Critical Pedagogy and Literacy in Rural Areas of Brazil

Dr Marcia Moraes

Historically, knowledge has been equated with certainty - universal bodies of immutable laws which individuals seek in order to know. Knowledge is still widely conceived in terms of facts, free from contextual and social limits, and as always being scientifically and technically achieved. With respect to this perception of a universal knowledge, Gramsci emphasized that "the 'certain' becomes 'true' in the child's consciousness".¹ The child's consciousness, however, "is not something 'individual' (still less individuated)". Rather, "it reflects the sector of civil society in which the child participates, and the social relations which are formed within his/her family, his/her neighborhood, his/her village, etc.".² The problem is that schools have perpetuated the idea that there is only one knowledge and students are bodies with empty minds.

According to bell hooks, "there is a serious crisis in education. Students often do not want to learn and teachers do not want to teach".³ hooks's words capture what is going on in schools in many parts of the world. Even so, this leaves out of the picture the importance of learning as teacher and teaching as student. In other words, the institutional organization of schools has not and does not consider what I believe to be crucial for developing education: namely, an exchange of knowledges. This is crucial for developing an education within critical and multicultural perspectives.

It is worth noting that we are experiencing a kind of education that pursues its essential goal of reproduction within pseudo-new perspectives. In earlier times, advocates of the traditional school defended the position that knowledge should be obtained through academic pain and punishment. Yet, in reality, the school under a pseudo-progressive discourse invokes the same kind of punishment and academic pain in new garb. Through the medium of beautiful textbooks filled with many colors, for instance, methods of evaluation and processes of academic achievement remain exactly the same as they were within a traditional perspective of schooling. In Brazil, for instance, national curriculum which was mandated during the military dictatorship (Educational Reform of 1971) continues to exist. Unfortunately, for the great majority of Brazilian teachers, education is still viewed as separate from larger social forces, values, power, and politics. This view is a precise consequence of those silent military years.

Since 1992, one of my projects at Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro-UERJ [Rio de Janeiro State University] has been to meet elementary school teachers in rural areas of Rio de Janeiro State and work with them around the focus of language learning/teaching. Being obliged to name this kind of encounter as a course for teachers, I decided on "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" as an appropriate name. Some readers may find this title all too "common" and, even, hackneyed. I must confess I did not really consider anything else because, knowing the educational settings of these rural areas, I realized critical pedagogy was the only way to change something; to make a difference.

These teachers work with children across different grade levels in the same classroom. Many of these students work on farms before or after school hours and come from impoverished socio-economic backgrounds. Many children go to school without shoes. The marks of their hard work on farms are evident in their small rough hands. In some schools, there is only one teacher who, beyond her role of teacher, serves also as principal of the school. Textbooks are not chosen by teachers but, rather, by secretaries of education. Textbooks are sent to public schools (elementary and middle school) because, according to the federal law of education, children's instruction is a governmental responsibility. This view of education is not confined exclusively belong to rural areas, but extends also to many urban areas of the country.

"Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" has the following objectives: to explore and discuss the role of critical theory as developed by theorists of the Bakhtin circle and Paulo Freire: 1) in relation to schooling and language learning; 2) in relation to epistemological perspectives within the process of creating knowledge and understanding semiotic values of ideology; and 3) in relation to the political and social project of possibility and hope for emancipatory democracy. Let me try to elucidate the ways in which the theoretical perspectives of the Bakhtin circle and Paulo Freire have been appropriated with a view to enhancing teacher and student empowerment in rural areas of Rio de Janeiro State.

The work developed in "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" establishes a form of support in which conditions are created to promote a critical dialogue among teachers. This critical dialogue involves discussions about the teaching of language and the relationship between school and society. The work is developed through meetings in which social aspects of daily life are discussed: such as the implicit messages of various media; the hidden curriculum; and the ways in which ideologies become inculcated in individuals' minds. These discussions are sustained through diverse meetings with teachers over two days each month. Typically, two years are spent in each rural area.

For this population, the Bakhtin circle's philosophy and Freire's critical pedagogy have been crucial in developing an analysis of their social situations, directed toward their own social transformation and emancipation. With this in mind, let me mention some considerations which have been part of my work in Brazil.

