Dear Daugherty,

Regarding the last part of your questions, I can provide you an example. Every year Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) publishes research-based report in which they focus on strengths as well as weakness of the government. However, government always try to say that the findings are not correct enough and opposition says that TIB is right. Interestingly, when opposition is on the power, they did the same as like as the previous government did. I think research findings are being politicized enough in various ways and the mentioned one is just an example.

Regards,

Goutam

Timely questions, especially in the United States, where research is used to forward the political-educational agenda of whatever party happens to retain power.  While I realize the role government has played in mandating that education exists for the population, and that is a good thing, but the issue I have with the current agenda is the sense that what is being taught is controlled to a large extent by the government under the auspices of the Education Department.  Hence we have moved from the 'A nation at risk' study to NCLB, and now to the common core, which is finding mixed support among educators.  Neither of the latter iterations have moved the responsibility of education from the teacher to the student, and so educators are under the gun (so to speak) to produce test-worthy outcomes.  It is to the point that new teachers have a very short professional lifespan, many opting out because of the wrongheadedness of government control.  In the last few years, the government has taken a narrow interpretation of research to take a small segment of the education community to task, without extending salient measure to all sectors in the system.  It is a convenient way to manage a message, and one has every reason to concede that political posturing will continue to work as the creator of social meaning, particularly as schools continue to fail. 

Note as well that Freire promoted learning as a benefit to the community. Education research has become a backdrop to the proposed changes and budget development toward the perpetuity of maintaining and enhancing the learning environments of students, especially in a global competitive world; i.e., broadening the impact on society.

Thank you Juanita,

I am in full agreement that as part of Freire's educational vison community was a part but from my perspective I think I would contend he was much more about issues comming out of Marxist thought. Issues reguarding education as a dehumanizing act or a humanizing act, human alienation through the factory system, arguing that to be human is to be critical and having a critical consciousness, democracy, socialism (not Stalinism or Lennonism), emancipation, and expanding the defination of literacy.

But he also was blind to some social issues such a patriarchy and LGBTQIAA issues. But in the end I have nine books written by hima andI would recomend two besides his Pedagogy of the Oppresed andd those are Letters To Cristina Reflections of my Lifes Work (1996) and Education for a Critical Consciousness (2013).

Againg I thank you Juanita

Douglas 

While not disagreeing with Douglas re: Freire's lack of attention to LGBTQIAA issues , I point out that PF died in 1997, somewhat before LGBT issues became as much of a generalized political and socio-cultural conversation in the academic community as it is today, albeit there were expressions of solidarity and petitions for inclusion, as there should have been, etc.  As in all categories of difference, I read Freire to push through to cultural and personal awareness about one's social reality.  Therefore, if he were to have commented, I believe he would have remarked at the need for political agency overall for individuals and for all concerned on both sides of the debate, as a whole -- recall his stance on the oppressed liberating the oppressor as an educative process.   I recall as well that Freire was a product, in some certain senses, of Catholic Action (circa 1950s) which surely founded his thinking towards oppression and marginalization.  Thereafter, though he did not, as far as I recall (though I reserve the right to be incorrect), claim a theo-philosophical tie in with liberation theology (LT) (see: Juan Luis Segundo and Gustavo Gutierrez), which was active in Latin America from 1970 or so onwards, there is a consistency of intent between PF and LT in terms of outcomes that is interesting and which implicitly ties the intents of Catholic Action, PF and LT.  Despite my intransigence at aligning Freire with liberation theology, I have no such problem aligning liberation theology with Freire, as his methodologies are inherent to liberation.

Yes, in view of the political influence on education research, you have chosen to begin this conversation with one that is controversial. But he is one worthy of our focus. Freire offered foundational material for us to consider as researchers look at the education systems and the regulations that govern them.

As to your thoughts, I will leave those to you. I just have not gotten that far in dissecting and analyzing where and what he may be in today's culture.

 Juanita and Jon,

I thankwhatthat the human condition is not a static position it is either in motion toward becoming a more fully human or is moving toward dehumanization? In other words the human condition is moving toward alienation, namely alienated from self, or moving to completeness.If this is true that the human condition is always in motion what are the implactions to social science researchers? May Iask for your thoughts? 

Thank you again,

Douglas

Agreed, Douglas.  Stasis does not exist in the human condition.  I agree also that the human condition is either evolving positively or devolving towards anomie.  That is the importance of Freire, Illich, Kozol, McClaren, Giroux, et al.  They name deficienies and propose alternatives, but always with respect for an agency of the self that is uplifting for the individual against the constraints of extractive economic and political systemics.  Interestingly, in the US, we rail against the communist regimes, which are an abomination of Marx at best, and turn a blind eye towards the oligarchical forces here in our country which are the epitome of an extractive force.  These dynamics have worked to reduce social programs, such as food stamps for example, although many other examples exist, co-opted education through curriculum and process dynamics, and have forced the continued enactment of Ricardo's iron law of wages such that we are quickly -- quickly -- moving towards a two class system.  You mentioned LGBTQIAA issues as in relation to Freire.  Categories of difference should really be a non issue in a pluralistic society that purports to forward equality as a foundational assumption.  I fear those that use differences among people to prevent their knowledge of, and involvement in important issues.  The trend by politicos of adopting and forwarding social issues within a political platform for example, is a means to use these issues as a blunt force attack blurring the consequences of an underlying agenda which is largely economic in nature.  This is devastating to the voting class that they continue to attempt to sway with talking points rather than substantive debate.  

Hello Jon,

Sorry for the typing last night!

You bring up an interesting topic that being difference. I use the interesting because for me (and I don't thnik I am alone) usually when I see or hear something new, out of the ordinary, or a new smell my first reaction is curiosity and a "I wounder what's that" and off to explore I go. This reaction of course is not 100% of the time because if I see a new snake (I hate and fear them) its flight time but I think you get were I am goind. Difference it seams over the course of humam history has ( I mentioned with snakes) become something to fear on the one hand and on the other exploited. We see this both of these dynamics (or maybee a conflation of them) in our politics today. For example, in the history of our politics I think it is safe to say has changed, In the earlier years politics campains were not fear based they were dirty using slanderd, ridiculed, lied, ect...the  ( see Jefferson campaign's) but they weren't attempting to to instill a fear among the citizenary with one glaring exception the the Lincoln, Douglas "debates".

Today's political discourse is much different and fear seems to be front and center. I grant the fact that the politics of fear has been around for awhile but it was always a wisper in the backround, then a surrogate begin to increas the volume, now its front and center. This type of discourse is certainly not limited to U.S political history, examples are crime, homosexuality, Godlesness, economics, race,and as you brought up liberation theology and how this issue was used. to name a few but what I am getting at is where is this coming from? Yes it is used of course as a way of maintaining power but that cannot be all. The power issue is granted, no arguement but like all things it is not as simplistic as that.especially looking at the mezzo and mico level of society.

I would like to get some thoughts please.

I know of one saying thay just may be true, "No change will occur until the pain of remaining the same is more than the pain of changing".

Couriously,

Douglas.

  .  

You shared your PhD topic by writing "Pedagogy of Pain, White men Healing From Whiteness, A critical look into the Social Psychology of Whiteness"

"Privilege is their loss" and "unlearning" from  Gayatri Spivak might interest you.

Dear Mahmut,

Have the book and you are correct.

Thank you

Douglas