Category Archives: Knowledge

Knowledge as a Means of Manipulation and Oppression

During the Storey reading I was struck by the statement “discourses produce knowledge and knowledge is always a weapon of power” (7). I found this to be one of the most significant truths I have ever come across in philosophy.

As mentioned in Storey’s paper, with the example of the Victorians creating the concept of sexuality through discussion, the discourse that follows observation, studying, and experimentation of a certain subject allows for the generation of knowledge in that specific field. This then facilitates the creation of power, as a better understanding of something or a theory can be used to categorize and organize behavior, dividing it into “normal” and “abnormal.”

I had never really thought of knowledge as a weapon, but, when looking back at historical examples, it is seemingly a very relevant means by which to control people. Time and time again, history has proven that if you have knowledge, or appear to have knowledge, you have a better chance of manipulating and then taking command over people. We can see this with dictators, corrupt politicians, etcetera. Furthermore, people are naturally drawn to people who are or seem knowledgeable, because they want to be with those who seem to have the answers to unknowable and understandable questions, and are prone to adhering to societal norms generated through the public awareness of certain forms of knowledge for fear of appearing strange or “abnormal.”

Because the human mind is prone to categorization, people tend to divide the world into very black and white terms, deeming one thing as good and the opposite as bad. Through the process of the creation of knowledge through discourse, which is then followed by categorization and organization of behavior, the people who have a good understanding of the subject undergoing exploration hold power over others who lack that knowledge, and are able to decide, based off of their own personal opinion, what should be deemed right and wrong. Therefore, knowledge at the most basic of level can be turned into a weapon depending on the hands of the people it falls into, as it can be used to manipulate and control the innocent or naive.

When I read about the relationship between knowledge and power, it made me a bit nervous in terms of the negative effects it can have upon society, and how there is seemingly no way to combat it if it falls into the hands of or is developed by unscrupulous people. Do you think there is any way in which to prevent the obtainment of knowledge from being used to manipulate and oppress people?

Flaws in Education

“Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” (Freire, Pedagogy)

I am in complete agreement with this statement. In Pedagogy, Freire talks about the flaws in our system of education. He says that humans/students are “containers” and “receptacles” to be filled by the teacher. In other words, he is saying that we are just memorizing whatever the teacher is teaching us, and the better that teachers help us memorize certain material, the better the teacher is. Humans really develop intellectually if they are not just memorizing material, but actually experiencing and researching what the material really is and why it is important. This helps the student retain information and enables him/her to take full advantage of their cognitive ability. I cannot tell you how many times I have been taught something by a teacher and studied and been tested on certain material, and not even a month later, I couldn’t remember anything important about what I had learned. However, the things that I have done research and experiments on myself and then been taught about afterwards are the things that I remember even today. For example, I remember almost everything that I learned from a sheep brain experiment/analysis that I did in FOCUS in second grade. This was  because the teacher let us make our own observations about the brain and then clarified what we were thinking by giving us technical lingo instead of just telling us everything about the brain without giving us a chance to explore it.

Freire’s thoughts on how education/teaching should be presented to students can be compared to Rousseau’s thoughts that he expressed in Emile. He, too, believes that people should be taught through experience rather than just being told and forced to remember . Freire also reminds me of Dewey when he says that “the teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable.” Dewey says that in education, we should learn things that will be useful in the future, and that we should also incorporate past subject matter in these teachings. He also says that subject matter should relate to real world experiences, and that subject matter in general should be based on experience rather than theory.

It is really interesting to see how these philosophers all have the same kind of thinking towards education and how people should be taught. What do you guys think?

Freire on Freedom of Education

When Paulo Freire examines the prevailing education system of his time, he concludes that education is more along the lines of propaganda rather than learning. His paper compares education with how much freedom it gives the student, and he labels traditional education as the “banking” concept. The banking concept is sustained by depositing bits of information into a student’s brain without letting the student question how it works or why it is relevant. Freire argues that any intellectual freedom that academia can offer is crushed by banking education Continue reading

Teach Me Your Ways (and Your Ways Only)!