It is important to describe briefly three major stages of this work with teachers. First, there is a stage for constructing relations of trust. It is not easy because teachers are generally suspicious of an "alien" whom they believe is there simply to tell them how they must work. The second stage comprises a process of discussion in which teachers are invited to share with our group what they understand about school, teaching, learning, and education. This is an especially interesting stage. Teachers begin to air their frustrations. Many of them start weeping as they inevitably share their feelings of impotency. In the third stage members of the group discuss the teaching of language, grammatical rules and nomenclatures because, in Brazil, large numbers of teachers still believe that grammatical rules are the most efficient means for teaching language. Brazilian schools for the most part insist on memorizing grammatical nomenclatures.

Peter McLaren and Colin Lankshear identify an important element of a broader understanding of critical literacy when they claim that teachers must be aware that everyday structured routines have the power of marginalizing and blockading individuals' possibilities. They add that

to teach and practice critical literacy in this sense involves employing texts and the capacity to read, write and discuss in a context where teachers are consciously striving to engender a sociological imagination... It presumes that ideological representations of reality will typically mask and distort the "real" nature of social practices and relations in their informal and institutionalized forms alike.⁴

Critical pedagogy questions the construction of truth as it is enacted in schools. Hence, through the development of this project I could experience teachers becoming aware that they can question existing social circumstances as well as the kind of knowledge perpetuated in schools.

Using Freire's epistemological assumptions, teachers have the opportunity to perceive why education is politics. Drawing on Freire's work and the thought of the Bakhtin circle, teachers can recognize that they are not guardians of knowledge. This is the most powerful outcome of teachers in rural areas engaging in dialogue with the theories of Freire and the Bakhtin circle. Building on this perception, teachers' work becomes focused on an educational vision through dialogue with students. These teachers become capable of changing their ways of teaching, without recourse either to using teaching "recipes" or to following textbooks.

The main underlying premise of this work is that through discussion and analysis of Freirean and Bakhtinian philosophy, critical reflection by teachers and students towards a collective construction of transformative knowledge is possible by fostering emancipatory social practices within communities. Such critical reflection comprises an analysis of the ways we use language within processes of constructing the social and political legitimation of all voices, histories, and social locations. On the basis of this experience I can affirm the potency of the framework provided by these theories for teachers and educational change.

Paulo Freire's writings and work have, of course, influenced other critical theories - such as critical pedagogy, literacy approaches, and the like. Yet many educators in Brazil continue to wonder what relevance and application Freire's philosophy has for schooling today. How can his emancipatory theories influence the ways in which knowledge is created in classrooms? In what ways does Freire's philosophy challenge the knowledge and structures of schools within the apparatus of the dominant culture?

Paulo Freire's philosophy is fundamental because the process of learning he advocates takes into account students' experiences with the world, as well as emphasising the process of learning-teaching as a social and political activity. The role language plays within the construction of people's lives is an especially urgent topic for Freire. Within the teaching-learning process, students and teachers need to perceive that language is more than simply a vehicle of communication within society. The sense that language serves to shape, oppress, help, destroy, deform, construct, teach, and so forth is fundamental. Therefore, the main contribution of Freire's work within the development of "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" consists in the idea that to become literate is not a process that occurs in isolation from social struggles. Teachers of rural areas realize, despite their condition of isolation, that they cannot stop struggling toward their own emancipation.

Peter McLaren remarks that:

for Freire, speech and language always exist within a social context which, in turn, becomes the critical referent for the transformative possibilities of his work. This social context-which exists for Freire both in and between language and the social order-comprises the social relations obtaining among the material conditions of oppression, the exigencies of daily life, critical consciousness, and social transformation.⁵

Freire's understanding that students have the right to acquire hegemonic knowledge, since this knowledge represents an instrument of their own emancipation toward a re-creation of the world, is highly relevant within a critical approach to teaching. On the other hand, as Freire points out, teachers cannot deny students' own knowledges and ways of using language, because these differences constitute their rights of being and becoming. Teachers cannot stigmatize students’ language, keeping that language as a mark of their incapacity. According to Freire, students need to understand that their language is not inferior. Once they have access to the hegemonic knowledge/language, however, they can attain the necessary instruments by which to transform and re-invent the world. For this reason, my attention is turned to working with teachers toward a more meaningful way of teaching language without considering grammatical rules and nomenclatures as central aspects of written text production.

