Community Consciousness Raising through Critical Pedagogies
What can help bring about change in our community?
If I learnt anything from my Human Rights Maters, it is that human rights education has the power to equip people, and communities, to make rights-based changes a reality in the world around them.
And what better place for human rights education than the education system itself?
But how?
Say hello to the art of ‘community consciousness raising’.
Come with me and let’s explore the use of critical pedagogies to raise community consciousness and in turn raise awareness of human rights.
First, we will look at a description of community consciousness raising and critical pedagogy and examine why such frameworks are required for the advancement of human rights.
Next, we will look at some Freirean concepts including critical pedagogy, praxis, dialogue and conscientisation, and explain how they are effective methods of community consciousness raising.
We will then cover examples of dialogue based critical pedagogies, before wrapping up with a description of the need for a wider, whole of system, approach to critical education. This whole of system approach will be explored, with attention given to the benefits and challenges that might be involved.
Strap in though … we’re going into the weeds here for a bit.
Consciousness Raising and Pedagogy
Consciousness raising, according to La Belle, is “a group pedagogy, usually instigated by a facilitator, that seeks to promote horizontal and reciprocal relationships for participants” (1987, pg. 201). Le Belle identifies that this is achieved through “dialogue intended to lead to mutual learning about the participant’s social reality” (187, pg. 201). Community consciousness isn’t some kind of fixed curriculum - but is instead a pedagogical concept. Pedagogies are described by Hattam, Atkinson and Bishop as the bringing together of theory, practice, art and science through “knowledge (re)production that enables us to live in the world and maintain our relationships with others” (2012, pg. 5). Further defining pedagogies, Cashman defines them as “teaching and theories and debates related to teaching and learning, including analysis of the purpose of education, the nature of childhood and learning, and how knowledge is developed” (2016, pg. 31).
What I want to look at here is how pedagogies aimed at raising the consciousness of participants and societies through dialogical learning have the potential to address the three obligations set out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UNDHRET) - Education about, through and for human rights (UN General Assembly).
Critical Pedagogy
A pedagogy moves towards being ‘critical’ in nature when an educator progresses beyond taking an apolitical stance on education and embraces the idea that education is related to the future that we hope which should offer a life that leads to the deepening of freedom and social justice (Giroux, 2010). It is a method of knowledge (re)production that is “underpinned by critical theory and the belief that change is possible through conscientisation and promoting a desire to take transformative action” (Matthews, 2013, pg. 601). Critical pedagogy recognises itself not as neutral, but as political in nature (Gounari, 2013) – aren’t all things? It that has the potential to assist people, especially students, to “question the status quo and to make demands that support their full development as human beings, including the right to live free of hunger, racism, patriarchy and other antagonisms, and to act in the world always with dignity.” (Monzo & McLaren, 2014, pg. 515).
Why Community Consciosusness Raising?
So why might such community consciousness raising efforts might be required? In discussing the use of critical pedagogy in relation to social activism, Ollis suggests that “there is a resurgence of concern about ‘the other’ based on race, religion, and cultural difference” (2012, pg.1). Consider this - while 2001 to 2010 was labelled as the ‘Decade of Peace’ by the United Nations, that decade was as bloody as it was violent, evidenced through numerous and varied conflicts and human rights violations globally (Gounari, 2010). As we’ve seen over the last few years, this seems to have been reflected in a call for a return to ‘basic’ and simpler times, where ‘common sense’ is seen as more valuable than what some say is the burden or political correctness or equality/inclusion (Hattam, et al., 2012). Some argue that the human rights rhetoric traditionally associated with Western governments has presented complicated global issues in simplified black and white terms. This has resulted in a paradigm where ‘evil’ states are identified as anti-democratic and authoritarian, requiring Western states to play the role of the saviour in rescuing victims of human rights abuses at the hands of these ‘savage’ states and state actors (Matua, 2011).
I feel that these global events evidence the need of a system of conscientisation, a Freirean conceptual framework which “intersects the psychological-political-theological-social milieu in the awakening of critical awareness” (Kirylo, 2013, pg. 51). These events call for the role that conscientisation has in providing “capability for active participation in local social and economic trajectories that are not influenced by socially privileged information” (Glassman & Patton, 2014, pg. 1359). Freire states the conscientisation implies “overcoming ‘false consciousness’, overcoming, that is, as semi-intransitive or naïve transitive state of consciousness”, and that it is a “critical intersection of the conscienticized person into a demythologized reality” (Freire, 1998, pg. 514). The overarching idea here is that conscientisation can raise the consciousness of individuals and societies to assist in the emancipation of the oppressed and the attainment of human rights.
Dialogue and Praxis
Freirean critical pedagogy, striving to achieve conscientisation for participants through framing existence as being both in and within the world simultaneously (Freire, 1998), makes use of two specific concepts to achieve this outcome - dialogue and praxis.
