Need reading this book and follow the requirements write 4 full pages paper, must up to 1000 words. Please read

Need reading this book and follow the requirements write 4 full pages paper, must up to 1000 words. Please read the requirement carefully!!!!!! Toulim argument structure is explain what is toulimin, and reading is follow this structure. Due US pacific time, 3/1

careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any
level, inside or outside the schooL reveals its fundamentally narrative character. This relationship involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient, listening objects (the
students). The contents, whether values or empirical dimensions of
reality, tend in the process of being narrated to become lifdess and
petrified. Education is suffering from narration sickness.
The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static,
compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic
completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His
task is to “fill” the students with the contents of his narrationcontents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the
totality that engendered them and could give them significance.
Words are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating verbosity.
The outstanding characteristic of this narrative education, then,
is the sonority of words, not their transforming power. “Four times
four is sixteen; the capital of Para is Belem.” The student records,
memorizes, and repeats these phrases without perceiving what four
times four really means, or realizing the true significance of “capital”
in the affirmation “the capital of Pani is Belem,” that is, what Belem
means fCJr Para and what Para means for Brazil.
Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to
72 . P AU L 0
memorize mechanically the narrated content. ‘Worse yet, it turns
them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to he “filled” by the
teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a
teacher she is. The more meekly the receptadps permit themselves
to he filled, the better students they are.
Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead
of communicating, the teacher issues communiqu(~s and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat.
This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of
action allowed to the students extends only as f~lr as receiving, filing,
and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the opportunity
to hecome collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But in
the last analysis, it is the people themsIves who are filed away
through the lack of creativity, transf()rmation, and knowledge in this
(at hest) misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart fi’om the
praxis, individuals cannot he truly human. Knowledge emergc~s 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.
In the banking coneept of education, knowledge is a gift hestowed
by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom
they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance
ont~ others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates
education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance ahsolute, he justifies his own existence. The
students, alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic, accept
their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence-hut, unlike the
slave, they never discover that they educate the teacher.
The raison d’i2fre of lihertarian education, on the other hand, lies
in its drive towards reconciliation. Education must begin with the
solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the
poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers
and students.
This solution is not (nor can it be) found in the banking concept.
On the contrary, banking education maintains and even stimulates
the contradiction through the following attitudes and practices,
which mirror oppressive society as a whole:
the teacher teaches and the students are taught;
the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;
the teacher talks and the stuaents listen-meekly;
the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students
the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting
through the action of the teacher;
the teacher chooses the program content, and the students
(who were not consulted) adapt to it;
the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or
her own profeSSional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;
the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the
pupils are mere ohjects.
It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards
men as adaptable, manageahle heings. The more students work at
storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the
critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in
the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they
accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply
to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality
deposited in them.
The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the
students’ creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the
interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transf()rmed. The oppressors use their “humanitarianism” to preserve a profitable situation. Thus they react almost
instinctively against any experiment in education which stimulates
the critical faculties and is not content with a partial view of realitv
but always seeks out the ties which link one point to another and
one problem to another.
Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses
them”;l for the more the oppressed can he led to adapt to that
situation, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this
end, the oppressors use the han king concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic social action apparatus, within which
the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of “welfare recipients.”
They are treated as individual cases, as marginal persons who deviate from the general configuration of a “good, organized, and just”
society. The oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthv
society, which must therefore adjust these “incompetent and lazy~’
folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality. These marginals
need to he “integrated,” “incorporated” into the healthv societv that
they have “forsaken.”
The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not “marginals,” are
not people living “outside” society. They have always been
“inside”-inside the structure which made them “beings f()r others.”
The solution is not to “integrate” them into the structure of oppression, but to transf(mn that structure so that they ean become “beings
for themselves.” Such transformation, of course, would undermine
the oppressors’ purposes; hence their utilization of the banking concept of education to avoid the threat of student conscienti;:,ar;iio.
