oppression‖ consist? I avoid fixing or reifying the term ―oppression,‖ rather I refer to it in other terms which in turn refer to others. This is consistent since I am not writing a history of ―oppression,‖ and language is a vast library wherein ―oppression‖ continually refers to other statements, signs to other signs, comprising a system that is infinitely self-referential, infinitely absorptive. Therefore, oppression is not be defined in terms of content but rather in terms of function. It does not refer to specific units or structures but rather to ―spaces‖ that are formed by other operations; it cannot be reduced to a specific referent since there is no specific referent that does not exist in relation to other phenomena. For example, ―oppression‖ can be defined in terms of class, but ignoring gender or race, without implying that the latter references do not exist.

I ask: what is ―oppression‖? Using Foucault‘s idea, I established oppression as a function that is ―caught up in a logical, grammatical, locutory nexus…[and] cuts across a domain of structures and possible units, and which reveals them with concrete contents, in time and space‖ (1972, pp. 86-87). It is written or spoken to oneself, but the subject of oppression is not seen as the author of the formulation. Oppression does not originate in the author, who is the subject as he is commonly conceived because the individual scholars are simply the vehicles of the sites where this idea of oppression is produced. The subject of oppression should not be regarded as identical with Freire‘s formulation— either in substance, or in function. He is not in fact the cause, origin or starting point of this phenomenon of the written or spoken articulation of ―oppression.‖ Oppression can be called ―statement‖ because the position of the subject can be assigned. I do not analyze the relations between Freire and what he says (or wanted to say, or said without wanting to). I am creating a function that relates Freire‘s idea of ―oppression‖ to any author that positions himself or herself in that same domain. Since ―oppression‖ belongs to a certain regularity—i.e., philosophical foundation, a certain domain—i.e., culture, within which it functions and which gives it shape, ―oppression‖ cannot be regarded as pure creation. The ―statement/oppression‖ can be situated at the level of ―it is said‖ (Foucault, as cited in Taubman, 1982, p. 33). The statements, concepts, themes, figures and objects of this discursive analysis are both intimately linked to the dominant organization and also serve to alter that organization. I describe how this shift (transformation) does not constitute a rupture or transformation but in some respects serves to maintain the traditional organization of ―oppression.‖ The authors do not write about oppression from a personal consciousness but rather the idea of oppression is regulated as social knowledge by outside political and economic forces. The collection of texts provides passages and captions related to Freire‘s idea of oppression. These texts do not constitute the ―truth‖ but a regime of truth; a configuration of power and knowledge created by every society. Discourses are promoted, produced and distributed by these regimes of truth. Authorized by powerful institutions in the United Sates and in Latin America, authors produce position, maintain and impose knowledge. These same institutions produce truth

by inserting ideas into a particular field of discourse that, according to Bowers (2006), ―cause the individual to read and react to them as factual concepts and supposed truths‖ (p. 2). The institutions in the United Sates and in Latin America that published manuscripts play an important role in validating ideas and contributing to the understanding of the world. Foucault (1980) stated that ―each society produces its own general politics of truth that determine what can function as truth, how that truth can be acquired and by what techniques and procedures that truth gains value and importance‖ (p. 142). In order to identify how the idea of oppression is defined I looked at many documents (monuments) written by authors whose thoughts are directed by the forces of power and knowledge that circulate within their societies and not from any inner ideology. The purposes in the use of historical materials followed Kendall and Wickham‘s terms: ―does not involve assumptions of progress (or regress), it helps to see that the present is just as strange as the past, not to help to see that a sensible or desirable present has emerged…or might emerge.‖ Therefore, history serves to ―disturb the taken-for-granted‖ (cited in Mill, 2004, p. 78).

Data Collection The analysis of materials, especially published, could lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of knowledge and power. The analysis of published documents provides an understanding of what circumstances make power possible while also contributing to alternative readings of power. Foucault (1970) stressed the relationship between authorship and authority and looked at publications as a form of justification and validation of power. Each society in its cultural context has its regime of truth, its general politics of truth; that is, the types of discourse that it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanism and instances that enable us to distinguish between true and false statements; the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; and ―the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true‖ (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). It is in the documents that power and knowledge display tactics and strategies for understanding the transculturations of Freire‘s idea of oppression. The documents are treated as monuments that expose new histories through the questioning of a series of ideas.

In order to best address my primary questions, I gathered data from several sources, including Pedagogy of the Oppressed, biographies about Freire, studies by a select group of Latin American scholars whose work is located in the Center of Regional Cooperation for the Education of Adults in Latin America and the Caribbean (CREFAL) in Mexico and a select group of scholars in the United States. I have categorized the resource data into five groups: texts from biographies about Freire; the historical backgrounds in the form of a language that offers relations of meaning, not relations of power in the United States and Latin America; texts from selected United States scholars; texts from selected Latin American scholars; and Pedagogy of the Oppressed. These texts constituted the objects of the research and were stored in the software. The texts in Spanish or Portuguese were translated into English. My selection of the work and the scholars from United States was initiated by reading Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed in a seminar on ―Power and curriculum‖. I used EndNote software in online connection with the internet to search 2,800 predefined bibliographic databases available via King Library at Miami University. I got 228 titles under Paulo Freire. I classified them by content or domain using the import filters provided by EndNote. From this sampler, 16 texts were selected to represent the most relevant approaches to Freire‘s work for the introduction of this dissertation. They cover topics such as method, liberation, conscientizaçáo, literacy, critical pedagogy, transformative pedagogy, philosophy, education, politics, religion, culture, organic intellectual, civic courage, pedagogy of possibility, pedagogy of revolution and ecopedagogy. Due to the timeline of this work, 19 United States‘ scholars were selected. In the case of the selection of the work and the scholars from Latin America I proceed in a similar way but this time I used CREFAL‘s database for its relevance and specialization on Freire‘s work in Latin America. The initial list of the scholars is presented in Figure 1. This selection of ―relevant‖ scholar work has the institutional approval. Therefore there is limitation to the tension between the choice of published documents and unpublished documents. After gathering and organizing the data, I used Nvivo, a non-numerical unstructured data indexing, searching, and theory-building computer program to analyze the data. The system was added to or modified as needed. Unlike other programs, the non-numerical unstructured data indexing, searching, and theory-building computer program saves the results of such searches. They were treated as new categories, allowing progressive explorations and testing of emerging

theory (nodes). These search results, and the memos that were attached to them and to the individual files, allowed the creation of an entire database about the original data, which in turn was organized in models and analyzed. The search results were organized into six categories: 1) Freire‘s bio-text, 2) United States historical context, 3) Latin America historical context, 4) Freirean scholarship in the United States, 5) Freirean scholarship in Latin America and 6) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire‘s bio-text is not an intellectual biography or an historical review of the development of his ideas. It is more a biography of an intellectual that offers to old and new readers an idea of a very complex person in a world-the Third world perhaps unknown and distant. The details of his life and the historical circumstances in Brazil help us to understand the course of development of his ideas. His ideas as part of the grapho-text, which is his articles, books, conferences, seminars and recorded conversations, including those that he co-authored and in conjunction with the con-text, which refers to his early years in Brazil, his exile and his return provide the sources on which he relied. The United States and Latin American historical contexts provide insight into the possibility of correlations that may exist between the different concepts of oppression. This idea suggests that what is said does not come from a personal consciousness but thoughts are the result of or directed by the environment. The Freirean scholarship in the United States and Latin America allows the possibility of creating a temporary grouping of the politics of oppression that in time could be analyzed in terms of its discursive constitution and domains, taking into consideration the political and cultural contexts and emphasizing the different ways scholars have made meaning of Freire‘s concept of oppression, under their own specificities. In the sixth category, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is described as Freire‘s most important text. In it, he offered his approaches to education and the philosophical and radical integration of education and politics. It is key in describing Freire‘s theory of knowledge, his notion of ethics, men, women, banking education, revolution, oppression, power and reality. The selection of the scholars and their work, the organization of such data in categories and files as a way of creating order went under an epistemological engineering that placed things in a representation that in itself is the immediate order of those things. In other words, such order

of things is a taxonomy that exist by means of the power of discourse and therefore constitute a representation of reality discharging from the discourse what it is not said or unpublished.

Nodes The nodes or nodal points are significant relationships that help to identify, describe and analyze three dimensions of discourse or ―systems of dispersion‖ that expose the social and political forces within the discourse of oppression: Freire‘s syncretic thinking, the continuities and discontinuities of Freire‘s idea of oppression from Pedagogy of the Oppressed in the States and Latin America and Freire‘s transformations in relation to Pedagogy of the Oppressed. First, the system of dispersion, i.e. Freire‘s syncretic thinking, helped me to understand the coherence of Freire‘s personal philosophy, identifying the elements that Freire used in the creation of his pedagogy. Second the system of dispersion, i.e. the continuities or discontinuities of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the work that I selected from the United States and Latin America scholars, helped me to trace the different reinventions. Third, the system of dispersion, i.e. Pedagogy of the Oppressed‘s transformations, helped me to trace the major changes of his pedagogy from critical adult literacy method to critical pedagogy. The nodes—the containers of descriptive coding—stored attributes and were assigned values by category, as follows. Freire‘s bio-text was organized by his syncretic thinking with the following values: education, linguistic, Portuguese grammar, theory of Christian Personalism, Critical Theory, Gramci‘s Analysis of class, Marxist Materialism, Humanism, Radical Deweyism, Structuralism, Psychoanalysis and Discursive Analysis. United States historical context was organized by decades from the 1960s to the 2000s. Latin American historical context was organized by decades from the 1960s to the 2000s. Freirean scholarship in the United States and, Freirean scholarship in Latin America were each organized by author. Pedagogy of the Oppressed was organized by edition, translation, commentaries and evolution such as his book on rethinking Pedagogy of the Oppressed twenty years later. Codes Foucault (1972) stated that ―in every cultural context, between the use of the ordering codes and reflections upon order itself; there is the pure experience of order and of its modes of being‖ (p. xxviii). This section analyzed that experience of order. I exposed the development,

reinvention and transformation of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the work of selected United States and Latin American scholars. In that way, I traced language as it has been said, theories as they have been organized and developed and transculturations as they have been practiced. I traced in what way, then, each cultural context in this study had manifest order, and how, to the modalities of that order, the transculturations owed their theories and the concepts of oppression its constants, sequence and value. Finally I traced the modalities of order that have been recognized, posited and linked with the United States and Latin American locations in the period between the 1960s and the 2000s, in order to create the positive base of knowledge as it is employed in the field of education. The qualitative coding was organized in three components: descriptive coding, topic coding and analytical coding. Descriptive coding was generated by the attributes and values assigned to the following texts: Freire‘s biographies, the United States history, Latin American history, United States scholar work, Latin American Scholar work and Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Topic coding was generated by new ideas gathered as follows: 1) Freire‘s biographies were coded into three texts: bio-text, grapho-text and altero-text; 2) United States historical context was coded focusing on relationships with Latin American politics; 3) Latin American context was coded focusing on relationships with United States politics; 4) Freirean scholarship in the United States was coded in several domains—Marxist class analysis, Pedagogy of Liberation, Christian Personalism, Critical Theory, Radical Deweyism, Pedagogy of Possibility, Critical Pedagogy, Globalization, Environmental Crisis, Pedagogy of Transformation and Human Rights; 5) Freirean scholarship in Latin America was coded in several domains— Marxist class, Christian Personalism, Liberation Theology, Socialist Pedagogy, Neocolonialism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Imperialism, School of Citizenship and Pedagogy of Earth—and 6) Pedagogy of the Oppressed was coded in terms of its evolution—Method, Methodology, Political Pedagogical Project, Critical Pedagogy, Pedagogy of Liberation, Critical Literacy, Pedagogy of Questioning, Pedagogy of Transformation, Pedagogy of Hope, Pedagogy of Possibility, Pedagogy of Revolution, Pedagogy of Indignation, Ecosocialism and Ecopedagogy. Analytical coding was generated from matrices and comparison of domain analysis of the concept of oppression and the results of the analysis derived from the relationships with the

coded data are presented in five graphic models: 1) Freire‘s syncretic thinking in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (see Figure 2); 2) Transformations of Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (see Figure 3); 3) continuities and discontinuities of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the United States (see Figure 4); 4) continuities and discontinuities of Freire‘s idea of oppression in Latin America (see Figure 5); and 5) cross domain analysis (see Figure 6). This analysis, obviously, does not belong to the history of the concept of oppression. It is rather an inquiry whose aim is to rediscover on what basis the concept of oppression and the theories derived around this same idea became possible; within what cultural context the idea of oppression was constituted; on the basis of what historical a priori and in the element of what positivity the different ideas of oppression appeared; how methods, pedagogies and programmes were established; how experience was reflected in philosophies and how rationalities were formed, sometimes to disappear afterwards reaffirming the idea of oppression initially opposed. I am not looking for the ―truth‖ waiting to be known in the collection of texts, instead I am looking at what is said and where it is said in relation with an arbitrary origin of what Freire said about oppression. I am aware that each location has created a configuration of power and knowledge to be discovered within the texts and it is this configuration that constitutes their own regime of truth. The way I have selected the texts brings forth specific discourses that are determined by regimes of truth generated through the institutions that produce knowledge and position that knowledge as ―acceptable.‖ The historical backgrounds bring forth how the world is experienced and invites the individual to read the acceptable truth and react to the information that has been positioned as factual. This process revels that meaning is regulated as social knowledge by the external forces of politics and economics. For Foucault, the historical events need to be read with ―great skepticism but also with a suspension of judgment that gets in the way of human understanding‖ (p. 236), keeping in mind, as Bowers (2006) pointed out, that what happens now is not necessarily better or better understood, than what happened in the past. The codes helped me to look at what practices allow the creation of dialogues that are inserted into the different texts and how discursive formations create the truth regime from which the different scholars speak.

Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Portuguese Education Linguistic Grammar

Theory of Gramci’s Christian Critical Theory Analysis Personalism

Materialism Radical Humanism (Marxism) Deweyism

Discursive Structuralism Psychoanalysis Analysis (Sartre) (Fromm) (Foucault)

Figure 2 . FREIRE’S SYNCRETIC THINKING

Method

Methodology

Political Pedagogical Project

Critical Pedagogy

Pedagogy for Liberation

Critical Literacy

Pedagogy of Questioning Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed Pedagogy of Transformation

Pedagogy of Hope

Pedagogy of Possibility

Pedagogy of Revolution

Pedagogy of Indignation

Ecosocialism

Ecopedagogy

Figure 3 . TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE’S PEDAGOGY OF THE

OPPRESSED

Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Weiler & Ellsworth Berger Walker (Gender) (Conceptual) (Antidialogical)

Ladson-Billings Bowers Murrell, Jr. (Ethnicity, Sexual (Western (Race) Orientation) Hegemonic Model)

Esteva, Stuchul & Esteva Rengifo Prakash (Education) (Indigenous) (Critical Reflection)

Elias Aries McLaren & Huston (Christianity & (Hegemonic (Critical Pedagogy Gender) Discourse) and Ecosocialism)

Walter Horton Macedo (Antidialogical (Ideology and (Literacy Theory) Currents) Power)

Figure 4 . CONTINUITIES OR DISCONTINUITIES OF FREIRE’S IDEA OF

OPPRESSION IN THE WORK OF A SELECTED GROUP OF THE UNITED

STATES SCHOLARS

Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Schelling and Carott Barquera Veloso & Fiori (Popular Culture) (Class and Agricultre) (Rural Adult Literacy)

Escobar Proaño & Retamal CEAAL (Psychological (Christian Virtues) (Socialism) Foundation)

Souza Nuñez ITEA (Sociology of (Contextualization) (Historical) Education)

Gadotti Casali & Llama Puiggros and Torres (Pedagogy of Earth (Philosophy of (Hegemonic and Culture of Education) Discourse) Sustainability)

Shor Faundez Sanchez (Liberating (Language) (Power - Language) Education)

Figure 5 . CONTINUITIES OR DISCONTINUITIES OF FREIRE’S IDEA OF

OPPRESSION IN THE WORK OF A SELECTED GROUP OF LATIN AMERICA

SCHOLARS

History and Importance of the Center of Regional Cooperation for the Education of Adults in Latin America and the Caribbean (CREFAL) The idea of oppression is not a constant, but rather changes depending on how it is read and written. Foucault looked at many historical documents and manuscripts in order to identify how knowledge was created and ideas defined. He found that ―the definitions of certain principles of knowledge changed over time and were influenced by numerous source materials‖ (Bowers, 2006, p. 7). The manuscripts published by institutions play an important role in validating knowledge about social causes. The power of publishers and the materialization of publications in the field of education have contributed greatly to our reading and understanding of the idea of oppression. The contextual facts are projected as textualized social representations of truths. Institutions create texts by a series of forces that constitute and maintain their notion of power and knowledge over the production of acceptable truths and later become ―the archive of what can be said‖ (Foucault, 1972, p 129). For Foucault (1972), to investigate who is speaking we need to ―ask what privileges and authority are given to that person to use a choice of words that carries a certain status in a discourse‖ (p. 51). The United States and Latin American scholars I selected to study write from their institutional authority and the words chosen for their statements reflect privilege in society. Their status is created by authority given to the scholars but also is given by the institutional site from which they create their discourse. In order to have a better understanding of the source materials, I offer a brief historical background and importance of the institution in Latin America that I have chosen for this study. It is a concise introduction based on the review written by David Servín Guzmán and with the assistance of administrative staff from the institution. The summary can be found at the institution‘s virtual portal: http://www.crefal.edu.mx/acerca_de/antecedentes_historicos.htm In 1965 Freire was invited to work as an ―UNESCO consultant in the literacy program proposed by the Department of Special Planning for the Education of Adults‖ (Elias, 1994, p. 8). His ideas were central in the ―Fundamental Education and Community Development program boosted through the collaboration of Regional Center of Fundamental Education for

Latin America (CREFAL) based in Mexico, supported by the Organization of American States (OEA), UNESCO and Mexican government‖ (Austin, 1997, p. 325). The Center of Regional Cooperation for the Education of Adults in Latin America and the Caribbean, CREFAL, (by its original abbreviations Regional Center of Fundamental Education for Latin America), is an independent international organization to the service of the Latin American countries. CREFAL fosters cooperative activities for the development of educators, the production and diffusion of knowledge, and the design of materials, models and methodologies relative to the education of young people and adults. Austin (1997) stated that ―Fundamental Education and Community Development were boosted through the collaboration of CREFAL, an important Mexican institution dedicated to literacy programs, based on Freirean methodologies‖ (p. 325). Participants of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Fourth International Conference in 1950 concluded that cultural development cannot occur if nations do not improve the material conditions that exist for millions of adults. Large segments of the world‘s population were found to be lacking literacy training to help them learn how to read and write. Also lacking was education and training to improve health conditions, to operate machinery, and generally to help people elevate their standard of living. For that reason UNESCO decided to establish training centers for qualified personnel to put into practice the so called fundamental education. The first of these centers (CREFAL) was founded in Mexico at the request of the Mexican government and began functioning on May 9, 1951, under the direction of Mexican teacher Lucas Ortiz Benítez. Another Regional Center in Saudi Arabia, the Arab States Fundamental Education Center (ASFEC), soon followed the same path. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (OMS), International Organization of Labor (OIT) and the Mexican government, with the participation of students from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Mexico, cooperated in the development of the Center particularly by contributing personnel who specialized in adult literacy. The Organization of American States (OEA) and UNESCO also initially participated in CREFAL‘s organization and administration.

