organization and identity dec 30

Paulo Freire’s Intellectual

Roots

Toward Historicity in Praxis

Edited by Robert Lake

and Tricia Kress

BLOOMS B URY LONDON ■ NEW DELHI · NEW YORK ■ SYDNEY

QM LIBRARY (MILE END)

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

CONTENTS

175 Fifth Avenue 50 Bedford Square New York London NY 10010 WC1B 3DP

USA UK

www.bloomsbury.com

First published 2013

© Robert Lake, Tricia Kress, and contributors 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be

accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: HB: 978-1-4411-1184-5 PB: 978-1-4411-9523-4

ePDF: 978-1-4411-1380-1 epub: 978-1-4411-5442-2

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt, Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in the United States of America

Acknowledgments vii

Prologue: The Fruit of Freire’s Roots Henry Giroux ix

Introduction: Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy: Not Mainly a Teaching Method Stanley Aronowitz 1

1 Contradiction, Consciousness, and Generativity: Hegel’s Roots in Freire’s

Work Andy Blunden 11

2 Freire and Marx in Dialogue Tricia Kress and Robert Lake 29

3 The Gramscian Influence Peter Mayo

4 Rethinking Freire’s “oppressed”: A “Southern” Route to Habermas’s Communicative Turn and Theory of Deliberative Democracy Raymond Morrow 65

5 Freire, Buber, and Care Ethics on Dialogue in Teaching Nel Noddings

100 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

I mean that caring teachers must move their students in the direc­ tion of that fault-ridden “normalized” world, but they must do it thoughtfully, not with authoritarian methods. Such teachers hope that their students, as they transform their own reality, will enter that world not naively but critically. Some day, then, the teacher­ student relation will give way to the equal relation of friendship, and together they may transform that world. That is the real goal.

References Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man. New York, NY: Macmillan. Freire,P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman

Ramos. New York, NY: Herder & Herder. Friedman, M. (ed.) (1964). The worlds of existentialism. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press. Gutierez, G. (1988). A theology of liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis

Books. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Mill, J. S. (1993/1859). On liberty and utilitarianism. New York, NY:

Bantam Books. _ Miller, J. P. (2010). Whole child education. Toronto, Canada; University

of Toronto Press. _ (2011). Transcendental learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing. Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy

after the 1960s. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning

communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press. — (2002). Starting at home:Caring and social policy. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press. Ruddick, S. (1989). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace.

Boston, MA; Beacon Press. Wilson, E. O. (2006). The creation: An appeal to save life on earth. New

York, NY: W.W. Norton.

6 Converging Scll/Othcr

Awareness: Erich Fromm and Paulo Freire on

Transcending the Fear of Freedom

Robert Lake and Vicki Dagostino

Historical encounters between Freire and Fromm

Of all of the Frankfurt School writers that have influenced Paulo Freire, there is more concurrence with the work of Erich Fromm than any of the others. Of course Freire cites or alludes to the influence of Marcuse, Habermas, and Gramsci in his work, but Freire’s work more directly converges with Fromm’s social vision and humanist readings of philosophy in ways that create possibilities for individ­ ual and collective release from both inward and outward oppres­ sion. Both Fromm and Freire devoted one entire book on the subject of hope (Fromm, 1968; Freire, 1994). Hope for both men was never a passive concept or wishful thinking, but always predicated on

102 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

action toward freedom that leads to a humanist vision of a better world. Freire visited Fromm more than once in the late 1960s in Cuernavaca, Mexico in a meeting arranged by Ivan Illich (Funk, 2000, p. 138). Freire cites a conversation with Fromm concerning the “difficulty that the oppressed have in localizing the oppressor outside themselves” (Freire, 1994, p. 105). In this dialogue Freire says that Fromm stated with “his blue eyes flashing that ‘an edu­ cational practice like that is a kind of historico-sociocultural and political psychoanalysis’” (ibid.). In this chapter we will discuss the significance of this kind of analysis as we explore some of the ways that Freire was directly influenced by Fromm’s work, and suggest ways that the impact of this influence offers us a complementary and holistic view that has the potential to lift people out of outward environments of oppression and while at the same time exposing and releasing them from the oppressor within their own being. Of course Freire himself would be one of the first to recognize the dan­ gers of heeding artificial boundaries between the fields of educa­ tional sociology (Freire) and humanist psychology (Fromm), yet as is often the case when looking at the origins or “roots” of an idea, the newly imagined and created spaces for theory and praxis often transcend categorization. Also, from the outset, we recognize that Freire was drawn to the psychology of liberation. We are sure that is the reason he cites Fromm so often either directly or indirectly in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. We also recognize that Fromm thought much about sociology (Fromm & Maccoby (1970)) and education in a stunning foreword that he wrote for A. S. Neill’s Summerhill (1960). Likewise, Freire studied the psychology of language so there is much overlap between the two theorists. If we can look through the multiple lenses of their work together, we will find a richly com­ plicated conversation that creates a dialogical dynamic that has the potential to release the oppressed from both inward chains as well as outward circumstantial effects of oppression. So, let us jump right into the conversation.

Freire (2003) refers to Fromm in chapter one of Pedagogy of the Oppressed when he writes about oppression and consciousness (p. 59) and also when he refers to the power of necrophilic behavior to “transform man into a thing” (pp. 59, 65). Freire cites Fromm further on this topic when he contrasts biophilia, the love of life and living things, with necrophilia, which is the root cause behind oppression as the means of absolute control.