The banking approach to adult education, for example, will never
propose to students that they critically consider reality. It will deal
instead with such vital questions as whether Roger gave green grass
to the goat, and insist upon the importance of learning that, on the
contrary, Roger gave green grass to the rabbit. The “humanism” of
the banking approach masks the effort to turn women and men into
automatons-the very negation of their ontological vocation to be
more fully human.
1. Simone de Beauvoir, La PeTlsee de Droite. Aujord’hui (Paris); 5T, El Pensamiento politico de fa Derecha (Buenos Aires, 1963), p..34.
P ED A C 0 (; Y 0 F THE 0 P PRE SSE
I) •
Those who use the banking approach, knOWingly or unknowingly
(for there are innumerable well-intentioned bank-clerk teachers who
do not realize that they are serving only to dehumanize), fail to
perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about
reality. But, sooner or later, these contradictions may lead fi)rmerly
passive students to turn against their domestication and the attcmpt
to domesticate reality. They may discover through existential experience that their present way of life is irrpconcilable with their vocation to beeome hIlly human. They may perceive through their
relations with reality that reality is really a process, undergoing
constant transformation. If men and women are searchers and their
ontological vocation is humanization, sooner or later they may perceive the contradiction in which banking education seeks to maintain them, and then engage themselves in the stmggle f()r their
iiI }t’ration.
But the humanist, revolutionary educator cannot wait f()r this possibility to materialize. From the outset, her efl()rts must coincide
with those of the students to engage in critical thinking and the
quest for mutual humanization. His efl()rts must he imbued with a
prof(Hmd trust in people and their creative power. To achieve this,
they must be partners of the students in their relations with them.
The banking concept does not admit to such partnership-and
necessarily so. To resolve the teacher-student contradiction, to exchange the role of depositor, prescriber, domesticator, f()r the role
of student among students would be to undermine the power of
oppression and serve the eause of liberation.
Implicit in the banking concept is I.lle assumption of a dichotomy
between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the
world, not with the world or with others; the individual is spectator,
not re-creator. In this view, the person is not a conscious being
(corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits
of reality from the world outside. For example, my desk, my books,
my coffee cup, all the objects before me-as hits of the world which
surround me-would be “inside” me, exactly as I am inside my
E 0 P PRE SSE I) .
study right now. This view makes no distinctioll between being accessible to consciousness and entering consciousness. The distinction, h.owever, is essential: the ohjects which surround nw are simply
accessIble to my consciousI1f’sS, not located within it. I am aware of
them, but they are not inside me.
lt f()llows logically from the banking notion of consciousness that
the educator’s role is to regulate th(‘ way the world “enters into” the
students. The teacher’s task is to organize a process which alreadv
occurs spontaneously, to “fill” the students by making deposits ;f
information which he or she considers to constitute true knowledge. 2.
And since people “receive” the world as passive entities, education
should make them more passive stilL and adapt them to the world.
The educated individual is the adapted person, because she or he
is better “fit” for the world. Translated into practice, this concept is
well suited to the purposes of the oppressors, whose tranquility rests
on how well people fit the world the oppressors have create~l, and
how little they question it.
The more completely the majority adapt to the purposes which
the dominant minority prescribe f()r them (thereby depriving them
of the right to their own purposes), the more easily the minority can
continue to prescribe. The theory and practice of han king edu:ation
serve this end quite efficiently. Verbalistic lessons, reading requirements, 3 the methods for evaluating “knowledge,” the distance between the teacher and the taught, the criteria f()r promotion:
everything in this ready-to-wear approach serves to obviate
The bank-clerk educator does not realize that there is no true
security in his hypertrophied role, that one must seek to live with
others in solidarity. One cannot impose oneself: nor even merely
2. This concept corn’spouds to what Sartn? calls the “digestive” or “nutritive”
conc!?pt of education, in which knowledge is “fed” hv the teacher to tlw students
to ‘:fiIl them out.” S;e Jean-Paul Sartre, “Cne id(>e hl~damcntal(‘ de la ph(>nomenologIC de Husser!: Lintentionalitc,” Situations [(Paris, 1947).