In the beginning, the center‘s primary objective was to help the governments of Latin America satisfy two urgent needs: to provide training for teachers and leaders of fundamental education and to prepare materials to reinforce this education, appropriately adapted to the needs, resources and cultural levels of the local communities. The goal was to provide greater development in regions with the most pressing economic and social progress needs, where illiteracy, disease and poverty limited all chance of development and human well-being. In 1960, CREFAL revised its purpose in the field of education, based on the United Nations (UN) statement that ―fundamental education must act in the greater context of development, satisfying the necessity for organized cooperatives, to stimulate credit and other social and economic activities‖ (ED/SWIP/Report, p. 2). Therefore, fundamental education was to function as an educational service aimed at supporting development of the community. That same year in Paris, France, a special group including representatives from UN and several specialized organizations (UNESCO, FAO, OMS and OIT) decided that in 1961 the Center should change its direction and, hence its name and its structure. In 1961, CREFAL was renamed the Regional Center of Fundamental Education for the Development of the Community in Latin America, maintaining the original abbreviations. CREFAL‘s revised goals were oriented toward training and certifying human resources in the countries of the region, focusing especially on the ability to perform planning, coordination, execution and consultation on activities undertaken by governments for individuals. The central objective was to promote economic and social changes that affirmed human values, through projects initiated and carried out by the people and coordinated by the Government. CREFAL received economic support from different international organizations (FAO, OMS, OIT, the UN and UNESCO) and from the Mexican Government to fortify its field work in the communities. A number of successful projects were initiated, such as bird-raising, apiculture, agriculture, crafts and small industries, resulting in measureable improvement of the communities‘ economies. In 1969, the Center embarked in yet another direction, this time toward promoting alphabetization in the context of adult education. Alphabetization is a literacy program that relates an alphabetic representation of the language or a code of the graphic transcription of sound‘s units with the conceptualization that the students and the teachers have of a specific object of knowledge (Ferreiro, 1997, p. 13). Under the name Regional Center for Functional

Alphabetization in the Rural Zones of Latin America, CREFAL initiated a functional literacy program under the conceptual framework originated at the Congress of Terán in 1965. In the early 1970s, CREFAL offered Operational Seminars (SEMOPS), in cooperation with Latin American countries. The aim was to develop educators proficient in field practices applicable to their own specific situations. Twenty-seven seminars were offered on subjects related to agricultural cooperatives, urban development, industry, development of the indigenous communities, adult education programs, agrarian reform and rural colonization. In 1974, in Paris, the Mexican government and UNESCO signed a new agreement for the creation and operation of a Regional Center of Adult Education and Functional Alphabetization for Latin America. CREFAL became an international educational institution of the Mexican government for Latin America and the Caribbean. Between 1975 and 1978, CREFAL faced a period of transition; the joint UNESCO- Mexican government administration was officially transferred to the Mexican government as an international educational institution ending their partnership. The center focused on adult education and functional alphabetization within the framework of permanent education known as ―learning to learn, because life is personal learning, not just a teaching experience‖ (ED/SWIP/Report, p. 3). Adult education and functional alphabetization allow individuals to fulfill their needs and achieve knowledge to meet their goals in all stages of life, because humans are educated throughout a lifetime of experience. In October 1990, in Mexico City, CREFAL signed an Agreement for the Creation and Operation of the Regional Cooperation Center for Adult Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. CREFAL thus became a full-fledged independent international educational center, with its own legal personality and patrimony. Its mission stayed much the same: regional cooperation for adult education, with specialized development of personnel, research resources and systematization, and provision of a forum for the interchange of experiences and specialized information between specialists associated with organizations and institutions in the region. In the following chapter I present Freire‘s bio-text, the context, historical background and statements for the discursive analysis, looking at the reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression in order to develop a mapping that traces its meaning.

III. Reinventions of Freire’s idea of oppression

A holistic approach is needed for a critical reading of Freire‘s contribution to the theory and practice of education, since ―serious distortions not only of Freirean ideas but entire fields of study can result from decontextualized, fragmented, and misguided readings of Freire‖ (Roberts, 2000, p. 31). Therefore, it is important to read Freire in the context of his corpus of work, from his early work before he published Pedagogy of the Oppressed, then after this publication and until his last work, Daring to Dream: Toward a Pedagogy of the Unfinished, which was published posthumously. I look at the continuities and discontinuities in the reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression by analyzing the eventualization or conditions in the constructions of texts, emergencies or occurrence of concepts that define ―oppression‖, enunciations as statements preserved through time, and exteriority as historical description of things said by the selected group of scholars from the United States and Latin America specified in the previous section. This analysis focuses on discourse, because each discourse has its own unique power base from which to draw in statements, and it is the relationships or spaces that are created in this interaction which allow words to overlap and become modified in their use (Foucault, 1972). Foucault stated that scholarly work does not exist in isolation, it only becomes possible in a network of other speech acts, implying that ―an enunciative function cannot operate without the existence of an associated domain‖ (p. 96). In effect, authority works outside authorship, for as Foucault stated, ―discourse is a totality, in which the dispersion of the subject and his discontinuity with himself may be determined... it is a space of exteriority in which a network of distinct sites is employed‖ (p. 55). Foucault (1994) defines ―eventualization‖ as ―rediscovering the connections, encounters, supports, blockages, play of forces, strategies and so on that at a given moment establish what subsequently counts as being self-evident, universal, and necessary‖ (pp. 226-227). The text speaks of an event and it is an event in itself. Eventualization identifies the conditions from which the text is constructed by looking at the process of editing and reconstructions. The event cannot be removed or dismissed from analysis but rather constitutes the starting point for research and it shows that ―there are specific moments within any history and that a response to a situation can occur within the situation‘s own terms of reference‖ (Bowers, 2006, p. 12). 53

There is no simple evolutionary logic that provides the infrastructure of Freire‘s life and works. Therefore, as Taylor (1993) suggests, the ―reading‖ of Freire requires a triple action: ―the auto-text or bio-text that interlinks biographical details; the grapho-text, and the altero-text or con-text (that is supplied by others co-‗writers‘, the acknowledged or unacknowledged sources on which he relied)‖ (p. 6). Freire‘s bio-text is intended as an introduction to his life events and the context in which he developed his ideas from local literacy programs to an international educational stage. It is an approach to Freire‘s insight and personality, including his complexities and contradictions and helps to clarify the options and motivations that under gird his career. Freire did not write from a personal consciousness but rather entertained thoughts that were directed by the environment around him. This analysis does not deny the possibility of new concepts of oppression in correlation with external events. The idea is to show on what condition a correlation exists between the two concepts. I try to make explicit the mobility of discourses that accompanied the events keeping in mind that archaeology does not focus on a logical schema of simultaneities; instead I try to show the intersections between ―necessarily successive relations and others that are not so‖ (Foucault, 1972, p. 168). This approach enabled me, first, to engage in a cross-cultural analysis; second, to view Freire from the outside, looking at his relevance to education in a non-Third World; and last, to look at the integration of the biographic, intellectual and historical elements. Therefore this is not an exhaustive study of the total Freire but rather a partial empathetic and critical one. Foucault (1972) stated that ―we must question those ready-made syntheses, those groupings that are normally accepted before any examination, those links whose validity is recognized from the outset; they must be driven out from the darkness in which they reign‖ (p.22). A multiplicity of domains can overlay an understanding of the idea of oppression, create recurrent distributions that reveal several pasts, allow for several forms of connection and permit various hierarchies of importance to appear within the document. By mapping the diverse formations of the concept of oppression that took place in the United States and Latin American scholarship from the 1960s through the decade of 2000s, I created a temporary grouping of the politics of oppression. Rather than treating these groups as unified and totalized entities, I analyzed them in terms of their discursive constitution and domains, thus emphasizing the importance of context (political and cultural) in the ways that different people and groups of

people made meaning of Freire‘s concept of oppression, in the specificity of its occurrence that determined its conditions of existence in a particular discursive practice or domain. Each discourse was identified and described within each dimension or domain by noting significant relationships (nodes) that distinguished it within a network of discourses. I began by positioning each statement about oppression as an ―atom of discourse‖ that could be situated in accordance with Freire‘s bio-texts, grapho-text, con-text and the historical background of United States and Latin America. Each statement occurred in an historical background as more than a specific sentence or general paragraph, since it was highly selective by organized knowledge (sciences) and carried a social seal of approval by powerful agents (the authors) and the institutions that generated the statement. By acknowledging that Freire‘s formulations are not identical with the subject of oppression, I assumed that he is not the cause, origin or starting point of this phenomenon of the written or spoken articulation of oppression; nor is it my intention to order texts as Foucault (2003) suggested by difference, repetition, similitude, analogy, convenientia, emulation, sympathy and so on. I intend to know whether Freire‘s idea of oppression was determined by conditions that dominated and even overwhelmed him. In other words, I try to analyze the idea of oppression ―at the context when it was written and accepted, value as scientific discourse‖ (Foucault, 2002, p. xv). In this dissertation oppression is not defined in terms of content but rather in terms of function of the text production that impacted a single discourse. It does not refer to specific units or structures but rather to spaces that are formed by other operations (i.e., social events and practices, institutions, organizations and the individual practices) —text production—that served as catalysts for the discursive changes (Foucault, 1972, p. 33). Oppression cannot be reduced to a specific referent since it has no specific referent but exists always in relation to other phenomena. Bowers (2006) suggested that by looking at the statement/oppression, defined as ―the elementary unit of discourse‖ (Foucault, 1972, p. 80) or as an event, we are better able to understand what oppression is and how it acts to shape future statements. To do so, it is necessary to ―remove statements from the conjectural histories of progressive thought thereby avoiding speculations about the influence of the author; and discover new forms of continuity based on a set of contingent decisions rather than an acceptance of secret wholeness‖ (p. 18).

Foucault investigates who is speaking by ―asking the kind of privileges, such title, diplomas of institutional recognition, are given to a person that allow him/her to use that sort of language and by what authority, such as administrative or academic position, that person is able to speak ( Bowers, 2006). United States and Latin American scholars speak and write from a certain position or institutional authority that is socially recognized; the words chosen for statement construction often reflect privilege in United States and Latin American societies. Their ideas about oppression, Foucault (1972) argued, ―cannot come from anybody; their value, efficacy cannot be dissociated from the statutorily defined person who has the right to make them‖ (p. 51). Their status has been created by authority given to the speaker and generated by the institutions from which the scholar creates the discourse and their affiliations. Each discourse generates diverse concepts of oppression and it is the relationship that is created that allows concepts to overlap and become modified in their use. Each concept of oppression becomes possible in a network of other discourses, implying that ―an enunciative function cannot operate without the existence of an associated domain‖ (Foucault, 1972, p. 96). Foucault described the supportive cultures or social and cultural context as the place where discourse interactions can be observed. However, he did not clearly explain the procedure for describing and analyzing such a place. He advised that the researcher must devise a system of mapping the various ways in which the statement appears verifying the modes of appearance against other usages within the discourse field. I followed Foucault‘s (1972) invitation for devising a system of mapping that would allow me to verify reinventions and transformations of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the discourses of education. For this reason in this analysis I have created a series of functions that represent the discourse interactions in the transculturation, reinvention and transformation of the concept of oppression, delimited by historical events, following the graphic model from the previous chapter. The set of functions for the analysis are as follow: Series Function Time interval Space Domain interval First The idea of oppression From 1921 to Brazil, {Christian Personalism, f (adult education) 1967. Previous United Theology of Liberation

 f (adult) to the States and Critical Literacy} f (education) publication of and Pedagogy of the Latin Oppressed. America Second The idea of oppression From 1968 with Brazil, {Marxist Class Analysis,  f conscientization) the publication United Socialist Pedagogy and  f (liberation) of Pedagogy of States Gramscian Theory} f (history) the Oppressed, and  f (critical to 1979 when Latin consciousness) Freire returned America from exile. Third The idea of oppression From 1980 with Brazil, {Globalization,  f (gender, race) the publication United Environmental Crisis,  f (globalization, of Pedagogy of States Pedagogy of environment, Hope: Reliving and Transformation and human rights) Pedagogy of the Latin Human Rights} U Oppressed, to America {Neocolonialism, the 2000s Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Imperialism, School for Citizenship and Pedagogy of Earth}

First Series The first series is represented in the following function: Function: The idea of oppression f (adult education)  f (adult) f (education) The idea of oppression is in function of discourse interactions in the field of adult education. Adult education is in function of the ideas of adult and education in two different cultural contexts and delimited by historical events.

Initial condition is set in time interval from 1921 to 1967, i.e., previous to the publication of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This interval includes Freire‘s early work, theoretical influences and relevant changes in his family life. The space frame includes the relevant events and circumstances in Brazil, United States and the countries in Latin America for the same time interval. For example, Freire experienced the struggles of class in his work with the unions and the groups of popular education that he promoted. He also experienced the euphoria of the democratic groups from the 1950s and the appreciation of the popular movements among the intellectual and Christian groups (Taylor, 1993, p. 22). This function establishes Freire‘s initial idea of oppression as my arbitrary initial condition in relationship with his early years‘ work with adult education. My analysis places the concept of oppression in relationship with his ideas about adults and education. Here, I identified three domains for analysis: Christian Personalism, Theology of Liberation and Critical Literacy. These domains represent the main fields of knowledge that framed Freire‘s work and especially, his idea of oppression, in this period of time. In order to provide a better flow in the presentation of the historical events, the biotext and the archaeological analysis, I am using two types of formats. The indented paragraphs belong to what is said in history and the paragraphs without indentation offer my analysis and elaboration. I use this format for every formulated series.

Freire’s Bio-text, Oppression’s Reinventions and Historical Context This story began when Paulo Freire was born on September 19, 1921 into a comfortable, middle-class family. However, his circumstances changed at an early age, when his family suffered severe but temporary financial difficulties during the Great Depression of 1928 to 1932 (Taylor, 1993, p. 18).

I believe that this may have been his first encounter with the deep feeling of an oppression that speaks loudly at night when there is no food in the stomach. He had to go to bed suffering hunger and the lack of energy at school was eventually reflected in academic failure. Freire reflected on the obvious events that took place in his new environment. His long walks in the poor neighborhood, looking deep into the obvious, his new friends and a new perception of life gave

him the foundation of his theory (Araujo-Freire, 2007, p. 4). His father died in 1934, when he was an adolescent. His older brothers supported the family financially and he had to work hard and sleep less; a habit that he would keep until his old age. Family represented his strength. He remembered his mother as a strong and loving person that took many roles: educator, hard worker, firm and respectful (Araujo-Freire, 2007, p. 9).

With the support of family and friends in 1937, Freire went to the University of Récifé to study law and linguistics. The content and style of his courses was strongly influenced by a core group of French intellectuals. It was through the resources of their libraries and teaching that he was introduced to the works of Althusser, Foucault, Fromm, Levi- Strauss, Maritain, Mounier, Marcel, Sartre, Buber, Kosik, Febvre, Ortega y Gasset, Mao, Martin Luther King Jr., Che Guevara, Unamuno and Marcuse. In 1959, Freire presented his doctoral thesis: Educaçao e Actualidade Brasileira published in Récifé University (Taylor, 1993, p. 19).

In the early 1960s, Freire sought employment at the time when Brazil was a restless nation with prolific ground for the development of reform movements such as socialists, communists, students, labor leaders, populists and Christian militants. Collins stated (1971) that, ―all these movements were seeking different socio-political goals with one tactic in common, gaining the votes of the majorities‖ (p. 6), adding that of ―Brazil‘s population of 34.5 million people, only 15.5 million were eligible to vote‖ (cited in Taylor, 1993, p. 25). The right to vote required the ability to read and write, which made it very difficult for the illiterate rural poor to participate politically. These conditions served the interests of the dominant minority. The political participation of the majorities could not wait as Gerhardt (1989) stated ―the first literacy campaigns in north-east of Brazil from1961 to 1964, and the Movement for Popular Culture (MCP), based on Freire‘s ‗system', showed how educators had espoused the political objectives of the programme organizers‖ (cited in Taylor, 1993, p. 26). According to Gerhardt (1989), Freire‘s system was a literacy program for adults with the goal of teaching them to read and write by ―awakening the socialist/communist consciousness of the workers‖ (cited in

Taylor, 1993, p. 26). Freire got a job as an educator in Northeast Brazil which was ―celebrated only for the misery of the great majority of its inhabitants, for its periodic, natural catastrophes and for a system of land ownership that was incredibly unjust‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 16).

The Catholic Church had absolute control of religious affairs in Latin America. During this period, as Retamal (1981), stated ―the Catholic Church was the ideological trench of the most reactionary oligarchic groups in Latin America... a sort of sharpshooter defending the partisan Conservative ideas of an uneven social order as part of the nature of things created by God‖ (p. 16). It was until the Papal Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 that Social Christianity is created in Latin America with a ―new appeal to Christians to change their attitudes towards the oppressed sector of society‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 16).

Christian groups were organized to apply the ideas of Social Christianity to the political and social arena. Among those groups was the Brazilian Bishop of Récifé, Dom Helder Camara. Freire‘s experience in the literacy campaign and his close relationship with Dom Helder Camara, got him involved in the Basic Church Communities, ―a movement that had grown to accept the need for a clearer identification with the poor, and for a theology of liberation relevant to ordinary people‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 22). As a result of the successful literacy program, in 1961, Freire was promoted as Director of Cultural Extension Service at the University of Récifé and created a literacy programme for the city council under the government of Miguel Arraes, Mayor of Récifé (Taylor, 1993).

Having gained the recognition from the Church and the State and as result of this experience Freire published A Propósito de Uma Administraçâo and Escola Primaria para o Brasil. These publications sketched the state of public education and offered a glimpse of the unjust educational system. Freire became aware of the extreme poverty in the area of Récifé. He lived at the time when his country served multiple interests: the interests of the wealthy landlords and those of the United States military strategies.

Freire‘s educational and pedagogical analyses were in philosophical terms, influenced by the existentialist, personalism and neo-Hegelian ideas (Taylor, 1993, p. 34).