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 103

While life is characterized by growth in a structured functional manner,

the necrophilous person loves all that does not grow, all that is mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all living persons were things. . . . Memory, rather than experience; having, rather than being, is what counts. The necrophilous person can relate to an object—a flower or a person—only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a threat to himself, if he loses possession he loses contact with the world. He loves control, and in the act of controlling he kills life. (Fromm cited in Freire, 2003, p. 77)

Origins of the fear of freedom in Fromm and Freire’s work

Fromm’s book The Fear of Freedom was published in England in 1942 when Nazi Germany was at the zenith of its power. The book has far-reaching implications not only for that time in history, but since it explores why people choose domination over freedom, the text remains strongly relevant for the present time as well. Freire does not directly reference Fromm in his discussion of the fear of freedom anywhere in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, but a thorough reading of Fromm’ works demonstrates that this idea, as used by Freire, origi­ nated with Fromm’s theory of the fear of freedom. The idea of the fear of freedom is integral to the development of pedagogy of free­ dom from oppression. Freire uses the idea of the “fear of freedom” to develop his theory of conscientization, but, falls short of developing it fully by not exploring the impact it might have on displacing the effects of the oppressor within. This omission leaves a gap in Freire’s pedagogy of freedom and praxis. In this chapter we suggest that the importance of the notion of the fear of freedom is integral to Freire’s pedagogy of liberation and as such needs to be drawn out and devel­ oped more fully to enhance Freire’s theory. Developing this idea and attempting to incorporate it into Freire’s theory of liberatory educa­ tion will advance Freire’s work and help individuals move toward achieving their ontological vocation of becoming more fully human.

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS104 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

Humanization, according to Freire, is the people’s vocation but it is constantly negated in an oppressive society. Freire believes that eventually those who are oppressed will seek to overcome their oppression because the ontological vocation, or calling toward fuller humanity, will lead them to engage in the struggle for libera­ tion at some point. A humanizing pedagogy, then, is a tool that educators can use to help the oppressed develop a critical under­ standing or consciousness of their oppression. It is this critical con­ sciousness that is necessary for liberation.

According to Freire, to overcome the oppressive situation that they find themselves in, the oppressed “must first critically real­ ize its causes so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity” (2003, p. 47), but often they are afraid of running the risk associated with liberating themselves, and convincing others to do so, because of the fear of freedom. Freire acknowledges that the presence of this kind of fear creates a difficult choice for the oppressed.

The oppressed suffered from the duality which has established itself in their innermost being. They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically. Yet although they desire authentic existence, they fear it. They are at one and the same time themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized. The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and recreate, in their power to transform the world. This is the tragic dilemma of the oppressed which their education must take into account. (Freire, 2003, p. 48)

Freire goes on to say that pedagogy for the oppressed is one that “makes oppression and its causes objects of reflection by the oppressed, and from that reflection will come their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation.” A pedagogy of the oppressed will help them to recognize the duality of their existence as oppressed beings desiring liberation and that this consciousness-raising, problem-posing education they will come to

see themselves as no longer oppressed or oppressor, “but humans in the process of achieving freedom” (p. 49).

In this same chapter, Freire references Fromm, but he does not point to Fromm as the originator of the idea of the “fear of free­ dom.” We suggest, however, that this idea originated with or was based in Fromm’s writings in several books, but especially Escape from Freedom. As we have already seen in this chapter, Freire cer­ tainly read Fromm, and many of his ideas come directly from him, so it would not be a stretch to say that the fear of freedom is closely related to, and possibly directly tied to, Fromm’s theory of the fear of freedom. Moreover, this notion needs to be fully explained as Fromm theorized it. Although Freire sees this fear of freedom as the tragic dilemma that pedagogy of the oppressed must take into con­ sideration, we suggest that this work would be greatly enhanced by focusing on the psychological component that blocks people from truly becoming liberated from oppression. This psychological com­ ponent is an integral part of the process of conscientization.

While the fear of freedom is acknowledged as being a factor that keeps people mired in an inauthentic life because it keeps them from becoming beings for themselves, it is not adequately addressed from a perspective of the psychology of the individual. Because Freire takes a structural view of society and the indi­ vidual, in which the individual only exists in dialogical relation­ ship with the societal, he neglects to pay adequate attention to the psychological phenomena that he himself identifies as an impor­ tant barrier to liberation. By focusing for the most part on one’s ontological vocation in relation to others, Freire’s work needs the further development of a pedagogical strategy that addresses the psychological fears and attachments of the individual subject. As with many theories, just because people do have an ontological drive toward full humanization (an idea that is founded on Freire’s spiritual life) this does not mean that they will know how to go about achieving fuller humanity.1

Freire’s educational paradigm, which strives to raise people’s awareness about oppression and its causes from a very political/ social perspective, would be more complete and would better help move learners toward liberation if it also strove to raise people’s awareness of self and the internal/psychological dynamics that often compel them to behave in oppressive rather than liberat­ ing ways. Also, Fromm’s insight into the interrelatedness of the

106 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

individual and society, and his unusual grasp of the nature of con­ temporary, industrial, capitalistic society and its impact on mod­ ern man’s2 striving for freedom are further compelling reasons for summoning Fromm into this conversation. We can glean insight from Fromm that will contribute to a more comprehensive peda­ gogical strategy for liberatory education.

Inward and outward freedom Because Freire insisted upon the subjectivity of the individual in his educational paradigm, it would stand to reason that he would not object to an assessment that there is subjectivity within each individual oppressed person, and hence that subjectivity must be nurtured through education. Although he did not see the indi­ vidual as self-liberating, but believed that the individual was only self-liberating in dialectical relationship with others. We propose that subjectivity itself implies an internal depth, hence there is an “I” and an internal subjectivity of that “I” and that that internal subjectivity demands attention and is worthy of reflection.

Freirean critical pedagogy aspires to create a liberated, demo­ cratic society, a goal premised on the freedom of its individual members. The pedagogical method Freire suggests using toward this end is “problem-posing” education. Problem-posing education is the means of achieving critical consciousness and becoming a being of praxis, one who reflects and acts on the world in order to transform the situation of oppression. Problem-posing education is the alternative to “banking education” that Freire says treats students as empty receptacles sitting by passively and taking in information given to them from the all-knowing “teacher” without questioning or critically assessing it. Banking education, for Freire, is oppressive. It does not allow for human agency. It is objectifying and dehumanizing and does not allow for individuals to become agents in their own learning, nor agents in the world around them. Problem-posing education, on the other hand, creates subjective agents who attempt to read the world as they learn to read the word (Freire & Macedo 1987). The connection to becoming liber­ ated is obvious, critical thinking and reading the world is part and parcel of critical literacy.