3. For example, some professors specify in their reading lists that a book should
be read from pages 10 to 1.5-and do this to “help” their students!
co-exist with one’s students, Solidarity requires true communication, and the concept by which such an educator is gUided fears and
proscribes communication.
Yet only through communication can human life hold meaning.
The teacher’s thinking is authenticated only by the authenticity of
the students’ thinking. The teacher cannot think for her students,
nor can she impose her thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory
tower isolation, hut only in communication. If it is true that thought
has meaning only when generated by action upon the world, the
suhordination of students to teaehers becomes impossible.
Because ball king education begins with a false understanding of
men and women as objects, it cannot promote the development
of what Fromm calls “biophily,” but instead produces its opposite:
“necrophily. ”
While life is eharactf’rized hy growth in a structured, functional
manner, the npcropliilolls person loves all that does not grow, all
that is mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the
desire to tranSf()f!l1 the organiC into the inorganic, to approach
life mechanicallv, as if all living persons were things. . . . Memory, rather than’ ex[)(‘rience; having, rather than being, is what
CO~llIts. The necrophilous person can relate to an object-a
fiow(‘r or a persoll- only if he possesscs it; hence a threat to his
pOSSt’ssion is a thrpat to himself if he loses possession he loses
contact with tIll’ world…. He loves control, and in the act of
controlling he kills life,l
Oppression-overwhelming control-is necrophilic; it is nourished hy love of death, not life. The banking concept of education,
which serves the interests of oppression, is also necrophilic. Based
on a mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness, it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to
control thinking and action, leads women and men to adjust to the
world, and inhihits their creative power.
4. Fromm, op. cit., p. 41.
When their efforts to act responsibly are frustrated, when they
find themselves unable to use their faculties, people suffer. “This
suffering due to impotence is rooted in the very fact that the human
equilibrium has been disturbed.”5 But the inability to act which
causes people’s anguish also causes them to reject their impotence,
by attempting
… to restore [their] capacity to act. But can [they], and how?
One way is to submit to and identify with a person or group
having power. By this symbolic participation in another person’s
life, [men have] the illusion of acting, when in reality [they] only
submit to and become a part of those who act. 6
Populist manifestations perhaps best exemplify this type of behavior by the oppressed, who, by identifying with charismatic leaders,
come to feel that they themselves are active and effective. The rebellion they express as they emerge in the historical process is motivated by that desire to act effectively. The dominant elites consider
the remedy to be more domination and repression, carried out in
the name of freedom, order, and social peace (that is, the peace of
the elites). Thus they can condemn~logically, from their point of
view-Hthe violence of a strike by workers and [can] call upon the
state in the same breath to use violence in putting down the strike.”7
Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity
of students, with the ideological intent (often not perceived by educators) of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression.
This accusation is not made in the nai’ve hope that the dominant
elites will thereby simply abandon the practice. Its objective is to
call the attention of true humanists to the fact that they cannot use
banking educational methods in the pursuit of liberation, for they
would only negate that very pursuit. Nor maya revolutionary society
inherit these methods from an oppressor society. The revolutionary
society which practices banking education is either misgUided or
,5. Ibid., p. 31.
6. Ibid.
7. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York, 1960), p. 130.
mistrusting of people. In either event, it is threatened by the specter
of reaction.
Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of liberation are
themselves surrounded and influenced by the cli~at~ which ~en~r­
ates the banking concept, and often do not perceIVe Its true stg~~fi­
cance or its dehumanizing power. Paradoxically, then: they utilIze
this same instrument of alienation in what” they consl~.~r an eff~r,:
to liberate. Indeed, some “revolutionaries brand as mnocents”
“d reamers, “ven
or e
, . those who would challenge
educational practice. But one does not liberate peopl~ b~ ahe~atmg
them. Authentic liberation-the process of h~mamza.tlOn-ls ~ot
anothcr deposit to be made in men. Liberation IS a praxl~: the actIOn
of men
an d re fl ec t Ion
‘ and women upon their world
, . m order
I’t . Those trulvJ committed to the cause of hberatIOn can
accept neither the mechanistic concept of consciousness as an.em~ty
vessel to be filled, nor the use of banking methods o~ dommatIOn
(propaganda, slogans-deposits) in the name (~f liberatH:n.,
Those truly committed to liberation must reJec~ the bankmg concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept. of wo~~n and men
as conscl’0 u s bel’ngs’ , and consciousness as conscIOusness
. mtent. upon
the world. They ~ust abandon the educational goal of deposlt-n: ak ing and replace it with the posing of the problen:s (~~ human. bemgs
in their relations with the world. “Problem-posmg educatIOn: responding to the essence of consciousness-intent.iona~ity-reJects
communiques and embodies communication. It epitomIzes the special characteristic of consciousness: being conscious of, not only. as
intent on objects but as turned in upon itself in a Jaspenan
“split”-consciousness as consciousness of consciousness.
Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transf~rrals
of information. It is a learning situation in which the cogmzable
object (far from being the end of the cognitive act) intermediates
the cognitive actors-teacher on the one hand and stude~ts on t~e
other. Accordingly, the practice of problem-posing education entails
at the outset that the teacher-student contradiction to be resolved.
Dialogical relations-indispensable to the capacity of eognitive
actors to cooperate in perceiving the same cognizable object-are
otherwise impossible.
Indeed, problem-posing education, which breaks with the vertical
patterns characteristic of banking education, can fulfill its fimction
as the practice of freedom only if it can overcome the above contradiction, Through dialogue, the teacher-of:’the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacherstudent with students-teachers, The teacher is no longer merelv
the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with
the students, who in turn while being taught also teach, Thev become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. 1~ this
process, arguments based on Hauthority” are no longer valid; in order
to function, authority must be On the side of freedom, not against
it. Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. People
teach each other, mediated by the world, by the cognizable objects
which in banking education are Howned” by the teacher.
The banking concept (with its tendencv to dichotomize evervthing) distinguishes two stages in the actio~ of the educator, Duri~g
the first, he cognizes a cognizable object while he prepares his lessons in his study or his laboratory; during the second he expounds
to his students about that object. The students are not called upon
to know, but to memorize the contents narrated bv the teacher, Nor
do the students practice any act of cognition, si~ce the object towards which that act should he directed is the property of the
teacher rather than a medium evoking the critical reflection of both
teacher and students, Hence in the name of the “preservation of
culture and knowledge” we have a system which achieves neither
true knowledge nor true culture.
The problem-posing method does not dichotomize the activity of
the teacher-student: she is not “cognitive” at one point and “narrative” at another. She is always “cognitive,” whether preparing a project or engaging in dialogue with the students. He does not regard
cognizable objects as his private property, but as the object of reflection by himself and the students, In this way, the problem-posing
educator constantly re-fi)rms his reflections in the reflection of the

stllJ en ts ‘ The students~no longer docile listeners~are now critical
, mve
. ‘stl’gators in dialogue with the teacher. The teacher presents
t he material to the students for their consideration, and, re-COIlSI ers
her earlier considerations as the students express their ow~, The
role of the problem-posing educator is to create; together With, the
studeIlts, the conditions under which knowledge at the level of the
;’oxa is superseded by true knowledge, at the level ~f tl,w, logos, .
Wllcreas banking education anesthetizes and lllhlbits ~~~eahV(~,
)ower, problem-pOSing educatioll involves a constant ‘,H1veIlm g of
~'(‘alitv, The (onner attempts to maintain the s1lbmcrsum of COII”
tl Ie- I·a ttCl’
of conSCIOllsness and
• • f(Jr the emergence
nil iml
intervention ill reality,
Stlldents, as they are increaSingly posed with proble~ns rel~tlllg
. the
to I I I(‘lIlse Ives I
, ”lnd with the.