I found Paulo Freire’s concepts and ideas in Pedagogy of the Oppressed very eye opening but rather depressing to be honest.  The way Freire compared the education system as a banking system really made me question if there is any real hope in today’s more traditional educational system.  As taken aback as I was from this work, I would have to say that agree with most of his points.

For instance, I thought it was intriguing to see that Freire write that “education is suffering from narration sickness,” (71).  Once I really thought about it, I noticed how much truth there really is to this statement, at least in comparison to most of my educational experiences.  I never quite realized how many classes I’ve attended where a teacher has literally spewed out information at me and the rest of my pupils and we were never expected to really inquire or discuss the lessons in depth.  The teacher always had a strict lesson plan and what he or she said was final.

A more specific example would actually be of one of my classes here at Emory.  It’s in a smaller classroom setting where attendance is regularly taken and there aren’t more than 20 students enrolled.  Initially I assumed that, similar to my other classes of this size, this class would be heavily discussion based and that vocal participation was often expected, if not required.  To my surprise, during one of our review sessions before a test, our TA briefly stated that this class was strictly a lecture.  Sure our professor might ask a general question to the class every now and then but he made it clear that it was not really a class for open discussion.  Granted, there have been times where we’ve turned it into more of a discussion based class but overall, our professor has a set agenda and uses all of class time to get through the lectures in full.  So in this example, my professor was more like a narrator in this situation instead of a professor who uses a “problem-posing” based curriculum.

 

(Don’t) Bank on It

Reading Paulo Freire’s two cents on education reminds me a lot of any dystopian novel/movie I’ve ever read/watched. He says that the education nowadays is a type of “banking” education, where the job of the teacher is to deposit information into the student, much like anyone would deposit money into their bank accounts. Continue reading

The Practical Application of Freire’s Educative Philosophy to Reality

I have to say that I really enjoyed this reading. I thought that it was a very accurate description of the education process, and society’s impact upon education. I feel like I always do the worst in the classes where I have no interest in them, or merely just memorize information and then regurgitate it for the exam. I really think that narrative education is detrimental to the development of the individual, stunting creative power and allowing for the formation of a warped view of reality, as it boxes the student into a certain way of thinking and is more conducive towards memorization rather than actual learning and retention of knowledge.

I also really liked Freire’s theory of problem-posing education. I thought the idea of teachers and students simultaneously playing each others roles to be absolutely fascinating. I’ve always subscribed to the idea that people never stop learning, so I like the idea of the implementation of an education system where the teacher and students learn from each other, forming a cyclical relationship where ideas are posed and analyzed by both parties, and then conclusions shared with each other so as to enlarge their perspectives and knowledge base.

However, I am confused as to exactly how Freire wants to implement this program. I would assume that most of this system of education would be based upon discussion sections or classes founded upon student-participation. We have plenty of classes like that at Emory, but I do not think that a true student-teacher relationship has been formed, just based off of my experience in discussion sections and courses heavily dependent on student-participation. I have found that most students just respond because they feel like they have to, and the teachers have to ask question after question in order to force information out of them. How exactly does Freire hope to make this relationship between the student and teacher a reality? What methods does he want the teacher to implement in the classroom in order to achieve this goal of a teacher-student and student-teacher learning process?

In conclusion, in my opinion, Freire suggested a great system of education, and performed a very comprehensive and intelligent analysis of society and its impact upon education; however, I feel that he lacked a description of how to practically apply his theory to reality.

Freire and the Truman Show

While reading Paulo Freire’s, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I couldn’t help but relate his depiction of the narrative style of education to the life of Jim Carrey’s character, Truman Burbank, in the satirical film, The Truman Show.  Continue reading

Rousseau on Politeness

There is a quote by Fred Astaire that has to do with parenting and that also ties into the Emile readings that we’ve had. He said, “The hardest jobs kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any.” Now, I personally agree with this statement. Having good manners means that you treat others as well as yourself with respect. There are many things in the world today that are constantly in childrens’ lives that affect their manners. It could be a television show that they saw their parents watching, or it could be one of their friends that always gets their way, or it could be a video game that has disrespectful characters. Children learn from these things/people that are constantly in their life.