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 107

This kind of problem-posing education is important according to Freire because it is the oppressed themselves who are in the best position to liberate both themselves and the oppressor since only they have the knowledge and unique experience of having been oppressed, which allows them alone to best understand oppression and hence the need for liberation. Freire states,

Who are better prepared than the oppressed to understand the terrible significance of an oppressive society? Who suffer the effects of oppression more than the oppressed? Who can better understand the necessity of liberation? They will not gain this liberation by chance but through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it. (2003, p. 45)

However this does not seem to be enough, even for Freire, for indi­ viduals to transform the situation of oppression. Freire admits,

But almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.” The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity, (ibid.)

Freire goes on to describe how what happens to oppressed beings is that they “adopt an attitude of ‘adhesion’ to the oppressor” (ibid.). Their way of being, their understanding of oppression is their worldview. It shapes their thoughts. It has taken over their psyche. They recognize that they are oppressed, but they do not know any other way of being than to be oppressed. Hence, one important ele­ ment toward becoming a truly liberated being of praxis is to break the psychological chains that keep them bound to the oppressor and to oppressive thinking. “Because of their identification with the oppressor, they have no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class ... It is a rare peasant who, once ‘promoted’ to overseer, does not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the owner himself” (p. 46).

108 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

Another aspect of this connection to the oppressor, according to Freire, is the oppressed’s “fear of freedom,” which must be over­ come in order to become truly liberated from the physical as well as psychological bonds to the oppressor. Freire states, “The fear of freedom which afflicts the oppressed, a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppressed, should be examined” (ibid.). Having internal­ ized the prescriptions and image of the oppressor, the oppressed are fearful of freedom because it would “require them to reject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility” (p. 47).

There is a clear concern about becoming truly liberated from the oppressor (in psychological terms) that Freire plainly recog­ nizes and discusses and rightly mentions in his quest toward peda­ gogy of freedom from oppression. It is at this point that Fromm’s work becomes a vital complement to critical pedagogy that is by its very nature an ongoing and incomplete project. In this case the intellectual root stock of Erich Fromm has much more to con­ tribute to Freire’s work through Fromm’s emphasis on the depth of the psychic internalization of oppression. Through individual self-reflection on the fear of freedom that exists within the indi­ vidual psyche, a person might be enabled to discover the extent to which she is truly free to act according to her own will once she acknowledges that she has internalized the oppressor’s mindset. Perhaps this level of exploration of the unconscious was beyond the realm of Freire’s understanding of psychology. We know from reading Freire’s body of his work, that he always wrote on those things that enabled him to speak “his own word” (p. 33). Who knows what that word might have been if he had lived longer? Nevertheless, the fear of freedom is, as Freire states, “the (empha­ sis added) tragic dilemma of the oppressed which their education must take into account” (p. 48).

Finding convergence in Freire and Fromm

The next part of this chapter will attempt to show how Fromm’s explanation of the fear of freedom seems to be the same as the one espoused by Freire. It will also attempt to show the depth of

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 109

the fear of freedom, how it arises in individuals, and how it can keep them from authentic existence, that is, freedom in Freire’s terms. However, since it is the tragic dilemma that the education of oppressed persons must take into account, it should be fully exam­ ined and incorporated into Freire’s pedagogy of freedom from oppression. Indeed, one cannot fully be liberated from oppression until this fear of freedom is resolved because it impedes action and liberation.

Freire’s educational paradigm, which strives to raise people’s awareness about oppression and its causes from a very political/ social perspective, will be more complete and perhaps more fully help move learners toward liberation if it also strove to raise peo­ ple’s awareness of self and the internal/psychological dynamics that often compel them to behave in oppressive rather than liberat­ ing ways. Moreover, Fromm’s social psychological understanding of the interplay of the individual and society, as well as his under­ standings of contemporary, industrial, capitalistic society and its impact on modern man’s2 striving for freedom are further compel­ ling reasons for drawing Fromm into the ongoing conversation of critical pedagogy.

Because Freire insisted upon the subjectivity of the individual in his educational paradigm, it would stand to reason that he would not object to an assessment that there is subjectivity within each individual oppressed person, and hence that subjectivity must be nurtured through education. Although he did not see the indi­ vidual as self-liberating, but believed that the individual was only self-liberating in dialectical relationship with others, we maintain that subjectivity itself implies an internal depth, hence there is an “I” and an internal subjectivity of that “I” and that that internal subjectivity demands attention and is worthy of reflection.

Fromm’s social-psychoanalytic insight into the nature of humans provides a compelling and complementary contribution to Freire’s theory and also helps us to understand the direction in which edu­ cation must move if it is to create individuals capable of the action component of the praxis equation.

Freirean critical pedagogy aspires to create a liberated, demo­ cratic society, a goal premised on the freedom of its individual mem­ bers. Erich Fromm defines freedom as the ability to make decisions according to one’s desires. In Escape from Freedom, Fromm states, “[Man] would be free to act according to his own will, if he knew

Iio PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS

what he wanted, thought, and felt” (quoted in Freire, 1998, p. 6). Freire’s freedom, which comes about through the achievement of critical consciousness, does not necessarily lead to freedom in Fromm’s terms because it does not necessarily cause one to recog­ nize her own will, thoughts, fears, and desires, upon which rest her decision-making power. This recognition is an internal state that comes from self-realization and from a psychological understand­ ing of one’s desires, thoughts, and drives and what motivates those drives. Freire himself recognizes that we are most human when we are free and most free when we can choose (Collins, 1977, p. 28), and that “choice is illusory to the degree it represents the expecta­ tions of others” (Freire, 1998, p. 7). However, often the choices that people make are not made from true choice. Often, though one may believe she is making a choice based on her own convic­ tions, she is really making a choice that is not necessarily based on her own convictions, but on the convictions of the oppressor that she is unaware of. Having a dominated consciousness, which she has been socialized into through all of the social institutions of her society, she has incorporated the dominant ideology of the oppres­ sor. From this we can extrapolate that the choices one makes are not truly authentic, in terms of being chosen freely according to one’s own moral and ethical principles, because those principles really are not her own.