Dialogue is much more than simple conversation. Alexander describes it as a process that “requires a willingness and skill to engage with the minds, ideas and ways of thinking other than our own”. This includes questioning, listening, reflecting, reasoning, explaining, speculating and exploring ideas, as well as the ability to “analyse problems, form hypotheses and develop solutions; to discuss argue, examine evidence, defend, probe, and assess arguments” (2006, pg.5). True dialogue requires a significant list of capabilities, which I think highlights that critical pedagogy is something to be purposefully pursued rather than hopefully willed for. It’s not some overnight solution – it requires focussed, skilled and long-term effort.
The notion of praxis falls hand in hand with the dialogical experience described above. It enables any learning from the process of dialogue to move into the realm of real-world application, followed by critical reflection and then back into action in an ongoing cycle of learning (Hettler & Johnston, 2009). Glassman and Patton (2014) describe praxis as a cycle of action, reflection and action that assists one to gain knowledge regarding why they are doing what they do.
The effective combination of dialogue and praxis is seen in the six steps of the ‘SHOWED’ model of dialogue and reflection put forward by Matthews (2013):
1. What do we See here?
2. What really is Happening?
3. How does the story relate to Our lives?
4. Why did the person acquire the problem?
5. How is it possible for this person to be Empowered?
6. What can we Do about it?
In this we see room for dialogical encounters as well as reflection on thought and knowledge, followed by action and then upon repetition, further dialogue, reflection and action. The ‘SHOWED’ model forms one part of a larger three phase model of critical pedagogy used in health education (Matthews, 2013). The other two stages of this model being the initial, dialogically focused stage of ‘Listening and naming’ as well as the final stage of ‘Promoting transformative social action’. As any good learning, these stages can result in jarring, difficult conversation regarding topics that might be painful and emotionally laden. Kronish (2015) identifies that this level of emotion and jarring engagement, when facilitated property, can assist in bringing people together and building a foundation of trust, which is vital for any true open dialogue.
Examples
I know of three areas that appear to achieve the goals of community consciousness raising with the use of the concepts of critical pedagogy, those being inter-religious education, peace education and antiracism education (Castelli, 2012; Harris, 2004; Zembylas, 2012).
In relation to inter-religious education, Castelli states that “faith dialogue is a two-way process; it brings a personal account of a faith tradition into the classroom and takes to the faith community a contemporary, outsider, perception of that community” (2012, pg. 212). Halsall and Roebben further identify that during inter-religious dialogue “the young person who wants to know her/his stance, must consciously go into the many voices that resound in her/his narrative identity and engage her/himself in the larger discourse with fellow narrative identities” (2006, pg. 447).
Peace education, according to Harris, is the process through which teachers “try to stimulate in their students’ minds a global identity and awareness of problems around the planet” (2004, pg. 10) with the hope that their students develop a sense of compassion as global citizens who can identify with the global struggle for peace.
Let’s save antiracism education for a whole separate blog post…
While these examples might highlight the potential for critical dialogue in raising community consciousness, there appears a consistent potential problem in these programs as well as others which share similar target audiences; that of the self-selecting nature of participants (Schimmel, 2009). Le Belle also puts that numerous consciousness raising programs have struggled to produce tangible social change, specifically because “consciousness raising has difficulty influencing reality in the absence of social organizational and political action” (1987, pg. 204). While not detracting from the need, value, and impact of targeted critical pedagogies such as those above, it is a fair suggestion that the focal point of community consciousness raising should be on the entire education system itself – not just selected elements.
Critical Pedagogy in the Education System
The implementation of critical pedagogy within state education systems, and the use of dialogue and praxis to achieve conscientisation, might be a way to provide significant momentum to the achievement of human rights related goals throughout wider society. Education systems within democratic societies are often seen to function using ‘banking’ education styles, in which students are seen to be manageable and adaptable learners (Kirylo, 2013) who engage in a process where there is emphasis on there being “one right answer and assessments; only framing the student as leaners, never the teacher; and encouraging a culture of competition” (Keyl, 2017, pg. 187).
The education system is a “central socialization agent by which societies construct, reinforce, and transmit their social ethos to younger generations” (Vered, 2015, pg. 139). It is in this setting that critical pedagogy might reach a more adaptable audience. Yet it’s not only students who might benefit from this, since a key component of dialogical classroom engagement involves teachers in their own cycles of praxis. Castelli conveys the potential of this, stating, “dialogical education involves pupils and teachers in relationships where learning about self and learning about the other invites participation with the same attention to self and the other as needed for a successful jamming session, and, like all good jamming sessions, results in the creation of something new” (2012, pg. 210). Yet as identified earlier, engaging in dialogical education appears to carry with it a significant list of responsibilities and capabilities – put simply, it’s not simple. Bajaj (2015) reflects on this by listing the following core teacher competencies required for successful dialogical education:
· Critical thinking and analysis
· Empathy and solidarity
· Individual and coalitional agency
· Participatory and democratic engagement
· Education and communication strategies
· Conflict transformation skills
· Ongoing reflective practice
Further, to engage in education based on critical pedagogy, teachers must critically examine their own prejudice and biases and “be willing to become learners in their classrooms and cultivate an environment in which all participants engage in critical enquiry and learn from each other” (Baja, 2011, pg. 210). I would venture that teachers who possess these competencies and this willingness, who teach according to the concepts of critical pedagogy, will assist in the raising of community consciousness, the conscientisation of individuals, and hopefully the ongoing attainment of human rights goals in societies.