In Emile, Rousseau distinguishes the rich from the poor, saying that, “The artificial education of the rich never fails to make them politely imperious, by teaching them the words to use so that no one will dare to resist them.” (Pg. 68) Rousseau is rejecting politeness, which is a central part of having manners. He believes that havng a different social status from one person can make you polite but also “fake”, so it is not something that people should teach their children about. He believes that children should be taught on how to “preserve” their life, and that adults should not try to keep preserving them. (pg. 42). Basically, what he believes is that children should be taught how to do things for themselves, and that adults should have a hands-off method in teaching them, letting them explore and do what they want until they reach a consequence.

Now, I don’t agree with Rousseau and his rejection of teaching politeness because I personally think that learning how to be polite, or to be respectful, especially in certain situations, can help people a lot in life. However, he is correct to an extent. Teaching your children how to be polite is not always the most important thing, because politeness can be faked. I do believe that teaching your children how to preserve their life and do things for themselves takes precedence over teaching them how to be polite, but I don’t think that Rousseau should completely write politeness out of the books. What do you guys think? Should we even be polite anymore?

What is Perfect Education?

As I was reading John Dewey’s Experience and Education, I kept on reflecting on our very first class at the beginning of the semester. If I remember correctly, we were all asked a very simple question: what is education? There is no point in finding the perfect model for education if its very purpose is unknown. Dewey rejects the idea that education is merely the young’s’ preparation for their future lives. To me, education is instilling in the young the urge to learn, change, and innovate.

The two conventional education models (traditional and progressive education) have failed to live up to that purpose. Dewey does an amazing job at pointing out the fallacies present in both models. In the traditional model, adults’ standards and methods are imposed on the students that do not correspond to their capacities. As a result, the concepts and ideas taught are abstract with little to no application on a student’s life. On the other hand, the progressive model offers little organization and unguided freedom. This can create a lot of “miseducative” experiences.

Due to the inherent fallacies present in both models, students must find the perfect balance between organized learning and practical experience. Because students have different capabilities and interests, the quest for the perfect balance should be a personal one. For me, I have found the perfect balance here at Emory. I run chemical reactions in lab after learning them in my organic chemistry class; I have connected the knowledge I gained in physics class with my neuroscience seminar to write a research paper on how physics is changing the field of neuroscience. I have also used my physics knowledge to better understand some problems we discussed in philosophy class. School is no longer about memorizing abstract non-applicable concepts; I am applying the knowledge in different ways and forming interdisciplinary connections. This has certainly developed my new zest for learning and knowledge.

Experiencing Through Education, Not Vice Versa

In “Educating and Experience,” John Dewey makes the distinction between the two title words in an attempt to convey how every experience itself does not necessarily lead to education, or at least not in a positive and productive manner. In the text he says, “the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other”(13). Although I do see some truths to these statements, I do also disagree with some of it as well.

For instance, I take particular interest in the statement “Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other”(13). I would argue against this statement in a similar way to the square-rectangle concept where every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square. I think that education equates directly to experience but not vice versa. Education should be seen as an experience in its own right whether or not the pupil regards it as such. It’s no new discovery that power of education is invigorating and provides students with plenty of experience.

However, I do agree with Dewey in terms of experiences not necessarily being educative(13). Experiences can be life altering and very educative. For example, people on shows like “Survivor” and “Naked and Afraid” learn through experience as they try to accommodate living in the wilderness. But a counterexample would be of a typical college student attending a party. Granted, the results from experience may vary, but I highly doubt that this kind of activity would result in any type of educative enlightening. What do you guys think? Do you think that education and experience do equate to each other?