So, because freedom comes from true or authentic choice, one must become aware of dominated consciousness, but more impor­ tantly, she must become attuned to and begin to develop her own values and beliefs. She must understand how they have developed and decide if they are truly her own or are merely based on the conventions of the society that she has been socialized into. This requires autonomy and responsibility, which must be developed through thoughtful reflection on the self. Unless one is truly choos­ ing freely from her own conscience, she is not making the most authentic choices. Authentic choice comes from self-understanding, self-reflection, and constant awareness of one’s self and one’s moral foundation. These aspects of critical, self-reflective praxis need to be addressed and cultivated in any true expression of liberatory education.

Freire recognizes that freedom comes from authentic choice, and suggests that once the oppressed recognize that they have adopted the oppressor’s consciousness they will expel that consciousness

and embrace freedom. For Freire, once freed from the chains of oppression, through recognition of that oppression, people will act to liberate themselves. However, as Erich Fromm (1992) asserts, “Man can be a slave without chains” (p. 7). Often, according to Fromm:

The outer chains have simply been put inside of man. The desires and thoughts that the suggestive apparatus of society fills him with, chain him more thoroughly than outer chains. This is so because man can at least be aware of outer chains but be unaware of inner chains, carrying them with the illusion that he is free. He can try to overthrow the outer chains, but how can he rid himself of chains of whose existence he is unaware, (ibid.)

Fromm (1941, 1947, 1955) explains the fundamental psychologi­ cal problem that keeps people from embracing freedom. “Freedom from” external oppression causes a separation from nature and from other human beings, which leads to feelings of loneliness and isolation, and what people fear most is isolation. When people feel isolated and alone, they often seek security outside of themselves and often end up resubmitting to external authority or exerting their own authority upon others, and in turn relinquish authentic existence and freedom, albeit unwittingly. Freedom entails auton­ omy and responsibility, and Fromm contends that the isolation that is caused by becoming aware of one’s own autonomy and respon­ sibility is what leads them directly back into becoming oppressors themselves or submitting to another’s oppression because they are looking for answers.

Freire, like Marx, by whom he was heavily influenced, speaks to uncovering conflicts in the sociohistorical and political context. Fromm, who was also heavily influenced by Marx, also recognized these influences but at the same time attempted to uncover inter­ nal conflicts within the individual psyche. Fromm suggests that once one is freed from external oppression, he can still be enslaved, by his own internal discord. This perspective is vitally important because without looking at internal conflicts, it is easy to fall into naive thinking that, once freed from external chains; one is auto­ matically free to become more fully human.

Liberation for Freire comes about through awareness of external and politically systemic oppression. Liberation for Fromm is more

112 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

concerned with awareness of our psychological fears of freedom, isolation, and separation from man and nature. Fromm looks at the conflicting tendencies in man more from the lens of psychology while Freire’s lens is more or less focused on emerging sociological patterns of oppression. Fromm (1992) states that man s thinking and being are not identical, nor are man’s thinking and actions. This goes deeper than Freire’s notion that once an oppressed person recognizes her oppression she will behave in a nonoppressive way herself.

Fromm asserts,

A person who has not been completely alienated, who has remained sensitive and able to feel, who has not lost the sense of dignity, who is not yet "for-sale," who can still suffer oyer the suffering of others, who has not acquired fully the having mode of existence—briefly, a person who has remained a person and not become a thing—cannot help feeling lonely, powerless isolated in present-day society. He cannot help doubting his self and his own convictions, if not his sanity. (1992, p. 65)

Fromm is suggesting that even the person who is most fully human, suffers from this lonely, isolated, and powerless existence. So, although one may be free from oppression, she still suffers. She fears the freedom that she has gained. Others may not oppress her, but she is still oppressed.

Liberation for Fromm entails more than becoming aware of and acting against the oppressor. Of course as Freire states, it entails becoming free from false consciousness and a dominated ideology, but it also entails liberation from the internal conflicts that keep us engaging in behaviors that enslave us. Hence, freedom “from” externa] (political or social) oppression is not a sufficient condition for the achievement of freedom, and unless people progress to a positive freedom, a productive life in Fromm’s terms, escaping from negative freedom will only produce psychological disturbances in the individuals that will thwart her or his pursuit of freedom, and since psychological factors impact the quest for freedom, an edu­ cational program that desires to help people fulfill their quest for freedom must address internal factors of cognition and emotion as much as the external factor of social injustice.

People engage in destructive, oppressive behavior because they fear the isolation, aloneness, and separation from man and nature

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 113

that comes along with the freedom from dominating authority Fromm contends that the uncertainty of life, the fear of isolation that comes with becoming a being for oneself, and the fear of the autonomy and responsibility that comes with freedom, are what lead people back into oppressive relationships and so must be addressed in one’s education.

Necrophilia and the fear of freedom Because freedom is so frightening, according to Fromm, people tend to respond in one of three ways. They attempt to escape from freedom by 1) looking for security outside of themselves again, in terms of looking for an authoritative person, belief system, or other external power source, to relieve them of the responsibility of being free (masochism), or 2) seeking to become the authority over others so that they do not feel so alone (sadism), or 3) falling into mindless (automoton) conformity. Fromm states; “In our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness, we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns” (1941, p. 134). Looked at it in this light, being freed from an oppressor will not necessarily lead to nonconformity, and/or healthy nonoppressive relationships. In another section of the same book (1941) Fromm states that what will lead to healthy/nonoppressive relationships is the spontaneity of love and productive work:

That man, the more he gains freedom in the sense of emerging from the original oneness with man and nature and the more he becomes an “individual,” has no choice but to unite himself with the world in the spontaneity of love and productive work or else to seek a kind of security by such ties with the world as destroy his freedom and the integrity of the individual self. (p. 21) "