The theories addressed by Freire and the Bakhtin circle are crucial for teachers' work, especially since by drawing on these theories teachers come to understand the ways in which dialogue and dialogized existence permeate language and the formations of social identities. From this perspective, we discuss the interpenetrations of language within ourselves. It is interesting to observe how teachers are surprised when they become consciously aware that a baby does not know if he or she is a boy or a girl. They realize that language is necessary to name who we are and to construct ourselves. They notice that a biological existence only becomes a social existence through the lenses of language.

With respect to language, it is widely recognised nowadays that the theories of the Bakhtin circle represent a huge challenge to structuralist conceptions of language advocated by linguists such as Noam Chomsky and Ferdinand de Saussure. To work from these structuralist conceptions is to study language within an analysis of isolated aspects without considering contextual social aspects in which language exists. In this way, a sign is considered unchangeable and immutable. On the other hand, the Bakhtinian notion of language is one in which the ideological presence and social manifestations are strongly considered. From this perspective, Voloshinov emphasizes the point that any sign "is a material embodiment of ideology and, therefore, belongs to social existence".⁶

Moreover, from the standpoint of the theory of the Bakhtin circle, language is seen as a totality integrated within human life. We do not have dialogue between parts but, rather, dialogue among the totality, among the whole. On this basis teachers begin to observe critically that understanding language outside a concrete social situation is impossible, since an individual is not a biological abstract being but, rather, is historical and social. From this standpoint, an utterance belongs to a universe of relations which are different from merely linguistic abstract relations. Consequently, during our meetings, I continually highlight the insight that meaning is produced in a context that is entirely social. As Voloshinov remarks, "meaning belongs to a word according to its position between speakers. Meaning is the effect of interaction between speaker and listener".⁷ From this perspective, teachers realize that the intention of a word does not belong to a speaker who thinks s/he is the unique owner of that word. Instead, the intention belongs to a listener (another speaker) who will consider that intention according to his or her contextual experiences. The intention will reach into another territory of comprehension (listener) and take a form which may be not equivalent to the intention of the speaker. This perspective assumes an increasingly problematic dimension when it is moved to the teaching-learning process because, at this point, teachers perceive they cannot guarantee that students will understand any kind of formal instruction in a specific and unique way.

In the development of "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms," my work is directed to a broader understanding that the dialogic linguistic exchange - in which occur dynamic interrelations among people's consciousness - cannot exist outside people's particular social contexts and historical locations. Teachers need also to understand that dialogic linguistic exchange does not exist outside interpenetrating relationships with another's reactions or another's word.

The teachers begin to discover ways of teaching in a more critical vein, despite the miserable conditions they have, and realize that one can have excellent conditions and materials, yet still do empty work. Furthermore, they begin to develop feelings of self-confidence as they enter into critical dialogue with each other by identifying structures of oppression that constrain their struggle for freedom and that of their students, including their miserable working conditions. They start to recognize that we do not exist without the other - we cannot even see our faces while we are talking to someone - and that language is powerful within the construction of our everyday actions; feelings; and perceptions of the world. Teachers face the impact of a literacy that is critical; a literacy of knowing themselves. For instance, two weeks after our third meeting, when we had discussed women's role in society, one of the teachers said:

Marcia, I did not know that I was so naive and that I've been used as an object-woman by my husband and even by my children. It is interesting that now I can see things I did not see before. I cannot watch TV as I always did. For the first time in my life I could talk to my husband about my frustrations, about our horrible sexual life and, God, I could see that my girls (her female students) are growing exactly like me!

"Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" has a major goal of transforming teachers' self-reflexivity in a way that they become able to challenge epistemological assumptions in their ways of teaching. They can challenge the existing social discourses when they become questioners of their own existence as individuals. As Lawrence Grossberg points out, "experience itself is constructed in relations of power and, consequently, the more obvious experiences are, the more they must be seen as ideological".⁸

My endeavour with "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" has been directed toward explaining why a critical understanding of the world requires a broader comprehension of the existing power relations in which individuals exist. From a critical standpoint, students are viewed as social and cultural agents imbued with histories of meanings and practices. Given this, the critical educator begins with the perceived problems of students in their current cultural and social contexts as well as points of contact between people of differing cultural perspectives and backgrounds. From here, teachers comprehend that knowledge is reconstructed in the (re)articulation of students. Students can only perceive themselves as active participants in the process of transforming social conditions when their history, their feelings, their social perceptions, their reflections, and their knowledges are considered relevant within the context of their everyday lives in schools. In our work we discuss Freire's ideas conveyed in his remark that

in the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing... 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.⁹

On the other hand, an understanding that language, as well as existence, is forged in dialogic inter-relations is fundamental. In this sense, the Bakhtin circle offers a perspective that otherness and language are entirely connected, existing as vital aspects within social relationships. As Bakhtin points out, "language lives only in the dialogic interaction of those who make use of it. Dialogic interaction is indeed the authentic sphere where language lives".¹⁰

One of the most relevant aspects regarding the development of "Critical Pedagogy in Classrooms" is discussion about text. Addressing such questions as "What is the meaning of a text?", and "What is a text?", constitute an important step toward a critical understanding of teaching and learning processes. At this point, my work with teachers is focused on a perception that text is not simply what is written, but is also each experience linked to the idea that we cannot perceive/experience anything without using language.

From discussions about text and meaning, teachers also become aware that textual analysis does not have to be attached to (text)books. On the contrary, they realize that newspapers, magazines, lyrics of music, propaganda on TV, and so forth are texts that are available in our society and, for this reason, must be critically analysed.

In postmodern times, theories of the construction of identities, power relations, deconstruction of human structures and discourses, subjectivity, meaning, and representation, among other aspects, make up a large part of contemporary critical theories. Self reflection and critical reflection on the part of teacher and student, in conjunction with collective reflection, provides ground upon which a transformative knowledge can be constructed. Knowledge must be viewed not as a limit, but as a means of questioning, imagining, and formulating alternative social realities. Therefore, we must keep in mind that "difference is not threatening but necessary to a social imagination that extends the meanings of human capacity and freedom".¹¹

The development of this work in rural areas of Rio de Janeiro State, has prompted many changes, including a thoroughgoing review of curriculum planning and methods of literacy pedagogy. The results also include myriad changes in curriculum development, as well as in pedagogical praxis. For instance, teachers have abandoned textbooks and, instead, have been working with diverse texts with their students. A further difference is that students have begun to write much more than previously: for two main reasons. First, they are encouraged to discuss issues with which they can identify. Second, grammatical correctness is no longer the main aspect of their text production. Questions such as "Why should we have our own piece of land?" arise readily within classroom discussions. Teachers and students alike have begun to do what is most difficult: to read the implicit messages within the text and apply these messages to their own social contexts.

Schools cannot decree values. Instead, they must bring, for each student, elements and opportunities through a permanent, open, and critical dialogue. In doing so, the students will be able to decide the criteria of their actions in society. However, to reach that point, both teachers and students must be engaged in an endless process of critical literacy.

Teachers of Natividade e Porciuncula have begun constructing their critical view of the world, but many other cities still await us.

Endnotes

1. Antonio Gramsci, Selected Witings: 1916-1935, New York: Schocken, 1988, p. 313.

2. Ibid., p. 313.

3. bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, New Yok and London: Routledge, 1994, p. 12.

4. Colin Lankshear and Peter McLaren (eds), Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis and the Postmodern, Albany, NY.: SUNY Press, 1993, p. 30-31.

5. Peter McLaren, "Postmodernism and the death of politics," in Peter McLaren and Colin Lankshear (eds.), Politics of Liberation: Paths from Freire, London and New York: Routledge, 1994, p. 119.

6. Marcia Moraes, Bilingual Education: A Dialogue with the Bakhtin Circle, Albany, NY.: SUNY Press, 1996, p. 38.

7. V. Voloshinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik, Trans.), New York and London, 1973, p. 102.

8. Lawrence Grossberg, "The space of culture, the power of space", in Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti (eds), The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, London and New York, 1996, p. 171.

9. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New Yok: Continuum, 1990, p. 59.

10. Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Caryl Emerson, Trans), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, p. 183.

11. Moraes, Bilingual Education, p. 11.