To the latter, Tad Szulc, from the New York Times, explicitly criticized the United States for ―imposing in the area around Récifé the support base for a string of guided missile tracking stations in the South Atlantic for the United States Air Force and doing so little to help in peacetime‖ (cited in Taylor, 1993, p. 17). Following the same paternalist idea, Eisenhower stated that North American intellectuals believed that ―Latin America‘s development could be possible if it had not been for the ideological influence of the Cuban Revolution... adding that supporting Resolution E of the extraordinary meeting of the Alliance for Progress‘s Economic and Social Council, the United States laid the foundation for the mass diffusion of its policies‖ (as cited in Puiggrós, 1999, p. 26). The interventionist idea became clear when, as Puiggrós (1999) stated, that the participants in the meeting for international cooperation held in Nebraska were unanimous on the idea that the United States‘ leadership and promotion of capitalism was the key element in the development of Latin America and a guarantee for cultural and political penetration.

The United States considered its own success in capitalistic progress as an indicator of its innate capacity for evolution and believed as Puiggrós (1999) pointed out, that ―the Latin American underdeveloped societies did not have the moral, cultural and racial conditions to undertake the transformations into modern, technocratic and democratic societies by themselves‖ (p. 19).

I believe that modernization and education emerged in the discourse of international policies as made explicit in the hypothesis of educational politics in the United States claiming that passage of Latin American societies into modernized societies would be based on the diffusion and incorporation of media and technology. The use of technology and media to increase the quality of education became a hegemonic idea in Latin America, affecting the politics and the common sense that according to Huergo (2007) ―linked the incorporation of media and technology with quality of education and communication giving place to a ‗military paradigm‘‖ (p. 37).

Political power shifted in Brazil at the end of 1961, when Leader Joao Goulart replaced Janio Quadros as Brazil‘s president. This administration joined efforts with the Brazilian bishops to intensify peasant leagues and other popular cultural movements aimed at consciousness-raising and nation-wide literacy campaigns, such as the Basic Education Movement (MEB) (Taylor, 1993, p. 26). ―Through the federal government‘s Superintendency for the Development of the Northeast (SUDENE) and under the direction of Celso Furtado programs were created to assist economic development in nine states, including courses and scholarships for the training of scientists and specialists and later extended to primary and adult literacy programs‖ (Collins, 1977, p. 7). The financial assistance for adult literacy programs came from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Taylor, 1993).

In 1962, the first experiment of a pilot project using Freire‘s method took place in Angicos and later that year Freire‘s teams claimed success in teaching adult illiterates how to read and write in only forty-five days (Collins, 1977). Freire‘s team discussed topics such as nationalism, development, illiteracy and democracy. Freire was aware that ―illiterates were not a sort of ‗tabula rasa‘ but rather ‗experienced‘ human beings in a learning process considered a dialogic and dialectical communication‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 5). Phrases such as ―being more,‖ ―being in,‖ ―being with,‖ ―historicity‖ as destiny and challenge, and ―dialogue‖ came from his philosophical ideas. Words such as ―oppression‖ were defined as the impossibility of ―being more,‖ not in political and economical terms. From his Christian background Freire used phrases such as ―love as objective for transformation‖, ―the need to love for the construction of dialogue‖ and ―hope and solidarity‖ as conditions for possibility (Retamal, 1981, pp. 7-9).

In 1964, Freire‘s adult literacy pilot project was a success and the financial assistance from USAID was renewed and extended as national programme. Freire was appointed as director of a National Literacy programme after the very successful Cuban Literacy Project (Taylor, 1993). At the end of 1964, the Goulart government was overthrown by the military. Collins (1977) stated that ―the Basic Education Movement‘s (MEB)

programme of mass literacy was considered a subversive strategy to introduce agrarian reforms opposed by the right-wing and middle-class groups‖ (p. 8). Freire as the Director of the National Literacy programme was persecuted and imprisoned in Brazil for 70 days as a traitor. He appeared in the O Globo, Rio de Janeiro daily, as leading the country to the verge of revolution. (Skidmore, 1967)

The links between Theology of Liberation and education as an ideological alternative against oppression are defined in Freire‘s pedagogy. Freire called the Church to ―steep themselves into the Third World, so that they can be men of the world—utopian, prophetic, hoping men of the world... renouncing power structures and establishments which, in this world represent the world of oppression‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 22). Brazilian educators embraced Freire‘s radical pedagogy into the adult education system as a response to ―the demands of the dispossessed population for control and division of national wealth and power‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 46). As pointed out by Garcia-Huidobro ―conscientization remains as the first goal of any educator who wants to cooperate with the process of liberation‖ (Cited in Retamal, 1981, p. 25). The issue of authority was not clearly defined leaving liberatory pedagogies open to impose their visions of oppression and liberation upon others which comes full circle to replicate the same relations of oppression that they sought to overcome.

The ―civilizing‖ project developed by United States for Latin America found strong opposition. From 1961 to 1963, United States diplomatic relations with Latin America ended in several countries. According to Arnove, ―the United States, seeking to stave socialist leanings, broke off diplomatic relations with Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, suspending economical support‖ (cited in Torres & Puiggrós, 1997, p. 84), creating new political practices toward the achievement of democracy in Latin America as shown in Brazil and the Dominican Republic.

The imposition of United States policies on Latin American countries was based on the belief that invasion was a necessary step for the progress and advancement of the world. There was a special focus on intervening in regions where the population tended toward socialist approaches

and practices for their own governments. One of the most recurrent practices was the suspension of economical support, and the extreme measure of embargos and breaking off diplomatic relationships (Puiggrós, 1999).

However, this was not always the case for all countries with socialist tendencies. The United States government supported Brazil‘s dictatorship in order to protect economic interests, as Skidmore declared that ―the White House doubted that a socialist Brazil would recognize its foreign debts and feared a Peronist-type solution to economic and social problems‖ (as cited in Taylor, 1993, p. 26). The United States discourses for democracy sent a double message that conveyed the idea of military-humanitarian interventions for the support of ―temporary‖ dictatorships and the ―reconstruction‖ of new democratic governments. This idea has been practiced under different programs that assist the military and the police in their efforts against communist subversions. In cases where intervention fails, the strategies move to conspiracy and economic embargos (Puiggrós, 1999).

The United States government ―appeared untroubled by Freire‘s work‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 46), until the Brazilian military coup d‘état. The discourse of agrarian reform, central to the Alliance for Progress, did not converge with the popular education and the popular cultural movements that ―antagonized with the hegemony of the dominant classes, considering education an instrument of class struggle‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 48).

As a result of Brazil‘ s political situation under the new dictatorship ―10,000 government officials were immediately dismissed or forcibly retired, among them was Freire listed as anti-American, whose USAID support had been stopped in January 1964‖ (as cited in Taylor, 1993, p 27).

The Literacy Method became an important political strategy for the central government as Skidmore (1967) stated that ―the government literacy campaigns satisfied the demand for the vote and overturned the electoral base exposing the peasants‘ motivation for more

than the need to read and write‖ (p. 254). Taylor (1993) added that to this course of action ―the landlords of the agrarian sector reacted increasing their stock of arms, ready to defend their interests by force and identified Freire as a target‖ (p. 25).

Adult education and literacy programs became a powerful means of rebellion in the eyes of the Brazilian military. As a result, Freire‘s educational materials of ―Literacy Method‖ were confiscated because they were considered subversive and the seeds of a ―bolchevique/nazi revolution‖ (Araujo-Freire, 2008, p. 6).

Freire was released from prison and ‗invited‘ to leave the country. He leaves Brazil with his family invited by Bolivia‘s government. Two months later goes into exile in Chile (Taylor, 1993). His main interest continued to be adult literacy, which matched with the Chilean government of Eduardo Frei‘s dual programme of literacy and agrarian reform. Freire worked in the Chilean Agrarian Reform Corporation until 1969 (Kane, 2001).

The Chilean educational discourse shifted from the Western domination that promoted the idea of military-humanitarian interventions supporting dictatorships to revolutionary and nationalist discourse. Eduardo Frei‘s promotion of the neutral state with not specific alliance of power with a political party and without compromising his political agenda with the workers assumed that the radical sectors of the left-socialist groups would have temporal ascendency for power in the government and the conservative right led by his government would realign. However, the right attacked the workers using military forces (Austin, 1995).

Chile offered Freire multiple possibilities of employment in the field of education. At the end of 1964 Freire secured ―a post at the Catholic University of Chile, Santiago‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 28), and the following year, he published Conscientizaçâo e Alfabetizaçâo,in Portuguese and Alfabetización de Adultos y Conscientización in Spanish. These articles present his ideas of adult literacy from a new perspective, in two different languages and for a new audience.

One of the most important concepts of Friere‘s philosophy emerged at this time: conscientizacion.‖ Conscientizacion appeared as a mechanistic process: ―vocabulary research among the participants, generative word selection, codification, elaboration of agendas and preparing cards with phonemic breakdown of generative words‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 48). However, Dom Helder Camara (Bishop of Recife) made previous use of this idea in his literacy programme that promoted that the Church should ―face with the obscenity of social injustice…[and] the revolution option, which has scandalized so many, can well be the result of the purest act of conscience‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 40)

It is this idea of conscientization that made possible the emergence, into the educational discourse, Freire‘s work on codification/decodification that established the bases for his reasoning about ―reality and theory.‖ Codification is as McLaren (2007) stated ―a representation of the learner's day-to-day situations‖, (p. 11). Freire offered several alternatives such as photographs, drawings, or words. Photographs or words are considered a representation of reality in an abstraction that creates a dialogue focused to an analysis of the concrete reality represented. Reality and its theoretical context are mediated by codifications. Freire proposed codification, as McLaren (2007) summarizes, as a mediator between ―educators and learners that seek to unveil the meanings of their existence‖ (p.11). Freire also proposed, as McLaren (2007) stated, that ―decodification dissolves a codification into its constituent elements and is the operation by which learners begin to perceive relationships between elements of the codification and other experiences in their day-to-day life and among the elements themselves‖ (p.16). Thus ―decodification is analysis that takes place through dialogue, revealing the previously unperceived meanings of the reality represented by that codification‖ (McLaren, 2007, p.16).

I need to make a temporary stop in this narrative and look at the work of the two groups of scholars during this period of Freire‘s life tracing the transformations of the idea of oppression. I believe that Freire‘s (1972) idea of oppression, was identified in the process of undecoding everyday life identities and transforming them into adaptive responses to the capitalist system, The same idea was incorporated into the educational discourse. For example in the United States, Peter McLaren (1994) interpreted education as ―the process that takes place in the school that is

considered a social site linked to wider social and political struggles in society‖ (cited in McLaren and Lankshear, p. 200). In the same tone, another United States scholar Henry Giroux describes education as the process of reshaping the person and therefore society through ―critical knowledge or political activism‖ (cited in McLaren & Lankshear, 1994, p. 200).

Freire‘s reflection about education is linked to injustice. For injustice he had a response with ―just anger‖ against the coward and the traitor. He will recall later how ―his body‘s consciousness‖ reacted to the ―human contradictions‖ and his effort trying to forgive those that ―negated the utopist dreams of justice and democracy‖ (Araujo-Freire, 2008, p. 2). This ethical reflection gave way to a theory of praxis framed in what Araujo-Freire called ―his body‘s consciousness‖ and his generous soul. Freire abominated with all his heart the greedy, the rancorous and the oppressor. He offered a generous heart that gave compassion for those who did not know how to be firm in their convictions, respectful with the opposite opinions and loyal with his comrades in the fight for justice.

Freire‘s faith in God, men and women guided his life with humility, sensuality, simplicity, joy, seriousness, conviction, and the ardent desire for transformation. He learned specially from the oppressed groups in society. Within this context Freire (1972) interpreted oppression as an act that prevents people from being more fully human.

At the end of 1965 Chile overcame illiteracy (Collins, 1977). Same yearFreire was invited to work at UNESCO as a consultant for a literacy programme proposed by the Department of Special Planning for the Education of Adults (Elias, 1994). He‘s ideas were projected into the international arena in education when he participated in ―Fundamental Education and Community Development program boosted through the collaboration of Regional Center of Fundamental Education for Latin America (CREFAL) based in Mexico, supported by the Organization of American States (OEA), UNESCO and Mexican government‖ (Austin, 1997, p. 325).

At this stage, a new element of Freire‘s discourse on education emerged from the new relationship between ―the personal and the political‖ (Giroux, 2007, p. 2). His faith in democracy and his unbreakable confidence that men and women had the capacity to resist the heavy weight of the oppressive institutions and ideologies developed a new strengthened spirit. His idea that the foundation of politics is humility, compassion and the desire to fight against human injustices were exposed in his text: Educaçâo como Práctica de Libertade. This text was the synthesis of Freire‘s experience in Brazil and the results of his pedagogical research. In general the objectives of this text were to divulge his method of psychosocial of adult education in its practical use.

This same text was published in English as Education as the Practice of Freedom in Education for Critical Consciousness. Some important changes took place in this version as Freire substitutes ―coordinator‖ for ―literacy teacher‖ and ―participant‖ for ―illiterate‖; which as Austin (1995) stated, ―cast the illiterate in the role of the object rather than the Subject of his learning‖ (p. 48).

Thus Freire defined education as an act of ―concientization.‖ As Retamal (1981) explained, education is ―learning to perceive the oppressive social, political and economic contradictions of the neo-colonial domination and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality‖ (p. 6). At the same time, Freire considered that ―conscientization should be the result of two forces, action and reflection, theory and practice, dialectically intertwined in order to produce a cultural action intimately in accord with the historical conditions of Latin America‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 7).

Between 1962 and 1967 First World countries seeking for better results in their plans for capitalist penetration increased economic support for Latin America as Puiggrós (1999) noted that ―Alliance for Progress‘s Economic and Social Council in the Charter of Punta del Este was signed; supporting imperialist objectives… the investments in education were oriented toward the training of the labor force and increasing its productivity within the framework for capitalist penetration‖ (p. 27). International economic support seems to

be justified as UNESCO (1974) declared that ―Latin American educational expansion accounted for the highest rates of educational growth in the world‖ (pp 167, 227).

The self-promoted image of democracy and efficiency provided the grounds for a political intervention and economic and cultural imperialism, portrayed as Retamal (1981) stated ―a crusade for the preservation of ‗Western values‘ that have to be enforced ‗for the sake‘ of Latin Americans‖ (p. 3). In this context, investment and education merged into one idea: human capital. Support for educational programs in Latin America was tied to literacy and training programs.

Puiggrós (1999) reported that in 1968, ―the international Conference on Educational Planning proposed considering education as one more variable in the development equation‖ and ―labor is considered as human capital causing almost all of the literacy programs sponsored or endorsed by UNESCO to focus on chosen agricultural or industrial sectors‖ (pp. 37-39). United States, under the plan ―North American Alliance for Progress‖, considered intervention as necessary, because as Puiggrós (1999) pointed, ― it was essential for civilized people to react against barbarism and as an example of ‗generosity‘ and its messianic spirit, that was sanctified by clear religious convictions‖ (p. 26). The political discourse from the First World spoke of the possibility and the duty of establishing democratic governments and a free market. And the way to achieve those objectives included the promotion of globalization, the elimination of adult illiteracy, price stability, more equitable income distribution, land reform and economic and social planning. The major expectations of this plan were: first, Latin American governments would promote conditions that would encourage the flow of foreign investment to the region that would not compete with United States business and second, the majority of all aid commodity expenditures would go back to United States corporations.

This idea of ―aid‖ was interpreted as ―anti-aid‖ as Retamal (1981) explained ―it is an authoritarian and violent means of cultural and political invasion that denies the essence

of democracy‖ (p. 3). Freire (1969) added that ―to achieve the conquest the invader persuades those invaded that they must be objects of his action and docile prisoner of his conquest. Thus it is incumbent on the invader to destroy, nullify and replaced the culture of the invaded‖ (p. 32).

Here the concept of oppression (Freire, 1972) as the adaptive responses to the capitalist system, takes form in the idea of ―underdevelopment.‖ The idea of underdevelopment was at the core of structuralism and assumed that all societies moved toward a social equilibrium. Under this assumption, the so called developed countries should be in the point of social equilibrium. But not all is in social equilibrium in the First World developed countries; the internal affairs of the United States offered a different face. The multiple cases of civil rebellion, military repression and inequality showed some of the symptoms of the oppressive conditions that prevailed and exposed the so called ―third world‖ in the ―first world.‖

Another important factor in the propagation of ideas is the language barrier. The scholarly work in Latin America was not always well known in United States as in the case of Freire‘s publications. It is worth noting that Educaçâo como Práctica de Libertade and Extensión y Comunicación (the first published in Portuguese in 1967 and the second in Spanish in 1969) were published in English only in 1974, four years after the publication of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. English-speaking readers considered this latter work to be Freire‘s most influential book.

In the text Educaçâo como Práctica de Libertade Freire incorporated the idea of education for freedom in a religious dimension producing a great impact in the religious discourse in Latin America and postulated the aim of adult literacy programs as political. Years later the Church incorporated that idea in ―The Final Documents of Medellin (Second General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate in 1968), presenting an evaluation of Latin American education and proposing a vision for a type of education called ‗education for liberation‘, adding that this type of education transforms the learner in the subject of her/his own development‖ (Torres, 1979, pp, 13-14).

In Extensión y Comunicación Freire offered another concept of education. Education was not longer in the abstract of the ―act of conscientization‖ but expanded into different types of education and practices. As Freire explained in this publication, if education took place in the rural area, Freire called it extensión. Extensión was an alternative to formal education (schooling) to reach those who could not attend the school building, creating an extension of that ―institution‖ maintaining the same spirit but not the structure. Many times this type of rural education did not have any relationship with the ―original‖ school, except the name and the legal recognition by the State. Freire pointed out to the importance of such recognition by society in the different interceptions in the socio-economical structure, like qualification for employment and requirements for advanced studies.

Also a new idea of adult educations took shape in what Freire called continuing education. For those Adults who desired to go beyond the level of education already achieved, he proposed continuing education. This type of education was very successful in rural areas where the communities, at the grassroots level, requested it with special emphasis in technical or manual skills, like vocational schools. Continuing education was specially supported in the agreements made at the Punta del Este Conference.

Adult education became as Retamal (1981) stated ―a cultural revolutionary movement that emerged as the potential negation of the officially sponsored project of adult education whose central aims were those of cultural invasion and maintenance of the status quo‖ (p. 7).

Freire published, in 1968 seven articles; four in Spanish: Contribución al Proceso de Conscientización en América Latina, Cristianismo y Sociedad, La Concepción bancaria de la educación y la humanización and La alfabetización funcional en Chile; one in English: Cultural Action and Conscientization; one in French: La Methode d‘alphabetisation des adultes; and one in Portuguese: Educaçâo e Conscientizaçâo: Extensionismo Rural. This same year He published the book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in Portuguese.