So, before we go any further, we will discuss examples of these choices as expressions of Fromm and Freire’s use of necrophilia and biophilia as they relate to the praxis of critical pedagogy that leads to inner liberation. First let’s think about ways that the fear of freedom results in necrophilic behavior. Remember in the

114 PAULO FREIRE'S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

beginning of the chapter that Fromm used necrophilia to describe the love of control to the degree that the oppressed are reduced to passive objects? The above mentioned three aspects of escape from freedom into necrophilious behavior are just as relevant today as they were when Fromm first wrote about them during the rise of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

O ne has only to remember that the Patriot Act that was signed into law in the United States, less than two months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on targets in New York and Washington DC is an expression of Fromm’s first type of response. People have submit­ ted to a masochistic system of one-sided surveillance for the sake of feeling “protected” from terrorism by a higher authority, in this case the government. We will leave it to you the reader to decide if the price of this “protection” is too great.

Sadism is the next aspect he mentions. This phenomenon may take many forms ranging from a military dictatorship to a male chauvinist or more likely, someone who just has to be in control in order to feel validated and when they are not in charge of things, they often sink into pouting or depression. In some ways, sadism parallels Freire’s notion of the “banking model of education” wherein the teacher expects the student to give back only the knowledge that has been “deposited” into them by the passive receiving of “knowledge.” The teacher maintains one-sided unquestioning authority in this model. However we must also remember that the “banking model” can occur with all the chairs in a classroom arranged in a circle, and the topic being discussed may be about critical pedagogy. Even in this environment there may be a “bully” sadist present who intimidates the others into outward acceptance of their opinion or procedure with the others deferring to this person just to “keep the peace.”

The third aspect of the fear of freedom is mindless “automaton conformity.” Once again fear of economic loss is played upon to maintain the mindless automaton/necrophilliac power relationship. This is often the case when teacher performance pay is tied to achiev­ ing passing scores on standardized tests. The result is that teaching has been reduced to the role of “clerks of the empire” (Giroux, 2010). In the same article Giroux describes the deskilling of teachers in a way that we are certain that both Fromm and Freire would affirm.

As the space of public schooling is reduced to a mindless infatuation with the metrics of endless modes of testing

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 115

and increasingly enforces this deadening experience with disciplinary measures reminiscent of prison culture, teachers are increasingly removed from dealing with children as part of a broader historical, social and cultural context. As the school is militarized, student behavior becomes an issue that either the police or security forces handle. Removed from the normative and pedagogical framing of classroom life, teachers no longer have the option to think outside of the box, to experiment, be poetic or inspire joy in their students. School has become a form of dead time, designed to kill the imagination of both teachers and students. (Giroux, 2010, n.p.)

These problems in education all clearly point to a system that is rife with necrophilic oppression and compel us to look for biophilic liberatory education in both Freire and Fromm’s terms.

Biophilia and inward freedom Biophilia is a word that Fromm uses in his famous humanist credo. In the following passage, he uses biophilia to holistically describe love for life in nature, humanity, and self, resulting in freedom.

I believe that the man choosing progress can find a new unity through the development of all his human forces, which are produced in three orientations. These can be presented separately or together: biophilia, love for humanity and nature, and independence and freedom. (1999/1994, p. 101)

As we have already seen, Freire used necrophilia to describe the banking model of education, and uses the term biophilia in much the same way, to describe the praxis of liberatory education. Freire describes his vision of education as "biophiliac" (1985, p. 82) and credits Fromm with giving him the term. Biophilia is indeed one of the strongest points of convergence between Fromm and Freire’s work. Here are a few examples of biophilic praxis leading to inward freedom. Our first one expresses biophilic pedagogy as the ability to engage in curriculum as conversation.

116 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

One of the central themes in all of Freire’s work is that the way unjust power is maintained is through seeing others as “object” (2003). This is certainly true in education as well as in the thousands of criminal acts that are committed against others every day!

The ability to listen to people comes out of biophilia because, by it, we are opened to the polyphonic aspect of meaning, not just the narrow sounds of cliche or the kind of inward thoughts that cause knee-jerk reactions to what we hear. Necrophilious persons are only in tune with themselves. Curriculum as conversation “is a matter of attunement, an auditory rather than visual concep­ tion, in which the sound of music (for Aoki, jazz specifically) being improvised is an apt example” (Pinar, 2004, p. 189). Curriculum as conversation can serve to tune the ear to participate, to reso­ nate with the voice of others. This is no scripted endeavor, but like the jazz analogy, there is a certain aspect of the spontaneous that is welcomed. In the shared dimensions of spontaneous dialogue, there is a fuller experience of knowing. Freire is very strong on dia­ logue as a shared way of knowing: “I engage in dialogue because I recognize the social and not merely the individualistic character of the process of knowing” (1995, p. 379). Genuine dialogue is not the product of preformulated questions and responses. In Freire’s view (1970), dialogue must be open-ended in ways that enable us to reach beyond our own thoughts and patterns of thinking.

Sidorkin (2002) offers further insight into the nature of curricu­ lum as conversation by saying that relations cannot be described by one person’s perspective. He states that “relation in general is possible only in the presence of difference. Totally identical enti­ ties cannot relate to each other. Relations result from plurality, from some tension born of difference” (p. 98). This difference is not something that needs to be overcome by a “fifty/fifty split.” Every voice needs to be heard, not lowered to the least common denominator!

Sidorkin goes on to say that one of the greatest needs in schools is the cultivation of curriculum as conversation by focus­ ing on the:

ability to “read” relationships to reflect on these cases, to talk and write about relationships. The key skill here is the ability to reconstruct the other voice. A teacher must develop this ability to

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 117

hear what has not been said, to formulate what his students are not able to articulate, to engage in a dialogue when the other party may not be willing or ready to engage. The ability to understand human relations relies heavily on the heightened ability to hear and respond without preconceived notions of truth, (p. 100)

This ability to read relationships will carry over into all content areas. In fact, our praxis becomes more relevant, and potent, to the degree that we are in tune with the voice of others. Biophilia can open our being in ways that provide insight into the ways lan­ guage is perceived or received by others and creates connections that Fromm states is integral to a productive and biophilic life.