, will fed 1l1creasmgly
dmlkllgcd and obliged to respolld to that challenge, 13ecaus~> tlw~
apprehend the challenge as iIltcrrelate~1 to other pn~hlcl~IS V1~1,1Il~ ‘~
tolal context, not as a theoretical questIOn, the resllltlllg comp1(l~tJl
sioll tellds to be increaSingly critical and thus COllstalltly jess alH’llated, Tlwir response to the challenge evokes lleW challenges,
/’ollowed bv lIew understandings; and gradually tht’ students COllie
to regard tllemseIves as committed,
E(lucatioll as the practice of freedom-as opposed to efceptllally then;, in the “field of intuition”; but whilst
I was turned towards the paper then’ was no tumina ill their
direction, lIor any apprehending of them. not even in ~ secondary SE’llSE’. They appeared and yet were not singled out, were
not posited on their OWIl aCCOllnt. Every perception of a thing
has sHe.h a zone of background intuitions or background awarellPSS, if “intuiting” already includes the statt’ of being tumed
towards, and this also is a “conscious experience”, or man’ briefly
9. St’e chapter 3.-Translator’s note,
a “conscionsness of’
indeed that in point of fact lies in the
co-perceived objective hackground. 10
That which had existed objectively hut had not been perceived in
its deeper implications (if indeed it was perceived at all) hegins to
“stand out,” assuming the character of a problem and therefore of
chalpnge. Thus, men and women begin to single out elements from
their “background awareness” and to reflect upon them. These eleHwnts are now objects of their consideration, and, as such, ohjects
of their action and cognition.
In prohlem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with u;hich and in
lDhich they find themselves; they come to sec the world not as a
static reality, hut as a reality in process, in transformation, Althongh
the dialectical relations of women and men with the world exist
indept’nclently of how these relations are perceived (or whether. or
not they are perceived at all), it is also true that the form of actIon
they adopt is to a large extent a function of how they perceive themst’ in the world. Hence, the teacher-student and the studentsteachers reHeet simultaneously on themselV(‘s and the world without
diehotomizing this reHection from action, and thus estahlish an authentic f()rm of thought and action.
Once again, the two educational concepts and practices under
analvsis eome into conHict. Bankin~ education (f()r obvious reasons)
atte;npts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain filcts which explain the way human beings exist in tht’ world; problem-posing education sets itself the task of demythol()~izing. Banking education
resists dialogue; prohlem-posing education re!!,ards dialogue as indispensahlt, to the act of cognition which unveils reality. Banking
education treats students as ohjects of assistance; problem-posing
pducation makes them critical thinkers. Bankill~ education inhibits
creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy)
the inte~tionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from
10. Edmund Husser!’ Ideas-General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology
(London, 1969), pp. 105-106.
84 – P AU
the world, thereby denying people their ontological and historical
vocation of becoming more fully human. Problem-posing education
bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action
upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of persons as beings
who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation. In sum: banking theory and practice, as immobilizing
and fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men and women as historical
beings; problem-posing theory and practice take the people’s historicity as their starting point.
Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings in
the process of becoming-as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and
with a likewise unfinished reality. Indeed, in contrast to other animals who are unfinished, but not historical, people know themselves
to be unfinished; they are aware of their incompletion. In this incompletion and this awareness lie the very roots of education as an
exclUSively human manifestation. The unfinished character of human beings and the transformational character of reality necessitate
that education be an ongoing activity.
Education is thus constantly remade in the praxis. In order to be,
it must hecome. Its “duration” (in the Bergsonian meaning of the
word) is fi:mnd in the interplay of the opposites permanence and
change. The banking method emphasizes permanence and becomes
reactionary; problem-posing education-which accepts neither a
“well-behaved” present nor a predetermined future-roots itself in
the dynamic present and becomes revolutionary.