With the publication of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, as conditional event for the upper boundary of this function I closed this first series and moved to the second series.

Second Series The second series is represented in the following function: Function: The idea of oppression  f (conscientization) f (liberation) f (history)  f (critical consciousness)

Initial condition is set in time interval from 1968 with the publication of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, to 1979 when Freire returned from exile. This interval includes Freire‘s work at the World Consul of Churches and a brief period at Harvard University, theoretical influences and relevant changes in his family life. The space frame includes the relevant events and circumstances in Brazil, United States and the countries in Latin America for the same time interval. This function establishes the relations of Freire‘s idea of oppression, from his bio-text during his years in exile, Pedagogy of the Oppressed and his return from exile in 1979. The idea of oppression is in relationship with the ideas of conscientization, liberation and history. Conscientization interpreted as a process for liberation and history is explained in terms of the human conscience. The central categories of this period are in reference to the different types of conscience: intransitive, naïve and critical. Conscientization is the process of ―humanization‖ and dialogue achieves one‘s ―ontological vocation‖. For this purpose I identified the domain {Marxist Class Analysis, Socialist Pedagogy and Gramscian Theory} Theoretical influence In the 1960s, Freire borrowed ideas from Eric Fromm, Karl Popper, Furtado, Tristao de Ataide, enciclica Mater e t Magistra, Simone Weil, Fernando de Acevedo, Gabriel Marcell, Gilberto Freyre, Anisio Teixeira, Karl Manheim, Zevedei Bardu, Alvaro Viera Pinto, Karl Jasper, Elio Jaguaribe, Roland Corbisier, E. Mounier, Mannheim, Juan XXIII, A. N. Whitehead, Jacques Maritain, John Dewey, M. Scheler, C. Wright Mills. From his experience in Chile and the

discussion with the Latin American Left he borrowed from Karl Marx, Georg Luckacs, Albert Memmin, Frantz Fanon, Herbert Marcuse, Eduardo Nicol, Friedrich Hegel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Edmund Husserl, Mao Tse Tung and Vladimir Lenin. Hegel‘s definition of ―consciousness‖ in terms of ―self-consciousness‖ is at the root of Left thinkers of modernity such as Marx, Kojeve, Sartre, Lacan and Fanon. Self-consciousness exists only by being acknowledged by the other. As in: ―Marxist accounts of alienation that exist only on the separation from the other and imperialism as the ownership beyond the territorial limits and into the sovereignty of others, phenomenology as unhappy consciousness that is faced by another self-consciousness), existentialism, Psychoanalysis, philosophies of decolonization and cultural liberation articulated by Fanon (the colonizer and the colonized) and Freire (the oppressed and the oppressor)‖ (Peters, 2000, p. 7). In particular, Hegel‘s account of ―consciousness in terms of ‗struggle of recognition‘ and his picture of ‗spirit‘ as a progression towards freedom,‖ (Peters, 2000, p. 8) exercised considerable influence on Freire. Freire‘s dialectic and his analysis of ―consciousness‖ are in terms of the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor. For Freire, Hegel offered a understanding of the process of self-transformation in class terms, as the ―absolute negation‖ of the Master‘s world. The struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor seeks mutual recognition as an independent self-consciousness even at risk of their own life. Title Freire published Pedagogy of the Oppressed explaining that ―the title of Pedagogy of the Oppressed came as need to underscore the existence of another pedagogy… to distinguish this type of pedagogy from another which, even though it existed, had concealed itself under other titles, other names‖ (Torres and Freire, as cited in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994, p. 102). Taylor (1993) added that the Pedagogy of the Oppressed ―is not a pedagogy for the oppressed or simply with the oppressed. It is a pedagogy that belongs to the oppressed: it is The Oppressed‘s Pedagogy. Therefore, the title of Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is grammatically both a subjective and an objective genitive‖ (p. 9). Pedagogy became a possession of the oppressed that enclosed their opinions, needs, feelings, experiences of their oppression. Introduction Pedagogy of the Oppressed must be read holistically, contextually and critically. As an early work his leanings to the Left are clear and his ontological, epistemological and ethical basis of

his thought are outlined. It is ―the best concise presentation of key dimensions of Freire‘s philosophy–particularly his ontological distinction between humanization and dehumanization‖ (Roberts, 2000, p. 11). It gives an idea about the distinction between two contrasting approaches to education and the philosophical and radical integration of education and politics. It is often regarded as a central text for adult education that works based on the distinction between ―banking education‖ and ―problem posing education.‖ Making clear that, ―for the oppressed‘s pedagogues, there is no confusion because one cannot be a pedagogue of the oppressed and a pedagogue of the Banking System at the same time‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 9). However, Freire did not solve the dialectic relationship student/teacher because as Cho and Lewis (2005) pointed out ―there is always a subjective component to being an object of educational power‖ (p. 314). Context Pedagogy of the Oppressed took place in the 1960s, during the military dictatorship in Brazil 1964, the period of civil resistance, and popular social movements, in Chile (Aronowitz, in McLaren and Leonard, 1993). It examined the struggle for justice and equity through the exploration of a Marxist class analysis and proposed a new pedagogy of liberation, that is ―directed at breaking the cycle of psychological oppression, by engaging students in confronting their own lives, engaging in a dialogue with their own fear ‖ (Aronowitz, in McLaren and Leonard, 1993, p.15). It attempted to affirm human beings as Subjects, addressing the problem of dehumanization as ―a distortion of the ontological and historical vocation.‖ Freire (2004) recognized that ―dehumanization is a concrete historical fact‖ and offered reassuring hope that ―it is not a given destiny,‖ but the result of an unjust social order that locates freedom outside of man and ―engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed‖ (p. 44). Analysis of history One of the key elements of Freire‘s ideas is his analysis of history and culture heavily founded on Althusser, Fanon, Luckacs, Mao, Marcuse and. Marx. He also draws on Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel and Rousseau. His theology compiled from Bonhoeffer, Gutierrez, Niebuhr, Rahner, Buber, Fromm and the traditions and practices of the ―Church Triumphant.‖ Freire was inspired by Febvre‘s ―social contextualizing‖ of history. History is understood as the investigation of culture and ideology. The construct of historical events in time intersections of ―cultural

moments‖ are significant to the mentality of the time of the historian, therefore ―history is not a chronicle of dates and epochs (Taylor, 1993).

Using Febvre‘s series of lectures, at Sao Paulo University, published in the journal Annales and its separate section Les Mots Et Les Choses, Freire focused on three ideas: first, on the analysis of a history of conscious and unconscious forms of thought–illustrating their usefulness in the identification and construction of the various historical ―stages of consciousness‖; second, on the centrality of language and history of mentalities as a method of studying language –explaining and constructing the development from naïve to critical consciousness; and third, on Foucaltian discourse analysis –a specific application is ―the development of decoding in the Culture Circles‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 35). Nevertheless, according to bell hooks, Pedagogy of the Oppressed ―is essentially powerless because it is based upon a transformation in consciousness as opposed to a transformation in social institutions‖ (cited in Finkelpearl, 2000, p. 5). Freire answered that critique years later reminding the readers that conscientization was not an end itself but always as it was joined by meaningful praxis. Theory of knowledge According to Taylor (1993), Freire borrowed from Febvre the critical definition of the central relationship of Power and Knowledge, also defined in Foucault‘s Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) which questions the world as it has been written. For Foucault and for Freire the problem (problemátiser-problematizaçåo) is ―to protect the sovereignty of the Subject by insisting that the individual history is not an object" (Foucault, 1969, p. 22, 54). Freire‘s theory of knowledge is understood as a set of systematic propositions in reference to the existent relations between a cognitive subject and a known object, offering an optimistic posture that claims that knowledge is possible, conscience and world (subject-object) are constituted mutually: one implies and differentiates the other, thus the distance between the objective reality and the cognitive subject disappears in action, production and consciousness. As Freire stated (2004), ―real consciousness implies the possibility of perceiving the ‗untested feasibility‘ which lies beyond the limit- situations‖ (p. 113). In other words, it is a dialectical conceptualization of knowledge that assumes that concrete thoughts conform to an objective reality and represent a reflection of the

world. This knowledge of a concrete reality, according to Freire would guide the subject toward the transformation of that reality in praxis. Notion of ethics Freire‘s idea of ethics did not appear explicitly as a formal concept but as an ―insinuation‖ showing as Casali (2005) stated that ―Freire was not preoccupied in the conceptual formalization‖ (p. 108) but in creating critical awareness. However, as Casali (2005) later explained, Enrique Duseel‘s text Etica de la Liberación en la Edad de la Globalización y de la Exclusión offered a definition of ethics in correspondence with Freire‘s theory and pedagogical practice. He contended that ―the human condition presents a set of possibilities and potentialities and it is a fundamental human duty to achieve those possibilities‖ (109). It is interesting that the ―possibilities and potentialities‖ are structurally identical with Christianity‘s ethics, suggesting that religion is the mechanism that produced the ethical subject. Notion of men and women As Fiori summarized ―men and women are beings of relations, with the world and in the world and with other men and women. Thus humanization is a process of interrelation between dialectic and subjectivity‖ (cited in Torres, 1979, p. 24). Freire‘s political anthropology problematizes ―man,‖ and confronts the possibility of being ―man‖ and the risk of losing her/his humanity for being alienated. He assumed a double posture from existentialism and Christianity in his Hegelian notion of man as he recognizes that man cannot be, if man does not allow the others to be and as a being of praxis. It is this praxis that Freire proposed as fundamental in his definition of man. Man is a being of praxis, whose critical activity transforms the socio cultural surroundings and enables him to transcend and ―his transcendence is based in the root of his finitude, an unfinished being and whose plenitude is in the union with his Creator‖ (Torres, 1979, p. 25). Notion of banking education Freire (2004) made a contribution to the analysis of the relation between politics and education in the transmission of knowledge incorporating its ideological character. He conceived education as a guide for men and women in life and distinguished two types of education. He distinguished one type of education as an exercise of domination that stimulates the credulity of students, with the ideological intent of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression—banking

education). And the other type of education as the practice of freedom—problem-posing education that seeks to question the world more than regurgitates the already expected answers, by the teacher of course. The teacher/student contradiction is Freire‘s central problematic. He began his analysis of education with the banking concept of education as ―an apparatus that treats knowledge as motionless, static, compartmentalized and predictable‖ (2004, p. 71) turning it into a fully articulate object. From this point of view, students were not agents in the construction of knowledge nor seen as already having knowledge. They were seen as ―containers, receptacles to be filled by the teacher‖ (p. 72) turning them into objects incapable of pursuing knowledge, dehumanized. Only later did Freire incorporate critical theory, combining a Gramscian analysis with a Marxist class analysis to redefine the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor. In redefining this relationship Freire stressed, as Torres (1993) suggested, concepts from radical Deweyism that see education as the process of reshaping the person and therefore society. Notion of revolution Freire abandoned his position of development and moved into a postulate that claimed the need of social revolution and that would make possible the transformation of reality where ordinary people could and should be the agents of change. He stressed the importance of faith and trusting that people have the ability of becoming ‗subjects‘ of history‖ by reading the word and making (writing) the history of the world(Kane, 2001). There was not a clear definition about the character of this revolution; however, his idea came from Lenin‘s statement ―without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement‖ (Freire, 2004, p. 125) implying that revolution is achieved ―with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed‖ (Freire, 2004, p. 126). This Marxist idea of revolution that assumes the overthrow of the State and the liberation of the working classes is challenged by Freire‘s political action. He recognized that revolution is a different type of codification of the same power relations. Thus, ―The State should not be seen as a possessing power but a range of relations which tend to position people in ways which make the political system work‖ (Mills, 2004, p. 37). Recently, Allman (2001) and McLaren (2000), Marxist theorists, have attempted to develop Freire‘s idea of revolution into a coherent ―revolutionary pedagogy‖ that presupposes universal notions such as oppressed and liberated. But their proposal has been challenged by

post-structuralists theorists such as Schrift (1995) who drawing upon Nietzsche‘s critique of ―truth‖ and on his analysis of the differential relations of power and knowledge, ―challenged the assumptions that give rise to binary, oppositional thinking, often opting to affirm that which occupies a position of subordination within a differential network‖ (cited in Peters, 2000). Schrift questioned the human subject that is assumed to have autonomy and transparent self- consciousness. Instead the subject is situated as a complex intersection of discourse, desires, and social forces and practices, resisting universality and unity‖ (cited in Peters, 2000). Notion of oppression In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire views oppression as ―an act that prevents people from being more fully human‖ (2004, p. 57). And he observes that ―sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so‖ (2004, p. 44). These ideas about oppression grow out of his work with the rural poor in the northeast of Brazil and the experience of poverty, imprisonment, and exile. He insisted that oppression is not only found in overt imposed social relations but that the oppressed introject, at the psychological level, domination because they are libidinally invested. However, he did not analyze the subjectivities as an effect of power or the relations of power. Notion of power He addressed the question of power and subjectification in his analysis of power from the centrality of materialism; however, the relations of power within subjects and its function within psychic economies were not. Cho and Lewis (2005) argued that ―such exploration of power would help refine a revolutionary pedagogy capable of the de-investing unconscious attachments to harmful hegemonic relations of power while simultaneously fostering critical literacy‖ (p. 316). Although Freire addressed the critical consciousness process from psychoanalysis, he did not articulate a theory of history that addressed the relation between the social surface and desire. Power is not recognized as an analytic category in the process of understanding subjectification/oppression that arises from liberatory pedagogies grounded in Marxist theorist of education. In the Marxist discourse, power is seen as ―a nebulous concept that detracts from materialists class analysis of the total system of capitalist social relations‖ (Cho & Lewis, 2005, P. 315). Freire did not see disciplinary power‘s function from a Foucaultian perspective, as invasive in schools through regulating actions such as timetables, testing, and the policing of

individuals. Thus banking education constructs a certain subject (a subject that is the object) inserted in the hierarchical set of power relations. As Cho and Lewis (20005) argued, ―though this subject might be oppressed as object, the subject will nevertheless be attached to this position‖ (319). Notion of reality The idea of modernization, proposed in Freire‘s utopian education, promoted both individual and social shifting, micro and macro change. He believed that such changes were products of true education. To explain or rationalize such ―true education‖ implied that there was something called Truth, and that there was a Reality that those properly conscientized could perceive. Freire‘s Catholic beliefs prompted him to consider Truth and Reality as a priori of the created world, consequently his pedagogy was presented as a form of Social Gnosticism that could be understood only by those who accepted the premise of his act of faith. The deep legacy of the Catholic Church had established a progressive social agenda that promoted the cooperation and rewarded the labor on earth later in heaven. The lack of debate of the extreme social economical class conditions created an ambiguity that on occasions the Church was openly declared in favor of the poor and at the same time avoided the idea of independence and revolution. Nevertheless, for Freire the world was an objective reality, independent of the self and able to be known, and instruction was guided by dialogic/interpersonal insight, implying that the dialogical model of education was in opposition to a psychological world view. From this point of view Freire claimed that education would give to the poor and oppressed a voice, a sense of hope that they could make a difference in their own culture by transforming their reality. He believed that conscientization was the process of developing consciousness with the power to transform reality. This was the essential dichotomy–the distinction between education as an instrument of domination and education as an instrument of liberation. Reality was conceived as a world of polarities between teachers and students, the oppressed and the oppressors, the necrophilic and the biophilic, light and dark, subject and objects, liberator and liberated. However, Freire‘s Hegelian dialectical structure of sublation did not take into account ―the residual psychic life of banking power‖ (Cho & Lewis, 2005, 316) leaving it unaddressed and creating an oppressive relationship even in the dialogic classroom. Critiques

As Kane (2002) argued, Freire‘s vagueness on the identity of ―oppressor‖ and ―oppressed‖ may weaken his political impact, but it has allowed him to relate to an extremely wide audience; the process of ―decodification‖ may not guarantee magical results but it remains an important pedagogical tool in the bag of a competent educator. Freire‘s magic consciousness moved to the transcendent critical consciousness that by confronting the social oppression turned into political consciousness. This political consciousness as Torres (1979) pointed did not appear explicitly but between the lines: ―the prevailing necessity to overcome the oppressive situation implies, the critical recognition of the reason of that situation, in order to obtain, through a transforming action that initiated in reality, the instauration of a different situation that makes possible being more‖ (p. 14). Adding that Freire‘s lack of analysis on the relationships between culture and socio-political dimensions, the parameter of structural dependency and colonialism made impossible to propose a theory of dependency. Bejarano (2005) claimed that Freire‘s idea of banking education is both imperialist and reactionary by ―imposing Western pattern of emancipatory thinking negating all other forms of being and living in the world‖ (cited in Bowers and Apffiel-Marglin, p.55). Adding that Freire‘s assumption about the stages of cultural development, ―is the linchpin of a pedagogy that was to move people from a stage where ‗men...cannot apprehend problems situated outside their sphere of biological necessity‘ to the stage of critical consciousness‖ (p. 53). In Freire‘s (2004) own words: ―Once again people, challenged by the dramatic character of the current hour, propose themselves as a problem. They discover that they know little about themselves, of their place in the cosmos and they set themselves to learn more. In addition, in the recognition of how little they know about themselves lies one of the reasons for this search...‖ (p. 87). Freire noted that what happened as outsider, he was unable to participate in the people‘s community-centered conversations, and therefore he was not prepared for the ―diversity and heterogeneity of the ways of being‖ (p. 59). Flow of the meaning of oppression At the beginning of this period, Freire (1992) defined oppression as a distortion of the ontological and historical vocation. This idea was at the core of Pedagogy of Liberation which Aronowitz claimed was ―directed at breaking the cycle of psychological oppression, by engaging students in confronting their own lives and engaging in a dialogue with their own fear‖ (as cited

in McLaren and Leonard, 1993, p. 15). Furthermore, Freire (2004) recognized that dehumanization is a concrete historical fact, and he brought hope assuring that ―it is not a given destiny.‖ This idea was interpreted by Spring (1994) as the result of being in an unjust social order that located freedom outside of man and engendered violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanized the oppressed by its necrophilic character. Freire‘s idea of critical consciousness among the poor was interpreted by McLaren (2000) as an analysis that enabled the oppressed to analyze their location within the privileged hierarchy of capitalist society and dislodge themselves from the cycles of social reproduction. However, Walker (1981) challenged Freire‘s idea of dialogue stating that it was misplaced, because dialogue was initiated by the leaders, not by the oppressed under the assumption that the former were enlightened and the latter unenlightened creating an oppressive relationship. A point of inflection occurred when the idea of oppression moved from the human (individual) category to the societal (groups of individuals) category. Under this structural point of view some Latin American Scholars such as Utria (1965) interpreted oppression as the creation of a dependent capitalist mentality. To achieve this dependency the modernizer conceived ―political intervention and economic and cultural imperialism as a crusade for the preservation of ‗western values‘ that have to be enforced for the sake of Latin Americans‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 3), thereby discouraging the extension of basic education which would lead to political and social awareness of the oppressed classes. Benitez (1961) also believed that educational systems, were key societal instruments, that demand leaders transmit ideas that depoliticize the masses and politicize the elites, thus creating a society transformed by the educated whose ideas would guide the barbarians and indigenous far away from civilization. Under the idea of modernization of the masses that appeared as an important indicator in the discourse of development and intervention, some United States scholars such as Bowers (1983), interpreted oppression as the missionary intervention in the lives of others, the privatization of their religious belief and the use of utilitarian principles and a purposive mode of rationality to justify the moral basis of social policy. Berger (1974) interpreted as oppressive the approach to adult literacy education where one group imposed its truth on others in order to save them, assuming that one person‘s consciousness was ―higher‖ or ―more useful‖ than someone else‘s on specific topics or within particular settings. Conversely Walker (1981) interpreted Freire‘s

pedagogy as a conflicted idea between existential Christianity and Marxist/socialist national liberation theory in dealing with concrete realities of structural oppression and class conflict. For Elias (1976) oppression was the nonintervention of the Church on the behalf of the poor and when Latin American Church sided with the oppressors, the modernizing efforts of the Church were basically conservative actions, reforming only to maintain the status quo. Challenge Pedagogy of the Oppressed touched on many themes, including questions about structure and rigor in liberating education, the nature of critical reading and writing, legitimate and oppressive uses of authority in the classroom, the process of study, the role of intellectuals in resisting dominant ideas and practices, dialectical thinking and education, the dynamics of dialogue and the distinction between ―facilitating‖ and ―teaching.‖ Much deeper discussion of each is to be found in later works that also continue to question the impact language difficulties have on education, the differences and similarities between Third World and First World educational settings, and the need for contextualization in pedagogical programs. Freire speaks of both a Third World within the First World and a First World within the Third World, pointing out that ―the notion of a Third World is ideological and political not geographic...[It is the world of silence, oppression, of dependence, of exploitation, of the violence exercised by the ruling classes on the oppressed‖ (Roberts, 2000, p. 7).