Our next example of biophilic praxis emerges out of a love of nature that can produce inward freedom and wholeness of self. Richard Louv is one of the primary voices for a growing movement called No Child Left Inside. In his wonderful book, Last Child in the Woods Louv (2008) masterfully describes a condition he calls

nature deficit disorder” (p. 10) as one of the primary causes of attention deficit disorder (think necrophilic education here). Later in the book he cites a story from San Francisco magazine that serves as a powerful case study for Freire’s problem-posing educa­ tion and the love of nature.

The back page of an October issue of San Francisco magazine displays a vivid photograph of a small boy, eyes wide with excitement and joy, leaping and running on a great expanse of California beach, storm clouds and towering waves behind him. A short article explains that the boy was hyperactive, he had been kicked out of his school, and his parents had not known what to do with him—but they had observed how nature engaged and soothed him. So for years they took their son to beaches, forests dunes, and rivers to let nature do its work. The photograph was taken in 1907. The boy was Ansel Adams, (cited in Louv, 2008 pp. 102-3) ’

Our last example expresses biophilic pedagogy that displaces the fear of freedom by identification with another. In a program called The Roots of Empathy, a curriculum that originated in Canada in 1996, a baby and mother visit a classroom once a month for the first year of the child’s life. This relationship was chosen because as

1 lä PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

founder Mary Gordon believes it “is the best example of emotional attunement there is which is why I chose it as a model of empathy for children to experience” (Gordon, 2010, n.p.).

In Roots of Empathy, students explore the inner consciousness of a baby as they observe and describe what the baby is feeling and how the parent is paying attention to the baby’s needs. The stu­ dents then extend these observations outwardly as they identify and reflect on their own thoughts and feelings and those of others. Ten years of data show a significant decrease in aggression, and increase in emotional understanding and care (Schonert-Reichl, 2009). One of the most dramatic stories comes from Gordon’s book.

Darren was the oldest child I ever saw in Roots of Empathy class. He was in Grade 8 and had been held back twice. He was two years older than everyone else and already starting to grow a beard. I knew his story: his mother had been murdered in front of his eyes when he was four years old, and he had lived in a succession of foster homes ever since. Darren looked menacing because he wanted us to know he was tough: his head was shaved except for a ponytail at the top and he had a tattoo on the back of his head. The instructor of the Roots of Empathy program was explaining to the class about differences in temperament that day. She invited the young mother who was visiting the class with Evan, her six-month-old baby, to share her thoughts about her baby’s temperament. Joining in the discussion, the mother told the class how Evan liked to face outwards when he was in the Snugli and didn’t want to cuddle into her, and how she would have preferred to have a more cuddly baby. As the class ended, the mother asked if anyone wanted to try on the Snugli, which was green and trimmed with pink brocade. To everyone’s surprise, Darren offered to try it, and as the other students scrambled to get ready for lunch, he strapped it on. Then he asked if he could put Evan in. The mother was a little apprehensive, but she handed him the baby, and he put Evan in, facing towards his chest. That wise little baby snuggled right in, and Darren took him into a quiet corner and rocked back and forth with the baby in his arms for several minutes. Finally, he came back to where the mother and the Roots of Empathy instructor were waiting and he asked: “If nobody has ever loved you, do you think you could still be a good father?” (Gordon, 2009, pp. 5-6)

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 119 i I

Through this experience, Darren began to imagine himself dif­ ferently and perhaps he experienced a small shift in his sense of personal agency and inward freedom. Fromm recognizes that “freedom” is possible only to the extent that a person’s psycho­ logical need for attachment and relatedness to others is met. He believes that there are other psychological needs that correspond to the need for freedom that must be met if people are to maintain nonoppressive relationship. Fromm sees freedom as resulting only when one’s psychological needs for security, love, productive work, and relatedness to the world have been met. In Darren’s case as well as our own, we often find that these needs are met not as we receive them for ourselves but as we give them to others. Biophilia comes out of “being” not “having.” Biophilia increases when we align with the replenishing power of nature in dynamic, selfless love. Fromm states that we are:

prone to think that the problem of freedom is exclusively that of gaining still more freedom of the kind we have gained in the course of modern history, and to believe that the defense of freedom against such powers that deny such freedom is all that is necessary. We forget that, although each of the liberties which have been won must be defended with utmost vigor, the problem of freedom is not only a quantitative one, but a qualitative one; that we not only have to preserve and increase the traditional freedom, but that we have to gain a new kind of freedom, one which enables us to realize our own individual self, to have faith in this self and in life. ( 1941, pp. 105-6)

Freedom is in being, not having Capitalism, according to Fromm, has freed man further spiritually, mentally, socially, politically, and economically. Man, under the capitalist system learned to “rely on himself, to make responsible decisions, to give up both soothing and terrifying superstitions ... [he] became free from mystifying elements; [he] began to see him­ self objectively and with fewer and fewer illusions” (i.e. to become critically conscious), and hence he became increasingly free from traditional bonds, he became free to become more. As this freedom

120 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

“from” grew, “positive” freedom (the growth of an active, critical, responsible self) advanced as well. However, capitalism also had other effects on the process of growing freedom as well. “It made the individual more alone and isolated and imbued him with a feel­ ing of insignificance and powerlessness” (p. 108). It also increased doubt and skepticism, and all of these factors made man more anx­ ious about freedom.

The principle of individualist activity characteristic of a capital­ istic economy put the individual on his own feet. Whereas under the feudal system of the Middle Ages, everyone had a fixed place in an ordered and transparent social system under capitalism; if one was unable to stand on his own two feet, he failed, and it was entirely his own affair. Obviously this is not productive work that leads to freedom and biophilia but rather it is oppressive and necrophilious.