Problem-posing education is revolutionary futurity. Hence it is
prophetic (and, as such, hopeful). Hence, it corresponds to the historical nature of humankind. Hence, it affirms women and men as
beings who transcend themselves, who move fi>rward and look
ahead, for whom immobility represents a fatal threat, for whom
looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more
clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build
the future. Hence, it identifies with the movement which engages
people as beings aware of their incompletion-an historical movement which has its point of departure, its Subjects and its objective.
The point of departure of the movement lies in the people them’ But since people do not exist apart from the world,d apart
se Ives.
from reality, the movement must begin with the human-worl re. a. nship. Accordingly, the point of departure must always be WIth
” h h
men a nd women in the “here~ and now, w ic constI utes e Sl uation within which they are submerged, from which ~he~ em.erge,
and in which they intervene. Only by starting from thIS sltuahonwhich determines their perception of it-can they begin to move.
‘Ii> do this authentically they must perceive their state not a’i f~ted
and unalterable, but merely as limiting-and therefore challengmg.
Whereas the banking method directly or indirectly reinforces
men’s fatalistic perception of their situation, the problem-posing
method presents this very situation to them as a problem. As the
situation becomes the object of their cognition, the naIve or
perception which produced their fatalism gives way to perceptIon
which is able to perceive itself even as it perceives reality, and can
thus be critically objective about that reality.
A deepened consciousness of their situation leads people to apprehend that situation as an historical reality susceptible of transformation. Resignation gives way to the drive for transfi)rmation and
inquiry, over which men feel themselves to be in control. If people,
a’i historical beings necessarily engaged with other people in a movement of inquiry, did not control that movement, it would be (and
is) a violation of their humanity. Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is
one of violence. The means used are not important; to alienate
human beings from their own decision-making is to change them
into objects.
This movement of inquiry must be directed towards humanization-the people’s historical vocation. The pursuit of full humanity,
however cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but
only in fellowship and solidarity; therefore it cannot unfold in the
antagonistic relations between oppressors and oppressed. No one
can be authentically human while he prevents others from being so.
Attempting to be nwre human, individualistically, leads to having
more, egotistically, a form of dehumanization. Not that it is not
fundamental to have in order to be human. Precisely because it is
necessary, some men’s having must not he allowed to constitute an
obstacle to others’ having, must not consolidate the po’ier of the
former to crush the latter.
Prohlem-posing education, as a humanist and liberating praxis,
posits as fundamental that the people subjected to domination must
fight for their emancipation. To that end, it enahles teachers and
students to hecome Suhjects of the educational process hy oven’oming authoritarianism and an alienating intellectualism; it also enahles
people to overcome their fitlse perception of reality. The world-no
longer something to be described with deceptive words-hecomes
the object of that transfi)rming action by men and women which
results in their humanization.
Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests
of the oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed
to begin to question: Why? While only a revolutionary society can
carry out this education in systematic terms, the revolutionary leaders need not take fnll power befi)re they can employ the method. In
the revolutionary process, the leaders cannot utilize the han king
method as an interim measure, justified on grounds of expediency,
with the intention of later behaving in a genUinely revolutionary
fashion. They must be revolutionary-that is to say, dialogical-from
the outset.
s we atte. mpt to an.alyze. dial:)gu~ as a human ~heno~en~n,
we discover something whIch IS the essence of dialogue
itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instr~l­
ment which makes dialoguc possible; accordingly, we must seek Its
constitutive elements. Within the word we find two. dimen.sions,
re8ection and action, in such radical interaction that If one IS. sacrificed-even in part-the other immediately sufTers. There IS no
true word that is not at the same time a praxis. 1 Thus, to speak a
true word is to transform the world. 2
An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality,
results when dichotomy is imposed upon its constitutive elements.
When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, re8ection automatically suffers a’i well; and the word is change~ into”idle chatter,
into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating blah. It
an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denuncI~­
tion is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there IS
no transformation without action.
1. Action
} word=work=praxis
Sacrifice of action verbalism
Sacrifice of reflection = activism
2. Some of these reflections emerged as a result of conversations with Professor
Ernani Maria Fiori.
Essay Prompt