So perhaps it is the adherence to critical pedagogy in state educational systems which might provide the answers to raising community consciousness and educating about, through and for human rights. Could Freirean concepts of critical pedagogy be the key to widespread human rights education? I’m interested to know your thoughts.
References
Alexander, R. (2006). Education as Dialogues: Moral and Pedagogical Choices for a Runaway World. Hong Kong:
Dialogos Baja, M. (2011). Teaching to Transform, Transforming to Teach: Exploring the Role of Teachers in Human Rights Education in India. Educational Research, 53(2), 207-221. Retrieved from Routledge
Baja, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogies of Resistance’ and Critical Peace Education Praxis. Journal of Peace Education, 12(2), 154-166. Retrieved from Routledge.
Boyd, D. (2016) What Would Paulo Freire Think of Blackboard: Critical Pedagogy in an Age of Online Learning. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(1), 165-186. Retrieved from International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
Cashman, T. G. (2016). Navigating the Intersection of Place-Based Pedagogy and Border Pedagogy: Resituating our Positons Through Critical Border Dialogism. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(1), 29-50. Retrieved from International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
Castelli, M. (2012). Faith Dialogue as a Pedagogy for a Post Secular Religious Education. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 33(2), 207-216. Retrieved from Routledge
Freire, P. (1998). Cultural Action and Conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 499- 521. Retrieved from ProQuest
Giroux, H. (2010). Lessons to be Learnt from Paulo Freire as Education is Being Taken Over by the Mega Rich. Retrieved from http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/47936
Glassman, M., & Patton, R. (2014). Capability Through Participatory Democracy: Sen, Freire, and Dewey. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(12), 1353-1365. Retrieved from Routledge.
Gounari, P. (2013). Critical Pedagogy and Peace Education: Understanding Violence, Human Rights, and the Historical Project of Militant Peace. In P. P. Trifonas, & B. Writ (eds.), Critical Peace Education: Difficult Dialogues (pp. 69-87). New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg
Halsall, A., & Roebben, B. (2006). Intercultural and Interfaith Dialogue Through Education. Religious Education, 101(4), 443-452. Retrieved from Routledge
Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace Education Theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 5-20. Retrieved from Routledge
Hattam, R., Atkinson, S., & Bishop, P. (2012). Rethinking Reconciliation and Pedagogy in Unsettling Times. In P. Ahluwalia., S. Atkinson., P. Bishop., P. Christie., R. Hattam., & J. Matthews (eds.), Reconciliation and Pedagogy (pp. 1-9). New York: Routledge
Hettler, S., & Johnston, L. M. (2009). Living Peace: An Exploration of Experiential Peace Education, Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention Programs for Youth. Journal of Peace Education, 6(1), 101-118. Retrieved from Routledge
Keyl, S. (2017). Subaltern Pedagogy: A Critical Theorizing of Pedagogical Practices For Marginalized Border-Crossers. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 8(1), 173-194. Retrieved from International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
Kirylo, J. D. (2013). Paulo Freire: “Father” of Critical Pedagogy. In James, D. K. (ed.), A Critical Pedagogy of Resistance: 34 Pedagogues We Need to Know (pp. 46-52). New York: Sense Publishers
Kronish, R. (2015). The Other Peace Process: Inter-Religious Dialogue in the Service of Peace in Israel and Palestine. Palestine-Israel Journal, 88-94. Retrieved from ProQuest
La Belle, T. J. (1987). From Consciousness Raising to Popular Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Comparative Education Review, 31(2), 201-217. Retrieved from JSTOR
Matthews, C. (2013). Critical Pedagogy in Health Education. Health Education Journal, 73(5), 600-609. Retrieved from Sage Publications
Matua, M. (2001). Savages, Victims, and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights. Harvard International Law Journal, 42, 214-217. Retrieved from IGL&P
Monzo, L. D., & McLaren, P. (2014). Critical Pedagogy and the Decolonial Option: Challenges to the Inevitability of Capitalism. Policy Futures in Education, 12(4), 513-525. Retrieved from Wwwords
Schimmel, N. (2009). Towards a Sustainable and Holistic Model of Peace Education: A Critique of Conventional Models of Peace Education Through Dialogue in Israel. Journal of Peace Education, 6(1), 51-68. Retrieved from Routledge
Ollis, T. (2012). A Critical Pedagogy of Embodied Cultural Education. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=956621 UN General Assembly. (2011). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (Resolution A/RES/66/137)
Vered, S. (2015). Peace Education in Israel: An Educational Goal in the Test of Reality. Journal of Peace Education, 12(2), 138-153. Retrieved from Routledge
Zembylas, M. (2012). Pedagogies of Strategic Empathy: Navigating Through the Emotional Complexities of Anti-Racism in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 113-125. Retrieved from Routledge