That this principle furthered the process of individualization is obvious and is always mentioned as an important item on the credit side of modern culture. But in furthering “freedom from,” this principle helped to sever all ties between one individual and the other and thereby isolated and separated the individual from his fellow men. (pp. 105-6)

The results of Capitalism in terms of increasing freedom “from” and the strength of the individual character that it built, have lead people to assume that modern man “has become the center and purpose of all activity, that what he does he does for himself, that the principle of self-interest and egotism are the all-powerful moti­ vations of human activity” (p. 109). “Yet, much of what seemed to him to be his purpose was not his” (ibid.). Rather, the capital that he earned and created no longer served him—he served it. “Man became a cog in the vast economic machine ... to serve a purpose outside of himself” (p. 110). Man became a servant to the very machines he built, which gave him a feeling of personal insignifi­ cance and powerlessness. Those who did not have capital and had to sell their labor to earn a living suffered similar psychological effects, according to Fromm, because they too were merely cogs in the great economic machine, and hence instruments of “supraper­ sonal economic factors.”

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 121

Modern man believed that he was freeing himself, but was really submitting to aims that were not his own. As such, he became untrue to himself. He did not work for himself, his happiness, or his freedom, rather, his work was done either to serve more power­ ful others or to acquire capital. This further isolated and alienated him from himself and his fellow man. But why did this happen? Paulo Freire theorizes that once one becomes more critically con­ scious of oppression, one will act to liberate themselves and others. Yet Fromm suggests that as modern man becomes more conscious of and works toward freedom from oppressive bonds, he also becomes more alienated and isolated, and he begins to feel insig­ nificant. Fromm attributes this to the fact that negative freedom was never fully developed into positive freedom. While it did create positive freedom in some ways, that is, by providing humans with economic and political freedom, the opportunity for individual ini­ tiative, and growing rational enlightenment (p. 121) it did not pro­ vide people with a means to realize all aspects of positive freedom including productive work, love of others, and independence and inward liberation.

Positive freedom, according to Fromm’s definition, is the capac­ ity for “spontaneous relationship to man and nature, a relationship that connects the individual with the world without eliminating his individuality” (p. 29). The foremost expression of which, according to Fromm, are “love and productive work because they are rooted in the integration and strength of the total personality” (ibid.). So according to Fromm, positive freedom equals wholeness of the per­ sonality, that is, integration. But, because relations between peo­ ple have also become alienating in the modern capitalistic world, human relationships assume the character of relations between things rather than between beings, further creating a sense of iso­ lation. Fromm states:

But perhaps the most important and the most devastating instance of this spirit of instrumentality and alienation is the individual’s relationship to his own self. Man does not only sell commodities, he sells himself and feels himself to be a commodity [and] if there is no use for the qualities a person offers, he has none; just as an unsalable commodity is valueless though it might have its use value. Thus the self-confidence, the “feeling of self,” is merely an indication of what

122 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

others think of the person ... If he is sought after, he is somebody; if he is not popular, he is simply nobody, (p. 119)

Fromm believes that “the need to be related to the world outside oneself, the need to avoid aloneness” is as imperative to man as is the physiologically conditioned needs (like hunger, the need for sleep, etc.) “To feel completely alone and isolated leads to mental disintegration just as physical starvation leads to death” (p. 17). The mode of capitalistic production, because it has made man an instrument for suprapersonal economic purposes and increased his sense of individual insignificance, has also increased his feeling of isolation and powerlessness.

Likewise, human relationships have suffered because they have assumed a spirit of manipulation and instrumentality and have lost their sense of connectedness and relatedness. There is no sense of solidarity in modern society. Human relationships under Capitalism have ceased to be relationships between people who have an interest in one another as fellow human beings, and have become relationships based on mutual usefulness. The instrumen­ tality of relationships is clearly seen in relationships at all levels, from employer/employee, to businessperson/customer; to one’s relationship with one’s own self. As such humans have became “bewildered and insecure” (p. 120) rather than strong and secure beings who are capable of loving and liberating both themselves and others.

So it appears that man in modern times has won a freedom that has not made him any happier, but only more fearful. Freire’s theory supposes that freedom from oppression leads to authentic existence, the freedom to become more fully human—happier, more fulfilled, more able to love one another in a non-oppressive manner. It also assumes that people will act in solidarity with one another once they are conscious of oppression. In a complemen­ tary way, Fromm’s focus on positive freedom takes into account that people need more than economic independence in order to overcome alienation, isolation, a sense of powerlessness, and fear so they do not themselves become oppressors or look for someone to oppress them (after overcoming alienation, isolation, a sense of powerlessness, and fear).

Fromm maintains that this fear is an illness of the mind that people want to liberate themselves from at any cost. The fear that

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 123

results from isolation and alienation is unbearable to people, hence they will seek to escape the psychological toll of fear. The way to transcend this fear of freedom is to take steps toward positive free­ dom. Fromm writes that this occurs when people seek to:

Relate spontaneously to the world in love and work, in the genuine expression of emotional, sensuous, and intellectual capacities; and thus become one again with man, nature, and themselves, without giving up the independence and integrity of their own individual self. The other course open to him is to fall back, to give up his freedom, and to try to overcome his aloneness by eliminating the gap that has arisen between their individual self and the world, (p. 139)

These efforts can create a worse condition than the previous state because the person “never reunites them with the world in a way he related to it before he emerged as an ‘individual’” (ibid.). The resulting condition may be one that is characterized by “com­ plete surrender of individuality and integrity of the self” (p. 140). Obviously this course is “not a solution which leads to happiness and positive freedom ... it assuages an unbearable anxiety and makes life possible by avoiding panic; yet it does not solve the underlying problem and is paid for by a kind of life that often consists only of automatic or compulsive activities” (ibid.). The unproductive means by which people attempt to relieve themselves of such anxiety, Fromm terms “mechanisms of escape,” that is, sadist, masochist, automaton conformity.