The ideas Freire expressed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed opened a frontier for liberating education that has been developed in different places and in different ways. Regarding the challenge to adapt and reinvent his ideas, Freire stated: ―That is exactly why I always say that the only way anyone has of applying in their situations any of the propositions I have made is precisely by redoing what I have done, that is, by not following me. In order to follow me it is essential not to follow me!‖ (Freire and Faundez, 1989, p. 30).

During the 1970s, Latin American scholars declared that humanization of education constituted an important reformist goal. As Bowels & Gintis stated that ―the North American discussions about crisis are very influential in Latin America. One of the premises of the modernizing discourse in Latin America was that the contradiction

between equity and efficiency in North American society had to be solved. Latin American modernizers did not accept the efficient and successful model promoted in the United States unless it was also democratic and equitable‖ (cited in Puiggrós, 1999, p. 175). In the case of economic aid supporting teacher education programs, teaching was imposed as an uncritical task. Most of the economic aids were directed toward basic education, discouraging higher education, since the latter did not produce profitability of investments.

At the end of the 1970s, Freire (1976) interpreted oppression as the substitution of the content of bourgeois practices for other types of education, maintaining, in the end, the same old form; perpetuating the school as instrument of social control. Latin American scholars moved toward this type of Marxist analysis. For example Rojo (1996) interpreted oppression as the class struggle, adding that it was the amalgamation of the existing sociohistorical contradictions between capital and labor. The educators as active participants in the revolutionary struggle understood that the validity of popular education was based on a relationship between the ethical and sociopolitical commitments in service to the masses; therefore, teaching practices must have been grounded in a theoretical synthesis of the ideas of socialism. This relationship between those in struggle over power is not considered a reduction to a master-slave relation, or an oppressor-oppressed relationship, because there is resistance from the part of the educators against oppressive regimes.

Latin American nations were unwilling to implement agrarian reforms, which was the primordial goal for the financial assistance from USAID and the World Bank. The property of the land remained under the ―ejidal‖ structure as collective ownership, therefore preventing the possibility of privatization of the use of the land. By the early 1970s, the Alliance for Progress program was canceled and with it most of the educational programs.

While Latin America struggle with the agrarian reform and seems to be far away from the ―ideal‖ social equilibrium proposed already in the international agreements, the United States proclaimed the existence of such social equilibrium. The social equilibrium prevailed in some segments of society as Taylor (1993) stated that ―the liberalism and openness that characterized or caricatured certain parts of the United States, for example the University of Berkeley, had not been a feature of life at Harvard... The violent unrest in the United States, because of the opposition to the country‘s involvement in Southeast Asia, brought police and militias onto university campuses and originated violence on the streets of American cities‖ (p. 30). As Scott suggested, ―the behavior of the powerless and powerful in each other‘s presence tells a different story of their behavior when they are with their equals‖ adding that ―they develop a ‗hidden transcript‘ that is a ‗critique of power spoken behind the back of the dominant‘‖ (cited in Mills, 2004, p. 41). So the powerful (United States) had to develop a hidden transcript which consists of the claims of their rule which cannot be openly avowed in front of other people.

Interestingly in 1969Freire is invited to Harvard as a ―Visiting Professor at the Center for Studies in Education and Development and as a member at the Center for the Study and Development of Social Change. During this period of time he published: Consideraciones Críticas en Torno el Acto de Estudiar, Sobre la Acción Cultural, Annual Report: Agrarian Reform Training and Research Institute, Acción Cultural Liberadora and Extensión y Comunicación and two articles in the Harvard Educational Review: Cultural Action and Conscientization and The Adult Literacy Process as Cultural Action for Freedom that ―appeared just before the English version of Pedagogy of the Oppressed and later were published together as Cultural Action for Freedom‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 30).

New discourses emerged from scholars from United States that approached and analyzed the idea of oppression from varying perspectives. These perspectives tended to focus upon specific forms of oppression. Some theorists focus on one form of oppression and generalized their

theory into other forms of oppression. For example, Weiler (1988) generalized an analysis of class oppression extended to sexism, condemning Freire‘s lack of systematized analysis that did not sufficiently problematize his conceptualization of liberation and the oppressed in terms of his own male experience. She stated that ―the problem lies in Freire‘s emphasis on material relations and not on the issue of patriarchy or colonization‖ (Cho and Lewis, 2005, p314). McLaren (2000) in turn argued that it was needed to take into consideration that Freire‘s approach was from Marxist class analysis and that in his later work, Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he borrowed feminist theory concepts that reinvented his own idea of oppression.

Other United States scholars continue to disagree over Freire‘s politics and the interpretation of his pedagogy. For instance, some theorists condemned the lack of analysis that explained how teachers were to move from critical thought to critical practice, not considering that Freire‘s pedagogy was not a step by step instruction manual. However, in Literacy: Reading the Word and the World, Freire (1987) presented a series of ―talking books‖ as a device to create ―dialogue‖ with the reader. In this work Freire focused on the techniques of literacy teaching with the goals of literacy toward acquiring the language of possibility. This idea was at the core of Giroux‘s Pedagogy of Liberation adding that ―it is no longer possible to have the text without the context‖ (as cited in Taylor, 1993, p. 31). Taylor (1993) argued that oppression is vaguely defined and ―oppressed‖ and ―oppressor‖ were condemned as a bifocal simplistic division, and impossible to be both ―oppressor‖ and ―oppressed‖ at the same time. Focusing on contextualization Weiler (1996) interpreted oppressor and oppressed as categories too universal, lacking specific location and that should openly include issues of gender, race and difference. However, McLaren and Lankshear (1994) interpreted Freire‘s refusal to offer alternative solutions as the possibility for contextualization across geographic, geopolitical and cultural borders. Yet, as McLaren argued (2000) ―his politics of liberation resists subsumption under a codified set of universal principals‖ (pp. 13-14). From a Foucaultian perspective Cho and Lewis (2005) referred to ―Freire‘s object-subject dichotomy as too simplistic.‖ Adding that ―it is through the banking method of education that students are certainly objectified, but it is this objectification that forms the student as subject‖ (p. 319). Because of this conception of the student, Cho and Lewis argued that ―Freire mis-recognized the productivity of banking

pedagogy, which works on and through the body to form a particular passionate attachment that is dependent upon and constituted within relations of power and domination‖ (2005, p. 320). Or in Butler‘s articulation: ―In order to be, we might say, we may, we must become recognizable, but to challenge the norms by which recognition is conferred is, in some ways, to risk one‘s very being, to become questionable in one‘s ontology, to risk one‘s very recognizability as a subject‖ (cited in Cho & Lewis, 2005, p. 320).

The following year, in 1970, he worked with several Latin American scholars at Centro Intercultural de Documentación (CIDOC) in Mexico. From this series of seminars and lectures he published: Cultural Freedom in Latin America, Cultural Action and Conscientizaçâo, The Real Meaning of Cultural Action and Cultural Action: A Dialectic Analysis. During 1971 and 1972, Freire published: Education as Cultural Action, Witness to Liberation, in Seeing Education Whole, Development and Educational Demands, Politische Alphabetisierung: Einfuhrung ins Konzept einer humanisierenden Bildung, Notes on Humanization and its Educational Implications, Education and Awareness, and Letter to a Young Theology Student.

After his visit to work with United States scholar in Harvard University, Freire was invited to work for the World Council of Churches, moving to Geneva in 1975 where ―He traveled the world and collaborated on educational programs in many countries‖ (Taylor, 1993, p. 29).

Freire was invited to work in the adult literacy campaign in Guinea-Bissau. Guinea Bissau is the first Portuguese colony in Africa to obtain its independence. ―The liberated zones by the African Party for the Independence de Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), founded by Amilcar Cabral, elected a National Popular Assembly that proclaimed the Democratic Republic, anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist of Guinea, on September 24, 1973, and recognized by the General Assembly of United Nations on November 3, 1973‖ (Freire, 2000, p. 13).

Freire worked in the adult literacy campaign as a foundation for the construction of a socialist society. The goals of the campaign were twofold: founded in two main ideas: first, it recognizes the old colonial system in order to transform it by recuperating the experience of the war and the educational work done in the liberated zones; and second, it proposes the training of works for the new system of production, political and educational (Freire, 2000).

Freire incorporated new concepts from Amilcar Cabral‘s ideas, such ―as ‗the struggle as cultural fact,‘ the continuity between war and the construction of a new society, the idea of the need for a ‗class‘s suicide‘ in the achievement of the re-africanization, the recuperation of the culture deformed by the power of the colonizer and the relationship mass-party as a pedagogical relationship‖ (Freire, 2000. p. 15). His thinking was further radicalized while working with the revolutionary government of Guinea Bissau, in Africa, in 1975-76; ―his reflections on this experience were gleaned from his correspondence with officials, and subsequently published in Pedagogy in Process: Letters to Guinea Bissau.

The idea of oppression in relationship to the idea of revolution did not take place in Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The idea of revolution appeared ten years later after Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Freire‘s work with Guinea Bissau government. Freire‘s pedagogy appeared contextualized in an overt political and economic activity of neo-Marxism and African ideology in Pedagogy in Process: Letters to Guinea Bissau. Youngman (1986) noted that there was a clear shift in the power relationships between learning, conscientization and freedom. However, Elias (1976) argued that Freire‘s theory and strategy of revolution was naïve for several reasons. First, Freire did not discuss revolution in a particular social and historical context. Second, revolution became a generalization from Freire‘s reflection of the situation in Brazil in a particular period of time. And last, Freire‘s simplistic analysis of Brazilian society into oppressed and oppressors, thus reducing oppression to a problem of dehumanization without a clear concept of what means to be human, with no criteria for self-affirmation or humanization of the person.

But Freire had moved from the Brazilian experience of the 1960s proposing the challenge for the separation of culture and politics, insisting that the diverse technologies of power were inserted in institutions in order to produce, regulate and legitimize specific forms of knowing, owning, feeling and wanting. He recognized that the political was more than an act of interpretation, representation and dialogue; it was the mobilization of society against the oppressive racial, sexists and economic practices manifested in colonization and capitalism as oppressive structures of power. Clearly there is a shift from the ―perspective of politics centered around individual leaders who have utopian visions of the future, which entailed the adoption of a set of beliefs by their followers‖ and toward the idea that ―humans are not the universal operator of all transformations‖ (Mills, 2004, pp. 16-17).

Freire‘s idea of oppression continued to be reinvented as some United States scholar claimed that the specificities of oppression alter its analysis and its relations. As Elias (1973) noted that the tendency of Freire to see the cultural, the social, the political and the religious as only one type of relationship among men makes it difficult to apply his pedagogy. To this assertion Macedo (2006) pointed that different historical location of oppression necessitate a specific analysis with a different and unique focus that calls also for a different pedagogy. Adding that Freire‘s pedagogy from the Third World was appropriate in First World context because United States was experiencing a rapid ―Third Worldization‖... ―where inner cities resemble shantytowns with a high level of poverty, violence, illiteracy, human exploitation, homelessness and human misery‖ (p. 174). Theorists of revolution such as Johnson (1966) and Arendt (1963) considered the particular historical situation essential for the definition of revolution. In the same tone, Roberts (2000) pointed that Freire encouraged Western educators to reinvent his ideas by re- reading his books holistically, contextually and critically and ―acknowledging the particular social circumstances under which his pedagogy was forged‖ (p. 17). Nevertheless, Torres (2007) rescued Freire‘s proposition of the two categories oppressor/oppressed as ―markers for potential points of inflection‖ transforming it into ―dual consciousness‖ adding that ―the fluidity of these two categories, their potential adaptation (e.g. the normative and the analytical) nature of their strength, and the psychoanalytical underpinnings, that make them, and have made them so durable, and a classic in pedagogy and education‖ (p.4).

In total disagreement some other United States scholar as Young argued against a theoretical subsumption of all instances of oppression under one category claiming that ―it is not possible to define a single set of criteria that describe the condition of oppression‖ (cited in Zutlevics, 2002, p. 81), adding that ―different factors or combination of factors constitute the oppression of different groups —exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence—making their oppression irreducible‖ (cited in Zutlevics, pp. 40- 42). Nonetheless, Tormey and Frye interpreted oppression ―as a general condition that existed across class, race and sex‖ (cited in Zutlevic, 2002, p. 81). From this general condition Zutlevics (2002) focused on the injustice and the constraints as they relate to oppression and the idea of a resilient autonomy. She argued that ―to be oppressed is to be unjustly denied the opportunity from what she called ‗resilient autonomy‘‖ (p. 82). Moving to the discourse of language Reboul argued that ―‗shock words‘ can also produce by themselves negative effects that disqualify those who use these shock words... such as oppression often provokes a negative effect that prevents a thorough analysis of the reality encoded by these terms‖ (cited in Macedo, 2006, p. 138). However, Eagleton claimed that ―not allowing the word ‗oppression‘ to be part of the debate prevents us from identifying the ‗oppressor‘‖ adding that ―it is not changing one‘s mind which abolishes grand narratives, as though they would simply vanish if we were to stop looking at them, but certain material transformation in advanced capitalism itself‖ (cited in Castells, et al., 1999, p. 21).

From 1971 to 1979, Freire published A Few Notions about the Word Conscientization, To the Co-ordinator of a Cultural Circle, Conscientizar para Liberar, Concientization as a Way of Liberating, Knowledge is a Critical Appraisal of the World, By Learning Then Can Teach, Cultural Action for Freedom, Education: Domestication or Liberation, Prospects, The Role of the Church in Latin America, Education, Liberation and the Church, Conscientization and Liberation, Research Methods, The Adult Literacy Process as Cultural Action for Freedom, Transcript of Lecture at the Consultations at Cartigny, Switzerland, Education for Critical Consciousness, Conscientization and Liberation, The Pedagogy of Liberation, Education: Domestication or Liberation, Education for

Liberation, Are Adult Literacy Programmes Neutral?, An Invitation to Conscientization and Deschooling, Literacy and the Possible Dreams, Education: The Practice of Freedom, Notions about the Word Conscientization and To Know and to Be.

Freire‘s educational ideas continued to be critiqued. Those who believed that education alone could change the world criticized Freire‘s work ―because of its lack of success in changing the existing power structures and its incapacity for ‗seizing power‘‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 7). Others as Stanley (1972) argued that Freire did not give a clear definition of the ―oppressed‖ and the ―oppressor‖ and what constituted ―class.‖ However, Youngman (1986) argued that Freire‘s use of class, class solidarity and class suicide were denoted as cultural phenomenon. His conviction and agreements with the Catholic Church shaped his understanding on the issues of being human, on consciousness and alienation, on culture and nature and preventing him from following the development of Marx‘s thinking to encompass the issue of class and its economic base.

For many scholars Freire‘s pedagogy and adult education were synonymous. Adult education and literacy program were seen in Latin America as the same for both the Church and the State. The relative validity of this assumption was explained by the fact that National literacy programs were the result of a joint effort from both institutions as it was the case of Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización Monseñor Leonidas Proaño in Equator, supported by UNICEF in 1988. The common denominator was solidarity and education, however there were two different discourses speaking for each institution. The Church spoke of inequality within the social structure as Proaño (1990) declared illiteracy as the structural problem impossible to solve by an educational action. He argued that ‖the deficiency of the educational system, inequality of educational opportunities and structural problems on an unjust society are the foundation of the reproduction of illiteracy‖ (Proaño, 1990, p. 23). He went on to suggesting that ―it is through the spirit of cooperation and solidarity from the citizens that the literacy program could be possible and not because of the economic incentive‖ (Proaño, 1990, p. 26), avoiding the analysis of class struggles. The State spoke of social justice and ownership of the land.

Freire‘s conceptualization of education in relationship with the idea of conscientization was modified by his work in Guinea Bissau. He reshaped his idea of education stating that ―education for liberation implies the political organization of the oppressed to achieve power‖ (1975c, p. 16) in a context of polarized social structures and for that matter ―revolution in itself is a task of the educators, who are also politicians‖ (1979, p. 4). Freire reconceptualized dialogue and conscientization in terms that are closer to Marx‘s ideas after the influence of Almicar Cabral‘s work. From Cabral‘s speech in Havana, 1966, Freire ―took the notion of ‗class suicide,‘ ‗vegetable silence‘ and the need of the oppressed to ‗acquire consciousness of reality‘ through which they would achieve the potential to transform that reality‖ (Cabral, 1980, pp. 83 and 136).

For Freire conscientization is no longer a process of becoming aware of the oppressor and of understanding the means by which oppression was sustained. It became the polyphony of the authoritative discourse of the educator that was competing with the internally persuasive discourse of the learner. It was the dialogue for self-awareness ―the cultural action for demythologizing the situation of oppression‖ (Retamal, 1981, p. 1). Consequently conscientization affected the system of education and society. For Freire, the transformation of the student from object into subject through critical consciousness or conscientizaçáo lies as his primary mode of agency. Cho and Lewis (2005) suggested that such transformation must be complemented with another transformation: ―passionate attachments may constitute an unconscious blockage to any process of conscientizaçáo, and it is this unconscious resistance that must be worked through‖ (p. 323).

There is a shift from Freire‘s early work, literacy moved from personal development to national development; ―dialogue and conscientization moved from ‗a revolutionary pedagogy and its role in society‘ in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, to ‗a revolutionary society and its use of creative literacy‘‖ (Freire, 1978, p. 11). There is also a clear separation from his Christian personalism perspective.

The idea of profitability of the investments on education continue as Puiggrós(1999) pointed that institutions such as World Bank had recommended the reduction and

elimination of secondary and higher education, including the development of teachers‘ pedagogical skills. Instead, public investment in education should be directed toward basic education for globalization imperialism transforming education into merchandise

Being in exile, Freire‘s idea of conscientization, autonomy, reading the world, the development of the critical capacities, the dreams of transformation acquired a different dimension. His new context allowed him to confront and question other dimensions of domination such as ―machismo‖ and ―racism‖ and recognized how ―natural‖ he assumed such discriminatory categories across society.

With Freire‘s return from exile, as conditional event for the upper boundary of this function I closed this second series and move to the third and last series.

Third Series The third series is represented in the following function: Function: The idea of oppression  f (gender, race)  f (globalization, environment, human rights)

Initial condition is set in time interval from 1980 with the publication of Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, to the 2000s. The space frame includes the relevant events and circumstances in Brazil, United States and Latin America for the same time interval. This function establishes the relations of Freire‘s idea of oppression, from his bio-text during his return from exile until his last publication Daring to Dream. Toward a Pedagogy of the Unfinished. Oppression is in relationship with the idea of Western consciousness, Imperialism and Neoliberalism. For this purpose I identified the domain {Globalization, Environmental Crisis, Pedagogy of Transformation and Human Rights} U {Neocolonialism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Imperialism, School for Citizenship and Pedagogy of Earth}

After 15 years of exile, Freire was allowed to return to Brazil after 15 years of exile. In 1980, he joined the Brazilian workers‘ party. This same year he published Letters to a Young Nation and he left Geneva and accepted a position at the Pontificia Catholic University of Sâo Paulo as Professor of Education and a founding member of the new Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers‘ Party)‖ (Kane, 2001). In the 1980s he co-published a series of ―talking books,‖ where discussions between himself and other prominent educators were taped, transcribed and edited into a coherent publication. According to Kane (2001), the most significant of these was We Make the Road by Walking, which was co-produced with Myles Horton of the Highlander Centre (Tennessee, USA), an independent center of international repute for radical adult education. In 1981, Freire funded the Center of Studies on Education, supported by Commission Archdiocese Pastoral of Human Rights and the Marginalized in Sâo Paulo (Kane, 2001). From 1981 to 1988 he published The People Speak Their Word Learning to Read and Write, The importance of the act of reading, You Have the Third World Inside You, A propos of Education, Paulo Freire and the Educators of the Streets, The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation, Essa Escola Chamada Vida, A Pedagogy of Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education, Literacy: Reading the Word and the World,

In 1983, Freire worked with Martin Carnoy, at the School of Education in Stanford University. Later the same year he opened the Forum of Education in Sao Paulo‖ (Carnoy, 1983). Two years later, in 1985, Paulo and Elza Freire won the prize for Outstanding Christian Educators and the following year, he won the UNESCO Prize for Education for Peace. In 1986 his wife and collaborator died. The following year he worked as a professor at Federal University of Pernambuco, and started officially the Programme of Literacy for Youth and Adults in the Estate of Pernambuco. Three years after Elza died, at 66 years of age, he married Ana Maria Hasche, a former student. The Workers‘ Party won control of Sâo Paulo in the local elections of 1989.

From 1989 to 1991, Freire was Minister of Education. As reflection on that experience, he wrote Education in the City, Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation, I

Momenti della Practica Educativa, We Make the Road by Walking and A Educaçâo na cidate, moving away from the rural education and emphasizing urban education.

Brazilian economy had a fast growth as Gadotti (1994), reported that ―Brazil was tenth among the world industrial powers with a $375 billion GNP‖ (p. ix). Catholicism continued to be preferred by the majority of the people despite of ―the challenges from political movements that question the church's relevancy‖ (Gibson, 1994, p. 175). Labor unions had a long and active history in Brazil, as did the United States labor movement. The United States American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) trained ―over 50,000 Brazilian trade unionists in their in-country programs, and sent another group of 400 to the United States for advanced work. AIFLD was widely recognized as a front for the United States‘ CIA‖ (NACLA, 1979, p. 18).

Throughout the 1980s Ronald Reagan began the endgame of the Cold War creating a new political discourse that embraced internationalism and isolationism.

The idea of development has been equated with individual emancipation assuming that the Western culture is superior and therefore assuming that the less industrialized countries must open up to the Western civilization. The concept of oppression takes form in the idea of development. Development is understood within a structure implying the need of an initial stage of development and a plan to achieve a goal, i.e., social equilibrium. From this point of view education is considered an investment subordinated to the goals of the economy. However, investment and productivity depend on the categories use in every country. So comparing indexes from United States profitability of investment and productivity with those from Latin America is very difficult. Utria stated that ―economists believed that changing the economy and the increase of training would lead to vertical mobility; therefore, the benefits of a capitalist system would be accessible to everyone‖ (as cited in Puiggrós, 1999, p. 38).

McLaren and Lankshear (1994) argued that the United States scholars pondered ―how far a pedagogy forged in the Latin Third World applies to the everyday routines, relations and institutions of the First‖. As Hall (1994) pointed out, on the one hand the structural changes that had occurred in the last decade had impacted the social consciousness that shifts toward a radical thinking about oppression and liberation within the First World and therefore the need of a reconceptualization of the relations between the First World and the Third World. And on the other hand the new practices of the post-industrialism had brought fragmentation and pluralism with the consequent weakening of older collective solidarities and block identities. In this order of things new identities emerged in association with the idea of flexibility and individual choices for personal consumption imposing a reconceptualization and theorizing of the politics of oppression and liberation. Luke and Walton (1994) argued that the objective conditions of oppression in Freire‘s work that assumed a ―collective or generalized oppressed‖ (p.3) were challenged by the discourses of New Times that as McLaren and Lankshear stated ―demised the unified, autonomous self of modernity and liberal humanism with the fall of the grand narratives of rationality, progress and development‖ (1994, p. 4).

In the context of the postmodern society United States scholars opted for two new ways of understanding forms of oppression. On the one hand, Young stated that oppression ―is systematically reproduced in major economic, political and cultural institutions‖. Young argued that oppression also exist in the absence of overt discrimination as in the case of unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions of the normal ongoing process of everyday life, media and cultural stereotypes, and structural features of bureaucratic hierarchy and market mechanism. She recognized five faces of oppression that affect groups in North America: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence. On the other hand, the poststructuralist views that ―focuses on text, meaning, and the textualizing of the reader that led to ‗postmodern excesses‘ of perceived powerlessness and cynicism‖ (McLaren, 1994, p. 6) had challenged liberations politics. However, these same challenges prompted McLaren (1994) to discuss the new strands of resistance and oppositional

postmodernism that erased ―the suffering, bleeding, breathing subject of history‖ (Mascia-Lees, Sharpe and Cohen, cited in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994, p. 7).

Under this new discourse the United States scholar offered strong critiques of Freire‘s ideas and begun to rewrite his work engaging both the strengths and limitations. Ellsworth (1989) interpreted as oppressive the assumptions and pedagogical practices fundamental to the literature on critical pedagogy that perpetuate relations of domination; Weiler (1988) generalized an analysis of class oppression extended to sexism, condemning Freire‘s lack of systematized analysis that did not sufficiently problematize his conceptualization of liberation and the oppressed in terms of his own male experience and leaving unaddressed the forms of oppression experienced by different groups—what McCarthy called nonsynchrony of oppression‖(Weiler, cited in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994, p. 16); Giroux (1978) interpreted oppression as the dominant school culture that implicated hegemonic practices that silence subordinate groups of students and disempower those who teach them; Gonzalez and de Alba (1994) interpreted modern educational systems as forms of oppression that propagate the educators‘ own views of a new society. Adding that an example was: the unequal relationship between student and teacher that was not intrinsic of education because it was and had been historically constructed. To the latter interpretation Freire (1998a) argued that the relation between teacher and learner was not extrinsic to a struggle for power; it was a responsibility of both to distinguish between inequality and differences. Adding that educator and learner were nonessentialist positions and they play simultaneously the roles of educator and student. Again, McLaren (2000) argued that it was needed to take into consideration that Freire‘s approach was from Marxist class analysis and that in his later work, Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he borrowed feminist theory concepts that reinvented his own idea of oppression. It is in this same text that he responded to critics of his early work on oppression, liberation, education and the continuing relevance of his early ideas, 20 years later.

In 1993, Freire published Pedagogy of Hope: a Reunion with Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire ―Relates his thought on Pedagogy of the Oppressed twenty years on, responding to

some of his critics and optimistically reflecting on the role of radical education in a time of ideological uncertainty‖ (Kane, 2001, p. 36).

From 1994 to 1997, Freire continued to write on formal education, directly addressing classroom teachers in: Teachers as Cultural Worker, Pedagogy of Autonomy, Pedagogy of the City, Letters to Cristina: Reflection on my Life and Work, Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Pedagogy of the Heart and he collaborated with Fraser, Macedo, McKinnon and Stokes in Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire. In May 2, 1997, Freire died at the age of 75.

Freire‘s assumption that the oppressed would recognize and share their knowledge of that oppression and then from that consciousness would move to a collective action suggesting that oppression took another direction in his publication Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire questioned the authority and power of the teacher acknowledging the different forms of power based ―on the teacher‘s subject position as raced, classed and gendered‖ adding that ―the teacher has to assume the necessary authority which he or she must have, without going beyond it, in order to destroy it, by becoming authoritarian‖ (Freire and Shor, cited in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994, p. 17). Precisely because of Freire‘s vision of the oppressed as ―undifferentiated and the source of unitary political action‖ (Weiler, in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994, p. 18) the idea was open to many answers. From this open invitation the term oppression seems to encompass almost any kind of complaint due to ―its relativization and commodification to the point that oppression had been applied to those who are exploited and those who suffer from existential anxiety‖ (Zutlevics, 2002, p. 81). Esteva et al. (2000) questioned the idea of oppression that turns the oppressed into dehumanized, divided, inauthentic being ―in need of an outside critical intervention‖ (p. 15) and the assumption that the ―mediators‖ so called liberators teach the knowledge of moral and political virtues that will enable the oppressed to be free, so the people cannot rebel by themselves against oppressors. In the same tone other Latin American scholars in the field of Popular Education challenged the underlying assumptions of the historical materialism‘s superiority over other views. Berejano (2005) claimed that the cultural practices

and knowledge essential to sustaining biodiversity uncovered the imperialist character of seeing other cultures as incapable of ―understanding the historical process‖ (cited in Bowers and Apffel- Marglin, p. 52). She challenged Freire‘s agreement with Lenin‘s fundamental issue that ―the laboring or peasant masses were not able to achieve a consciousness of change on their own... but must be brought from the outside‖ (p. 53).

Under this same assumption, United States‘ neoliberal point of view, understood oppression as necessary step toward its idea of capitalistic progress and believed as Puiggrós (1999) pointed, that ―the Latin American underdeveloped societies did not have the moral, cultural and racial conditions to undertake the transformations into modern, technocratic and democratic societies by themselves‖ (p. 19) justifying intervention and violence.

In 1995, The Rowntree Foundation from United Nations declared an increasing polarization between the rich and the poor adding that ―there is a ‗third world‘ within the ‗first world‘ and discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, disability and so on are far from disappeared‖ (Kane, 2001, p. 245).

The neoliberal project just increased the gap between rich and poor, as McLaren (2000) stated, as the result of ―the globalization of labor and capital and the policies of increasing military, industrial and financial interests that continue to suck the lifeblood from the veins of South America and other regions of the globe‖ (cited in Krank and Steiner p. 15).

De Alba‘s (1994) proposal of ―embracing the diversity and plurality offered by cultural contact‖ (cited in McLaren and Lankshear, p. 136) promoted the coexistence of two cultures, a native and an externally imposed, creating a new discourse in which Torres (1979) interpreted oppression as the alienation of native values that took place due to the marginalization that, Barquera and Aguilar (1998) agreed, constituted the subcultures with values and behaviors characteristic of the dominated and ecologically marginalized of urban industrial society where ―the western urban ideology imposes a new pattern of consciences‖ (p. 18). This new pattern of consciousness was understood by Stuchul and Prakash (2005) as Western consciousness. The idea that the

oppressed moved from a naïve and uncritical consciousness to one responsible and critical implied that people gave up to their own worldviews and embraced the one offered by the ―educators‖ who impose a dominant notion of progress and development in terms of the standard of living of a middle-class American, that Esteva et al. (2000) called ―a vision of ecological collapse‖, concluding that ―these presuppositions serve the system they wanted to changed and … instead of its transformation; this idea nourished its conservation and reproduction‖ (p.14). They interpreted as an oppressive practice the only approach to knowledge and the promotion of a modern Western form of consciousness that ignored the diversity of cultural ways of knowing. Following this idea, Esteva (2005) interpreted the educator as interventionist that placed emphasis on an individualized perspective and its separation of human from nature, contrary to the indigenous perspective, where all relations were nurturing relationships and Bowers (1980) interpreted oppression as the imposition of Western assumptions about the progressive nature of change, the importance of critical reflection and the moral authority of individualism on traditional cultural groups.

Contrary to the expansive hegemonic social and political life imposed by the first world countries, a new discourse for liberation appeared in the relationships between human life, all living things and earth. From this perspective Siddhartha (2005) recognized that oppression takes place because the goal of humanization led away from the interconnectedness with all living beings and earth and lacked the affirmation of the value of human life and dignity that exercises personal responsibility and human agency. Adding that double oppression occurred when the people that had been excluded from the bare necessities of survival created fantasies spawned by marketing industries. The old relationship proposed by Freire‘s idea of liberation that supported the human dialogue as the only way for freedom is challenge by Berger (1974) that interpreted oppression as the dichotomy that literacy programs created assuming that the lower-class people do not understand their own situation and that a higher-class individual can provide enlightenment on that matter, portraying illiterate peasants as less fully human than those organizing the literacy programs. Supporting this interpretation, Siddharta (2005) argued that the oppressed is also a rich repository of wisdom, critical acumen, practical and spiritual knowledge and the referent of oppressed-oppressor—two-class theory, was inadequate to understand

complex social systems. He recognized that ―the humane departure from traditional Marxist paradigm is a useful tool for mobilizing people… it does not take into consideration the significance of ecological praxis‖ (p. 85)

This sequence of ideas led to two disjunctions in the use of class: one, postmodernists believed that ―placing relations of production as the central oppressive structure is an example of class reductionism‖ (McLaren, 1999, p. 21) and two, historical materialists, as Stabile (cited in McLaren, 1999) recognized forms of oppression ―within the overarching system of class domination and the variable discriminatory mechanisms central to capitalism as a system‖ (p. 21). To these two different points of view Boggs warned that ―while such postmodern diffuseness generates new space for critical discourse and oppositional movements, it simultaneously undermines formation of cohesive, politically defined communities at the societal level‖ (cited in McLaren, 1999, p. 22). Supporting this idea De Alba (1994) argued that ―many postmodern social theorists suffer from a theoretical myopia‖ adding that ―in criticizing the ethnocentrism of Western rationality, they actually situate themselves within its very limits by ignoring the diverse roles ethnic minorities can play in the process of shaping a new political- social project for the new century‖ (cited in McLaren and Lankshear, p. 134).

From 1998 until the present time, Freire‘s widow, Ana Maria Freire-Araujo published posthumously the following work: Teachers as Cultural Workers, Politics and Education, Pedagogy of Freedom, Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage, Critical Education in the New Information Age, Ideology Matters, Pedagogy of Indignation and Daring to Dream: Toward a Pedagogy of the Unfinished.

In his last text, ten days before his own death, Freire wrote about the murder of an indigenous man perpetrated by adolescents from middle class families in Brasilia. In Pedagogy of indignation, he wrote: ―if our option is progress, if we are in favor of life and not death, equity and not injustice, law and not arbitration, living together, then we do not have another way but to fully live our option. Make it ours, shorting the distance between what we did and what we do. I would not be helping my children to be serious, just and lovers of life and the people if I do not

100

respect the weak, if I deceive the innocent, if I offend life and exploit others, if I discriminate against the indigenous, the black, the woman‖ (cited in Casali, 2005, p. 111).

Freire did not accept the ―postructuralist tendency to translate diverse forms of class, race, and gender based oppression to the discursive space of subject positions‖ (Giroux, cited in Freire, 2004, P. 14) continuing, until his last publication, firm in his position with respect to class analysis. However, in Ideology Matters, Freire (2004) argued that ―one cannot reduce the analysis of racism to social class, one cannot understand racism fully without a class analysis, for to do one at the expense of the other is to fall prey into a sectarianist position, which is as despicable as the racism that we need to reject‖(p. 15), adding that ―what it is important is to approach the analysis of oppression through a convergent theoretical framework where the object of oppression is cut across by such factors as race, class, gender, culture, language and ethnicity‖ (Macedo, cited in Freire, 2004, p. 15). Freire‘s last work focused on culture, peace, diversity and sustainability. He proposed that the cultures must be understood in their own diversity, respected and supported on their own environment. As de Alba (1994) pointed out ―cultural contact presents possibilities for rethinking education as a dialogical relationship that encourages us to listen, to hear, and affirm multiple voices‘ adding that ―dialogue is a relational stance that necessarily challenges current postmodern practices of substituting concrete and lived discourses of cultural contact with simulacra and pastiche‖ (cited in McLaren and Lankshear, p. 137). In the field of education, Freire‘s ideas were welcomed in the Latin American Normal Schools and schools of Sciences of Education as a response against colonialism and other forms of totalitarianism. However, in democratic societies, such as Unite States, Freire‘s work has not been central to the curricula of most schools of education in their preparation of teachers and it partly due to the fact, as Macedo (2004) argued that ―most of these schools are informed by the positivistic and management models that characterize the very culture of ideologies and practices to which Freire was in opposition all his life‖ (p. 16).