The individual in a sick society sacrifices genuine freedom and happiness for the security of fitting in with the rest of mankind, that is, for the security of feeling a sense of belonging and con­ nectedness with other humans. It is even possible that “his very defect may have been raised to a virtue by his culture, and thus may enhance feeling of achievement” (ibid.). In US culture today, for instance, ambition for fame, and greed for money and posses­ sions are defects that have become so accepted that they are no longer even considered defects.

In the United States today, the fear of freedom has manifested itself in an overwhelming desire to have. In fact, Fromm says that a “having orientation” predominates among those in the west­ ern world today. Those with a having orientation tend to focus

124 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

on obtaining, possessing, and consuming, and they are defined by what they have. According to Fromm, one form of having, consum­ ing, is perhaps the most important one for today’s affluent indus­ trial societies. He states that “Consuming has ambiguous qualities: It relieves anxiety, because what one has cannot be taken away; but it also requires one to consume ever more, because previous consumption soon loses its satisfactory character” (1976, p. 15). The modern consumer identifies his or herself by the formula: I am = what I have and what I consume (ibid.). The attitude inherent in a having orientation is that of incorporating something so that in a sense, one is incorporating its power. By incorporating power from an external source, one in essence believes they possess its strength. Individuals who believe themselves to be powerless, then, gain a sense of power and strength that they are lacking. A society centered around things rather than people, as Western industrial society is, creates individuals with a need to have in order to feel important, since “To acquire, to own, and to make a profit are the sacred and unalienable rights of the individual in the industrial society” (p. 57).

Having-oriented people focus on consuming, obtaining, and possessing because they are defined by what they have. However, Fromm contends that “I have it” tends to become “it has me,” and people become driven by their possessions. Spiritual tradi­ tions have described this behavior in various ways. For example, “The Buddha has described this method of behavior as craving, the Jewish and Christian religions as coveting; it transforms every­ body and everything into something dead and subject to another’s power” (p. 64).

While it is necessary to have in order to live in the world, plac­ ing too much emphasis on having (to the neglect of being) causes us to suffer. Our psychological need for belonging and related­ ness, therefore, cannot be attained through having because a hav­ ing orientation leads to further alienation and objectivity rather than to rootedness and transcendence (which Fromm maintains are the distinctive human needs that need to be fulfilled in order to move people toward a reunion with one another and with the natu­ ral world, that is, to move toward productive, positive freedom) because it separates us from ourselves and from those around us.

Freire maintains that the oppressed have so fully incorporated the image of the oppressor into their very existence that rejecting

CONVERGING SELF/OTHER AWARENESS 125

that image and replacing it with autonomy and responsibility is far too frightening, and hence is what keeps the oppressed from becoming free and existing authentically. This is why education must address the individual as a subjective being who has deeply internalized the oppressive mindset of the oppressor. Education must help people to understand the psychological hold that oppres­ sion has on their psyche, and it must also help them to develop the ego, strength, and wisdom to break that hold and to replace it with care for the self and hence for others, while raising critical consciousness about oppressive forces in society. Such an educa­ tion will go further in allowing individuals to resolve the fear of freedom and move toward a productive life.

Notes 1 Achieving fuller humanity, a notion that will be discussed more fully

later, means (for Freire) becoming humanized (as opposed to being dehumanized as in oppressive relationships).

2 The use of “man” in this paper is the consequence of quoting Freire and Fromm, both of whom referred to all of humanity as such. We make no excuses for either theorist’s failure to recognize the importance of using gender free writing techniques, and we recognize the problems associated with the lack of use of gender free writing. As a result, we attempt to use both pronouns “she” and “he” and/or “her” and “him” whenever we are not referencing a statement made by Freire or Fromm.

References Collins, Denis E. (1977). Paulo Freire, his life, works, and thought. New

York, NY: Paulist Press. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation.

Boston, MA : Bergin & Garvey Publishers. — (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New

York, NY: Continuum. — (1998). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY:

Continuum. — (2003). Pedagogy of theroppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

126 PAULO FREIRE’S INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.

— (1947). Man for himself. New York City, NY: Henry Holt . — (1955). The sane society. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. — (1976). To have or to be? New York, NY: Bantam. — (1968). The revolution of hope: toward a humanized technology. New

York, NY: Bantam. — (1992). The art of being. New York, NY: Continuum. — (1999/1994).Ои being human. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the

World :Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey. Fromm, E. and Maccoby, Μ. (19.70). Social Character in a Mexican

Village. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Funk, R. (2000). Erich Fromm—His Life and Ideas: An Illustrated ' Biography. New York, NY: Continuum. Giroux, H. (2010). In Defense of Public School Teachers in a Time of

Crisis. Truthout. April 14,2010. Retrieved from: http://archive. truthout.org/in- defense-public-school-teachers-a-time- crisis58567

Gordon, M. (2009). The roots of empathy: Changing the world child by child. New York, NY; The Experiment Publishers.

Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Neil, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing (Preface by E. Fromm) New York, NY: Hart Publishing Co.

Pinar, W. E (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2009). Research Report. Roots of Empathy. Retrieved from: www.rootsofempathy.org/documents/content/ROE_ Report_Research_E _2009.pdf

Sidorkin, A. M. (2002). Learning relations: Impure education, deschooled schools & dialogue with evil. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

. . 7 Liberation Theology and Paulo Freire: On the Side

of the Poor

William M. Reynolds

“Existence is not despair, but risk, if I don’t exist dangerously, I cannot be.”

Freire, 1987, p. 130

I

Introduction of contrast It is most appropriate to discuss Paulo Freire and his intellectual as well as spiritual interconnectedness with liberation theology in the second decade of the twenty-first century. It is a time when religion, particularly Christianity, in the United States has been hijacked by the far right and has become a religion of ressenti­ ment. The far right, then, uses that ressentiment as a Civic Gospel (Reynolds & Webber, 2009). It is a vision of spirituality that constrains rather than liberates. It is a civic gospel that ironi­ cally promotes hatred instead of peace. This becomes problematic because all forms of Christianity and Christian Theology become linked with this right wing civic gospel. Recent proclamations by