101

Corollary of the transformations of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

As a corollary to this chapter that analyzes the reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression, I found traces of the transformation of Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It is not my purpose to go in detail with the presentation of these sequences, since it is not the main objective of this study. However, I believe it is an interesting brief view of the different approaches, reinventions and transformations of Freire‘s Pedagogy that took place over the last four decades in the work of United States and Latin American scholars in the field of education. Gonzalez and de Alba (cited in McLaren and Lankshear, 1994) stated that in the last three decades in Latin America ―educational studies were confined to the field of educational technology and educational practices were extensions of United States positivism applied to education‖ (p. 124). For three decades Freire‘s ideas have been reduced to a method. Most Latin American scholars working in adult literacy programs with Freire‘s method viewed it as a panacea for a fast solution to the problem of illiteracy. In United States, as Macedo (2004) stated ―many educators who claim to be Freirean in their pedagogical orientation mistakenly transform Freire‘s notion of dialogue into a method, thus losing sight of the fact that fundamental goal of dialogical teaching is to create a process of learning and knowing that invariably involves theorizing about the experiences shared in the dialogue process‖ (cited in Friere, p. 17). The powerful discourse of the Church set the basis for the propagation of Literacy programs, making sure that it was through hope, love and faith that the transformation of the poor would be achieved. This approach bypasses the possibility of a class analysis. It was not until the 1970s that Latin American scholars worked with Freire‘s ideas for the liberation and consciousness of the masses. At this point Freire‘s method was analyzed and his pedagogical proposal reduced to a series of steps to be executed with great precision and especial emphasis on the teacher‘s techniques. Freire‘s pedagogy entered the field of teacher education. Freire‘s pedagogy did not speak about state power, human rights, social, political and economic forces, oppression, reaction and closed society until later writings, such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed and more convincingly in The Politics of Education and Learning to Question. Freire acknowledged that ―the theory of conscientization neglected the ‗political character of education‘ and the problem of social classes in their struggle‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 49).

102

The concept of ―banking education‖ was formulated for the first time in Sobre la Acción Cultural. In this text Freire exposed his theory and practice that offered the antithesis of banking education in ―liberatory education‖ given to the teacher the central role. His theoretical proposal took form in La Pedagogía del Oprimido, adopting ―a near counter-culture position on the teacher‘s role giving primacy to the student over the teacher‖ (Austin, 1995, p. 50). This idea is at the core of the feminist critique of Freire‘s idea of liberation that proposed pedagogy of questioning as an alternative to the Freirean liberatory pedagogy. At the end of the 1980s Freire‘s method was conceived as a methodology. There is a special interest in the analysis of Freire‘s philosophical and anthropological postulates. For some scholars Freire‘s theory of knowledge was equated with a methodology for teaching reading and writing and the process of learning in adult literacy, called alphabetization. In contrast for Freire, the goal of liberation from oppression was the humanization of man, thus oppression had been reduced to the problem of dehumanization, giving only intuitive ideas of what it means to be human. However, this concept made room for many scholars to suggest their own interpretations of humanization, setting different criteria for self-affirmation or humanization and therefore, oppression became abstract. Different sets of objective criteria for exploitation determined what oppression is, accordingly, with each individual or group. Some United States scholars reduced Freire‘s pedagogy to ―a form of middle-class narcissism‖ (Macedo, cited in Freire, 2004, p. 18); failing to make the connections of the dialogical teaching experience that takes place in the classroom with the politics of culture and critical democracy. This misinterpretation of Freire‘s notion of dialogical teaching had created a method that either ―provides a group-therapy space for the participants to state their grievances‖ or ―offers a safe pedagogical zone to deal with the teacher‘s class guilt‖ (Macedo, cited in Freire, 2004, p. 18). It is important to note that the notion of dialogue does not always offer a peer reflection. In the community-centered dialogue, reflection was often disconnected to the purpose that created it. Dialogue turned into conversations that gave greater details to the issues that concerned the community without seeking necessarily a consensus or conclusion. Conversations and storytelling is an intimate part of the community life. The educator-outsiders in this situation were unable to participate in this kind of dialogue.

103

Both United States and Latin American scholars moved from empathetic, paternalistic or messianic discourses, toward an approach that connected theoretical multiculturalism and the experience of the oppressed groups. The social and cultural forms of oppression set the background for Pedagogy of transformation that recognized education as an instrument of domination and liberation at the same time. For several decades Latin American scholars followed Freire‘s view of the relationship of oppression and subjection as the only one existing in the Third World. They attributed to Freire‘s work the possibility for demystification of the pedagogical approaches based on technocratic rationality and conceptions of teaching as a form of technology. From this perspective in Latin America emerged the paradigm of the organic intellectual. The educator appeared in a new role in the emancipatory movement as a revolutionary intellectual. Under this new category the relations between ethics, policy and education challenged the traditional relation of educator-learner. This relation was recognized as part of a structure of domination in Freire‘s pedagogy of hope. Latin American scholars gained great awareness of the incapability of accompanying the community-centered dialogue because of their linear teacher-student dialogue approach. The heterogeneous ways of doing and being of the peasants and indigenous communities had created parallel conversations between the organic intellectual, the educator-outsiders and the community; therefore, most of the time never crossed. Freire‘s vagueness in his description of the process and strategy of revolution was not taken as weakness, but rather as an open invitation to write on revolutionary theory, as it was proposed in Pedagogy of Revolution where Freire‘s liberatory pedagogy joined the community at the grassroots level advocating for dialogical revolutionary action. In this century, critical pedagogy had evolved into ecopedagogy. In opposition to the discourses of neoliberalism and imperialism, ecopedagogy proposed an ecological political mission that promotes a new form of literacy called critical ecoliteracy. Freire‘s posthumous Pedagogy of Indignation, in 2004, included this idea. Freire‘s close collaborator, Gadotti elaborated about this same idea and proposed pedagogy of earth. In the same tone, McLaren and Houston (2004) proposed a ―revolutionary ecology‖ grounded on critical pedagogy and Ecosocialism. Both proposals were challenged by Bowers (2004) who argued that, as Nietzsche warned, ―it is a mistake to interpret new phenomena in terms of an old schema‖, adding that their

104

use of Marx‘s writings ―leads them to ignore the cultural assumptions they share with the industrial culture that they criticize‖ (p. 185). Suggesting that critical educators are bound by the economic, political and social constrains existing in their public institutions. Then as Zizek reminded us ―the problem is not to question of how one should teach with the reality of material constraints, but rather, the very material conditions that stage the very problematic‖ (as cited in Cho and Lewis, 20505, p. 325). I believe we are at the juncture where oppression and liberation separate from their dichotomy. Some scholars believed that the victim and the victimizer were the same under ideological totalitarianism inherent in neoliberal globalization. If there was not hope then there was no alternative to the oppressive states of things. If there was hope then liberation offered the potential to become fully human with other humans or to become one with nature. As Cho and Lewis (2005) argued ―for pedagogy to become critically transformative (on both an unconscious and conscious level), it must provide an anticipatory social sphere that pre-figures new subjective possibilities that challenge and gesture beyond the current status quo‖ (p. 324). New pedagogical proposals have been made, such as the new revolutionary pedagogy that goes toward a revolutionary unconscious that suggest as the proper terrain not only the conscious mind, but also ―the libidinal foundation where ideologies find their purchase and where passionate attachments network our desires through largely invisible channels‖ (Cho and Lewis, 2005, p. 325). We also must emphasize the importance of the critical (un)consciousness that as Cho and Lewis (2005) insisted must be practiced by the teacher by moving into new modes of subjectivity that challenge the banking education and the power relations instilled through discourses and social practices by the conditioning of capitalist exploitation. Another proposal emerged from the failure of the dialectical formula of action-reflection- action that forces one way of thinking about the world and projects the present into a future that in the case of the Latin American communities, most of them indigenous or peasants‘ communities, is envisioned by the educator as a socialist future. The way the indigenous communities in Latin America perceived the world breaks away from the Freirean proposal of gaining an anthropomorphic consciousness and moved toward an understanding of the world were the conversations with the community were centered on the spirit of nature, their deities and their relationships with it.

105

The discourse has shifted from the abstract ideals of Christianity that required the individuals not as community, to think of themselves as oppressed in relation to others and the educator as savior, toward a way of thinking without hierarchies that conceived their concrete lives as part of the community and in relationship with each other. Freire‘s pedagogy rooted on the hierarchical relationships of the West did not offer a rationale for the indigenous communities‘ living and perceiving of the world. Western Revolutionary pedagogies assumed that was necessary to destroy the ―superstitious‖ ideas of some communities in order to construct a utopian vision that conceived participation as institutionalized relationships of power. This idea goes against most of the Latin American communities‘ way of life where they perceive the world as sacred, their deities as beings and their lives as complete. As Bejarano (2005) proposed, ―there is a need for a Pedagogy of Nurturance in a world where everybody fit and there is not need for a reason for being simply because we exist and that is enough‖ (cited in Bowers and Apffel- Marglin, p. 66). The challenge for the indigenous communities in Latin America has been the insufficient conventional resources to make their lives credible. It has not been difficult to understand that the rational talents of these communities, always in ecstasies of their own cultures, did not find a valid method for their interpretation. It is understandable the insistence of measuring these communities with the same ―yard stick‖ that the experts measured themselves, without taking into consideration that the struggles in life were not the same for everybody and that the search for their own identity has been as difficult and painful as theirs. The interpretation of their reality with an alien outline only contributed to make them even more unknown. Solidarity with these communities only takes place in the support of the people that dream with a life of their own in the distribution of the world. In the next section, I introduce a graphic of my findings that represent the continuities and discontinuities of the transformations of Freire‘s idea of oppression. .

106

IV. Continuities and discontinuities

Graphic of cross domain analysis This graph is a representation of the transformations of Freire‘s idea of oppression in two different locations and historical contexts; i.e., United States and Latin America. The possible relations have been traced for a selected beginning; i.e., Freire‘s ideas of oppression and proceeds chronologically. The continuities and recurrences represent the reconstitution of the idea of oppression and its relationships. I describe the interplay of exchanges from one domain to another in a graphic display. It shows for every domain the regularities and relations.

107

United States Latin America Domain

Pedagogy of Liberation dehumanization dependent capitalist mentality Marxist Class Analysis Critical theory lack of autonomy lack of transcendence Liberation theology

propagation of the educators' Marxist Class Analysis class struggle views Gramcian Theory

adaptation to the capitalist the immobilizer ideology of the Critical Theory/Deweyism system Church Christian Personalism

vagueness and obfuscation in a structure with the implicit Pedagogy of Possibility idea of oppression existential ignorance Neocolonialism

the promotion of a modern imposition of the free market in Critical Pedagogy Western fomr of consciousness education and class struggle Socialist pedagogy

the separation of humans from Globalization modern educational systems nature Gramscian theory

the relationship of imposition of the interventionist's Pedagogy Transformation knowledge/human agency ideology Neocolonialism

denied the opportunity from Human Rights alienation of native values resilient autonomy School for Citizenship Neoliberalism preservation of the status quo disunity of human diversity Pedagogy of Earth

Figure 6 . TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE'S IDEA OF

OPPRESSIONFIGURE 6. TRANSFORMATIONS OF FREIRE’S IDEA OF

OPPRESSION

In this chapter I provide a reflection of my findings that provides an understanding of the differences in the reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression in the United States and Latin

108

America. I thought first to name this chapter the conclusion. However, it cannot be a conclusion. I can stop writing here, but I cannot stop thinking and rethinking Freire‘s ideas. There is no conclusion; this is an analysis not a diagnosis. All I can do is offer the points of inflection in the short picture of my walk from the different discourses that gave meaning to Freire‘s idea of oppression. For this reason I present some critical differences in how Freire‘s work has been used in the United States and in Latin America as a possibility that cross-cultural dialogue can bring to our ideas about education in both contexts. In the United States, Freire‘s work has been formulated and reformulated into many different theories and practices; i.e., Political Pedagogical Project, Critical Pedagogy, Sociology of Knowledge, the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, Adult Education, Bilingual and Bicultural Education, Pedagogy for Liberation, Critical Literacy, Teacher Education, Neo- Marxists Cultural Criticism, Pedagogy of Questioning, Pedagogy of Transformation, Pedagogy of Hope, Pedagogy of Possibility, Pedagogy of Revolution, Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism, Ecosocialism and Ecopedagogy. In Latin America, Freire‘s work has also been formulated and reformulated into different theories and practices; i.e., Method, Methodology, Pedagogical Project, Critical Pedagogy, Pedagogy for Liberation, Critical Literacy, Adult Education, Pedagogy of Questioning, Pedagogy of Transformation, Pedagogy of Hope, Pedagogy of Possibility and Pedagogy of Revolution. Freire's influence has crossed the geographic borders and traveled to many countries in the world. Freire's ideas have resisted globalization and maintained an important place in time. I have found many scholars asking if Freire's proposal for liberation can still bring light to the educational processes where the contexts are different from that which it originated. What I found in common from both groups of scholars is that they agreed that Freire's texts must be understood in the context of the social changes in Brazil, Chile and Latin America in the 1960s. This period of his life gave him a deep understanding of the different levels and functions of educators and administrators. Freire's ideas have been reduced to a literacy method for adults. I found that this might have happened because of the linguistic barriers, his conditions in exile and the limited access to other educational systems in other countries. Portuguese and Spanish have not been considered

109

as primary languages as English is today for Scientific and commercial literature. The publishing houses do not have as a priority the translation of materials from writers unknown by the North American readers and add to this the higher cost. The educational systems in Latin America have been different enough to create a deep gap in the process of exchange of ideas. I found multiple reinventions of Freire‘s idea of oppression, in the differing cultural and political contexts of the United States and Latin America. A) In the period from the 1960s through the 2000s the United States‘ scholars, under the domain of Marxist class analysis and pedagogy of liberation, conceptualized oppression as a psychological condition, a distortion of the ontological and historical vocation that dehumanizes the oppressed and locates freedom outside of man; under liberation theology, oppression is the act that prevents people from being fully human and autonomous; under social pedagogy, oppression is class struggle; under critical theory and radical Deweyism, oppression is undecoding everyday life identities to make them adaptive responses to the capitalist system; under pedagogy of possibility, oppression is seen as vague and as a category too universal, lacking specific location; under critical pedagogy, oppression is seen as intervention; under globalization, oppression is seen as the promotion of the Western model, ignoring the diversity of cultural ways of knowledge; under the environmental crisis, oppression is seen as the separation of humans from nature, with emphasis on an individualized perspective, contrary to the indigenous perspective where all relations are nurturing relationships. B) In the period from the 1960s through the 2000s Latin American scholars, under the domain of Marxist class analysis, conceptualized oppression as the creation of a dependent capitalist mentality; under theory of Christian Personalism and liberation theology, oppression is the lack of transitivity that frees all humans from their sociocultural environments in order to achieve an understanding of their relations with society, the lack of culture, and depositing of knowledge vertically from the educator; under Gramscian conception and political pedagogical relationship, oppression is propagation of the educator‘s own view, the unequal relationship between teacher and learner; under neocolonialism oppression is a structure with implicit existential ignorance; under Neoliberalism, oppression is the imposition of the free market in education that promotes individualistic and egotistical principles; under imperialism, oppression

110

is alienation of native values; under pedagogy of the earth, oppression is imposition of a Western urban ideology. There is an ambivalent relationship between United States scholars and Latin America scholars. United States scholars find inspiration from the work of Latin American activists and intellectuals. Leftist intellectuals‘ work is very often inspired by the work of revolutionary leaders that provides ideas for the struggles against dominant ideas and social structures. The exacerbation of existing disparities between rich and poor; hunger, exploitation and oppression, have created the notion that within First World countries there is a Third World. However, the Third World is still a different world and the application of theoretical frameworks, methodological principles or practices from the Third World to the First World must be, as Paulo Freire said: ―reinvented.‖ In the theoretical field of education and in the context of the discourses that gave form to those theories, both groups of scholars questioned themselves about the environmental problem and its connection to the Western idea of progress. Progress from this point of view has been equated to the globalization of hyper-consumption in a technological dependent lifestyle. However, impoverishment and illness related to many synthetic toxins introduced to the ecosystems question what progress, happiness and nature means. United States scholars are moving toward an ecological position that challenges the goals of the departments of education, i.e., the assimilation of marginalized ethnic minorities into a technological dependent lifestyle. Latin American scholars are moving in a discourse that promotes the knowledge and relationships of the communities‘ intergenerational cultural life. Taking into consideration that in those multicultural communities, education is the way to inform of the narratives that each community had to offered as their cultural heritage and as a way of challenging the Western education that encourage the separation of the human beings from their environment. At first glance, one can have the impression that these reflections have in common the same concerns. In any case, one may be tempted to accept the notion of a conjunction between both groups of scholars. In fact, thought, it is important to recognize that there are many differences between the social contexts, the idea of conservation and tradition have been used in an interesting way, especially when progress and change constitute the core in the discussion for social justice in a multicultural world. In a multicultural world the social and environmental

111

crisis cannot be solved by the single universal solution that offers the Western educational theories, because such theories carry ―the epistemological baggage of their proponents, and thus cannot avoid becoming colonizing events‖ (Terán, cited in Bowers and Apffel-Margil, 2005, p. 71). Freire‘s association of critical reflection and empowerment seems to dismiss the fact that each generation overturns the knowledge of the previous one. Nevertheless, this same critical reflection in association with an ecological understanding of many indigenous cultures enables the recognition of the many forms of subjugation inherent in most of the new technologies. For example, genetically modified seeds create the farmer‘s economical dependence from the engineered-produced seeds. Or, as Bowers (2005) noticed in the case of the universities and their departments of education that perpetuate the myth of ―the individual as an autonomous thinker that, as Freire, reproduced the take-for-granted interpretive frameworks of anthropocentrism that establish the belief that humans are superior to and, thus separate from, nature‖ (pp. 164-165). Two major shifts occurred in the field of education. First the shift from the Freirean approach to critical thinking, which interprets individuals as oppressed or oppressor, to the central understanding of the nature of sustainable cultural practices and the preservation of cultural diversity, proposes a different type of consciousness. Ecological intelligence and awareness appears as an alternative to the traditional way of thinking and against the modernizing and progressive biases present in the curriculum. And second, the shift from the ―Western viewpoint of the human being as an animal bearer of the idea, of reason, of spirit, to the viewpoint of the anima (soul) that inhabits every being in the world‖ (Vazquez, cited in Bowers and Apffel-Marglin, 2005, p. 38). From the latter viewpoint dialogue and knowledge takes place in conversation and nurturance. Conversation is not for the sake of an ending action or in the purpose of change. It is regenerative, a dialogue in the present for the senses and not in pursuing truth. As Vazquez explained (2005) it is in the senses that knowledge and nurturance occurs, ―in conversations, attentive listening, festival and rituals‖ (cite in Bowers and Apffel-Marglin, 2005, p. 40).

I finish my thoughts with Bahá‘u‘lláh‘s Hidden Words:

112

―O Oppressors on Earth! Withdraw your hands from tyranny, for I have pledged Myself not to forgive any man‘s injustice. This is My covenant which I have irrevocably decreed in the preserved tablet and sealed with My seal of glory‖

113

References

Abbott, S. (2001). Understanding Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Abbott, A. (1993). Measure For Measure: Abell‘s Narrative Methods. [Electronic version]. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 203-214. Abell, P. (1993). Some Aspects of Narrative Method. [Electronic version]. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 93-134. Abell, P. (1993). Narrative Method: A Reply. [Electronic version]. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 253-266. Agarwal, R. P. & O‘Regan D. (2002), Set Valued Mappings with Applications in Nonlinear Analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis. Alonzo, M. (1984). La Educación de Adultos en el México de Hoy. Cuadernos. México: INEA. Althuser, L. (1969). For Marx. London: Allen Lane. Anderson, P. A. (1983). Decision Making by Objection and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 201-222. Andersen, N. A. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies. Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Bristol, UK: The policy press. Apple, M. (2002). The Freirean Legacy: Education for Social Justice. In J. J. Slater, S. N. Fain & C. A. Rossatto, (Eds.), Preface. New York: Peter Lang. Araujo-Freire A. M. (2007). Paulo Freire: Sus Virtudes, Su Generosidad, Su Personalidad. Revista Interamericana de Educación de Adultos. 29(1), pp. 1-7. Arias, M. (2004). The predicament of Rivera as a Postcolonial Intellectual. In R. Rivera A., Study of Liberation Discourse: The Semantics of Opposition in Freire and Gutierrez. (pp. ix-xiv). New York: Peter Lang. Arnett, R. C. & Arneson, P. (1999). Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age. Community, Hope and Interpersonal Relationships. New York: State University of New York. Aronowitz, S. (1993). Paulo Freire‘s Radical Democratic Humanism. In P. McLaren and P. Leonard (Eds.), Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 8-24). London: Routledge. Austin, R. (1995). Freire, Frei and Literacy Texts in Chile, 1964-1970. Melburne Studies 114

in Education. 29(1) 43-54. Barquera, H. & Aguilar R. (1998). Perspectiva de Paulo Freire. México: Centro de Estudios Agrarios. Bowers C. A. (2005). How the Ideas of Paulo Freire Contribute to the Cultural Roots of Ecological Crisis. In C. A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin (Eds.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis (pp. 133-152). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bowers, C. A. (2004). How Peter McLaren and Donna Houston, and Other ‗Green‘ Marxists Contribute to the Globalization of the West‘s Industrial Culture. Journal of Educational Studies. Rejoinder and Discussion. 185-195. Bowers, N. (2006). A Historical Discourse Analysis of the Cancerous and Non- Cancerous Body in Secondary Biology Textbooks. [Doctoral Dissertation, Miami University, 2006). Document num. miami1155135773, 91p. Brecher R. A. & Díaz A. (1977) Tariffs, Foreign Capital and Immiserizing Growth. Journal of International Economics. 7(4) 317-322. Burbules, N. & Berk, R. (1999). Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences and Limits. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics (pp. 45-65). New York: Routledge. Burkeman, O. (2003). The Invasion Right But ‗Illegal‘, Say US Hawk. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http:www.theage.com.au/1010744667380.html Campagna, A. S. (1994). The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administration. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Casali, A. (2005). Lo Etico y lo Político: los Valores en la Propuesta Educativa Actual. In Propuestas de Paulo Freire Para Una Renovación Educativa (101-138). Mexico: ITESO, CEAAL, CREFAL Castells, M, et al. (1999). Critical Education in the New Information Age. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Cabrera, C. O. (2004). Paulo Freire : Su Pensamiento y el Paradigma de la Impugnación. República Dominicana: UASD. Carnoy, M. (1983). Globalization and Educational Reform. In N. P. Stromquist & K.

115

Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and Education. Integration and Contestation Across Cultures (pp. 43-62). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Cirigliano, G. F. J. (1993). De la Palabra Conciencia-de-la-Opresión A la Palabra Proyecto-de-la-Esperanza. Argentina: Universidad de Buenos Aires. Colectivo Nacional del CEAAL Cuba. (1998), Freire Entre Nosotros. Mexico: IMDEC, CIE. Collins, D. (1997). Paulo Freire: His Life, Works and Thought. New York: Paulist Press. Cooper, B. (1981). Michel Foucault. An Introduction to the Study of His Thought. New York: The Edwin Melen Press. Coulson, A. & Thomson, I. (2006). Accounting and Sustainability, Encouraging a Dialogical Approach; Integrating Learning Activities, Delivery Mechanisms and Assessment Strategies. Accounting Education. 15(3), 261-273. Cuevas, P. (1996). Freire: entre el Mito y el Hito. El Pensamiento de Paulo Freire en Colombia. 43. Santa FE, Bogota: Dimension Educativa. Ekeland, I. (2000). The Best of All Possible Worlds. Mathematics and Destiny. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elias, J. L. (1976b). Conscientization and Deschooling. Freire‘s and Illich‘s Proposals for Reshaping Society. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Elias, J. (1974). Social Learning and Paulo Freire. The Journal of Educational Thought, 8(10), 5-14. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why Doesn‘t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(5), 297-324. Escobar, M. A. (1980). Freire-Fromm: Alternativas Para Los Educadores de Adultos. México: CENAPRO-AMEA. Esteva, G., Stuchul D. L. & Prakash M. S. (2005). From Pedagogy for Liberation to Liberation from Pedagogy. In C. A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglin F. (Eds.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis (pp.13 -30). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fandiño M. del R. (1996). Freire: entre el Mito y el Hito. Paulo Freire, su Vida y Obra. Vol. 43. Santa Fe, Bogotá: Dimensión Educativa.

116

Fararo, T. (1993). Generating Narrative Forms. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 153-181. Fernandez, J. A. (1998). La Intrahistoria de un Pensamiento Imperfecto. In Educación y Transformación Social. Homenaje a Paulo Freire. Salinas Ramos (Comp.), Nuñez H. C. (et al.)(Eds.). Caracas: Laboratorio Educativo. Ferreiro, E. (1997). Alfabetización. Teoría y Práctica. México, D.F.: Siglo XXI. Fisk, R. (2005). The Great War For Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. London: Fourth Estate. Fernández, L., (1985). Basic Ecclesiastical Communities in Brazil, Harvard Educational Review, 33(1). Foucault, M. (2003). The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge. Foucault. M. (1998). On the Archaeology of the Sciences. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.) Michel Foucault: Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology (pp. 289-330). The New York Press. Foucault. M. (1991). Politics and the Study of Discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.) The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality (pp. 53-72). Chicago: University of Chicago. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1984), The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge, New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977a). Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. (Trans. Bouchard D. & Simon S.) Oxford: Blackwell. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Routledge. Frankenstein, M. (1983). Critical Mathematics Education: An Application of Paulo Freire‘s Epistemology. Journal of Education. 165(4), 315-350.

117

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th edition. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (2000). Cartas a Guinea-Bissau. 10th edition. México: Siglo XXI. Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of Freedom. Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. Freire, P. (1998b). Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Freire, P., (1996). Pedagogía del Oprimido. 48th Edition. México: Siglo XXI. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum Press. Freire, P. (1976). El Proceso de Alfabetización Política. Una introducción. San José, Costa Rica: CIACOP. Freire, P. (1969). Extensión o Comunicación. Santiago, Chile: ICIRA. Freire P. & Faundez, A. (1989). Learning to question. New York: Continuum. Freire, P., Jerez, C. & Hernández-Pico, J. (1997). Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire. New York: Peter Lang. Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1993). A Dialogue With Paulo Freire. In P. McLaren and P. Leonard (Eds.), Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 169-176). London: Routledge. Gadotti, M, (1994). Reading Paulo Freire, His Life and Works. New York: Suny Press, Gaspari, E. (2002). A Dictadura Envergonhada. Sâo Paulo: Cia das Letras. Gibson, A. (1994). Report on the Americas, The Rise of Evangelical Protestantism. May-June. NACLA. Giroux, H. (2007). Paulo Freire: Entre la Persona y el Político. Revista Interamericana de Educación de Adultos, 29(1). México: CREFAL. Giroux, H. & McLaren, P. (1995). Radical Pedagogy as Cultural Politics: Beyond the Discourse of Critique and Anti-Utopianism. In P. McLaren (Ed.), Pedagogy, Culture and the Body (pp. 29-57). London: Routledge. Giroux, H. & McLaren, P. (1988). Teachers As Intellectuals: Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Granby, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey. Gordon, C., Miller, P. & Burchell, G. (1991). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govermentality. Brighton: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

118

Gouldner, A. (1976). Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. Macmillan: London. Gutting, G. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. New York: Cambridge Press. Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and Human Interests. Cambridge: Polity Press. Haigh, K. (2007). Exploring Learning With Teachers and Children: An Administrator‘s Perspective. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 57-64. Hassett, M. (1994). Writing Across the Curriculum in the Education Classroom. Contemporary Education, 65(2), 104-108. hooks, b. (1993). Bell Hooks Speaking About Paulo Freire – The Man, His Work. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp.146-154). New York: Routledge. Horowitz, D. (1969). Latin American Radicalism. New York: Random House. Huergo, J. (2007). La Comunicación en la Educación: Coordenadas desde América Latina. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.fisec-estrategias.com.ar/ Huntington, S. (1999). The Lonely Superpower. Foreign Affairs. March/April. Pp. 37-38. Office of the Press Secretary, October 2, 2002. Council of Foreign Relations. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://foreignaffairs.org/199990301faessay966/ samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html Jahnke H. N. (2003). A History of Analysis. History of Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 24, 291-321. Jardine, G. (2005). Foucault and Education. New York: Peter Lang. Kane L. (2001). Popular Education and Social Change in Latin America. London: Latin America Bureau. Kendall G. & Wickham G. (2000). Using Foucault‘s Methods. London: Sage Publications. Kosaka, K. (1993). Towards a Further Analysis of Narratives. [Electronic version]. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 141-151. Krank H. M. & Steiner S. F. (2000). Pedagogy, Praxis, and Possibilities: Projects for the New Millennium. New York.: Falmer Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). I Know Why This Doesn't Feel Empowering: A Critical

119

Race Analysis of Critical Pedagogy. In Freire, P. Jerez, C. and Hernandez-Pico Eds.), Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue With Paulo Freire (pp. 127-142). New York: Peter Lang. Lankshear, C. (1993). Functional Literacy From a Freirean Point of View. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 90- 118). New York: Routledge. Lowenthal, A. F. (1991). (Ed.) Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of Discourse : An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Macedo, D. (2006). Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed to Know. Boulder, CO. Westview Press. Macedo, D., & Araujo-Freire, A. (2005). Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Continuum. Macey, D. (2000). The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. New York: Penguin Books. Magolda, P. (1999). Mystories About Alternative Discourses in a Qualitative Inquiry Seminar. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(2), 208-243. Mackie R. (1981). Literacy of Revolution. New York: Continuum. Mariño Solano, G., Cuevas M. P. & Fandiño, M. (1996), Aportes: Dimensión Educativa, 43. Santa Fé, Bogotá, Colombia. McLaren, P. (2007). Critical Pedagogy, Multiculturism, and the Politics of Resistance. Los Angeles: UCLA. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/criticalmulticulturalism.pdf McLaren, P. (2005). Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism: A Critical Pedagogy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. McLaren, P. & Giarelli J. (1995). Critical Theory and Educational Research. State University of New York Press. McLaren, P. & Lankshear, C. (1994). Politics of Liberation. Paths from Freire. London: Routledge. Merrick, T. & Graham, D. (1979). Population and Economic Development In Brazil,

120

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Michaelson-Kanfer, A. (1993). Some Comments on Some Aspects of Comparative Naratives. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 215-217. Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. New York: Routledge. Moacir, G. (2005). La Profesión Docente y sus Amenazas en el Contexto de las Políticas Neoliberals en América Latina. Instituto Paulo Freire, Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://paulofreire.org/Moacir_Gadotti/Artigos/Espanhol/ Morales-Gómez D. A. & Torres, C. A. (1990). The State, Corporatist Politics, and Educational Policy Making in Mexico. New York: Praeger. Murrell Jr. (1997). Digging Again the Family Wells: A Freirian Literacy Framework as Emancipatory Pedagogy for African American Children. In Freire, P. Jerez, C. and Hernández-Pico, J. (Eds.), Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp.19-58 ). New York: Peter Lang. NACLA, (1979), North American Committee on Latin America. July-August. Report on the Americas 12(4), 20. NACLA (1979). North American Committee for Latin America May-June, Report on the Americas, 13(3), 18. Nuñez Hurtado,C. (2003). Vigencia del pensamiento de Paulo Freire. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México: CREFAL. Nuñez Hurtado,C., et al. (2003). Los Nietos de Paulo Freire. Reflexiones en Torno a una Experiencia de Educación popular en Ecuador. In R. Salinas (Ed.), Educación y Transformación Social. Homenaje a Paulo Freire. Caracas: Laboratorio Educativo O‘Cadiz, M.P., Lindquist Wong, P. & Torres, C. A. (1998). Education and Democracy. Paulo Freire, Social Movements, and Educational Reform in Sâo Paulo. Boulder, CO: Westview. Peters, M. (2000). Educational Philosophy and Cultural Difference. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 32(1), 5-13. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1996). Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang.

121

Proaño, L. (1989). Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización, Quito, Ecuador. Puiggrós, A. (1999). Neoliberalism and Education in the Americas. (G. Fischman & J. Thompson, Trans.) Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rabinove, S. (1990). Literature Study Groups: Teachers, Texts, and Readers. English Journal, 79(7), 41-47. Rengifo, V. G. (2005). Nurturance in the Andes. In C. A. Bowers & F. Apffel-Marglie. (Eds.), Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis (pp. 31-48). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retamal, R. (1981). Paulo Freire, Christian ideology, and adult education in Latin America. Newland Papers 5. Hull, UK: University of Hull. Rebellaño, J. L. (1998). Paulo Freire: Educación y Proyecto Ético-Político de Transformación. In H. C. Nuñez H. C., et al. (Eds.), R. Salinas (Comp.) Educación y Transformación Social. Homenaje a Paulo Freire. Caracas: Laboratorio Educativo Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data. A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Rivera, R. (2004). A Study of Liberation Discourse. The Semantics of Opposition in Freire and Gutierrez. New York: Peter Lang. Roberts, P. (2000). Education, Literacy, and Humanization. Exploring the work of Paulo Freire. London: Bergin & Garvey. Rodrigues Brandao, C. (1977). El Método Paulo Freire para la Alfabetización de Adultos, Colección CREFAL, 3. Cuadernos del CREFAL: Pátzcuaro, Michoacán: México. Rojo, A. U. (1996). Utopía Freireana. La Construcción del Inédito Viable. México: Perfiles Educativos UNAM. Ross, W. & Gibson, R. (Eds.) (2006). NeoLiberalism and Education Reform, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Sánchez, A. (1981). Una Lectura Política. In Alfabetización. Cuadernos. México: INEA. Schelling, V. & Carott, F. (1990). A presenta do povo na cultura brasileira: Ensaio sobre o pensamento de Mário de Andrade e Paulo Freire. Brasil: Editora Da Unicamp. Scheman, L. R. (1988). The Alliance for Progress: A Retrospective. New York:

122

Praeger. Seals, G. (2006). Mechanisms of Students Participation: Theoretical Description of a Freirean Ideal. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 39(3), 283-295. Shapiro, M. (1992). Language and power: The Spaces of Critical Interpretation. In R. Merelman (Ed.), Language, Symbolism, and Politics (pp. 269-287). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Silva, A. (1973). Una Educación para la Libertad: la Concepción de Paulo Freire. Perspectiva. 5(3), 1, France: UNESCO. Skvoretz, J. (1993). Generating Narratives from Simple Action Structures. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 18(2/3), 135-140. Souza de, J. F. (2004). Ética, Política e Pedagogia Na Perspectiva Freireana. Recife, Brasil: Bagaco. Spring, J. (1999). Wheels in The Head. Educational Philosophies of Authority, Freedom, and Culture from Socrates to Human Rights. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steiner, S. F., Krank, H. M., McLaren, P. & Bahruth, R. E. (2000). (Eds.). Freirean Pedagogy, Praxis, and Possibilities: Projects For The New Millennium. London: Falmer Press. Taubman, P. M. (1982). Gender and Curriculum: Discourses and the Politics of Sexuality. The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 4(1), 12-87. Taylor, P. V. (1994). The Texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002). International Surveys: What We are Finding. Released: April 29, 2002. Washington, D. C. The Pew Charitable Trust. Torres, C. A. (2007). Oppressor and Oppressed: Logical dialectical Categories? [Electronic version]. Paulo Freire Institute Journal, 2(1) 1-5. Torres, C. A. (1993). From the Pedagogy of the Oppressed to A Luta Continua: the political pedagogy of Paulo Freire. In P. McLaren and P. Leonard (Eds.), Freire: A Critical Encounter (pp. 119-144). London: Routledge.

123

Torres, C. A. (1979). (Comp.) Paulo Freire en América Latina. In La Praxis Educativa de Paulo Freire. Mexico, DF: Guernika. Torres, C. A. & Puiggrós A. (1997). (Ed.) Latin America Education. Comparative Perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Veloso, R., & José Luis Fiori, J.L. (1968). Educaçao e Conscintizaçao : Estencionismo Rural. Cuaderno 25. Cuernavaca, México: CIDOC. Veyne, P. (1997). Foucault Revolutionizes History. In A. I. Davison (Ed.), Foucault and His Interlocutors (pp. 146-182). Chicago: University of Chicago. Walker, L. (1981). The End of Dialogue: Paulo Freire on Politics and Education. In R Mackie (Ed.), Literacy and Revolution (pp. 120-150). New York: Continuum. Weiler, K. (1988). Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Williamson, J. (1990). Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? In J. Williamson (Ed.), What Washington Means by Policy Reform (pp. 54-84). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Yosida, K. (1995). Functional Analysis. Series: Classics in Mathematics. New York: Springer. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University. Zou W. & Schechter M. (2006). Critical Point Theory and its Applications. New York: Springer. Zutlevics, T. L. (2002). Towards a Theory of Oppression. Ratio. 15(1), 81-101.

124