PRAXIS - Paulo Freire Institute

Praxis Spring/Summer 2010: Volume 3, Issue 1
is increasing the separation of the words we read and the world we live in” (Shor and
Freire, 1987, p. 135).
Through a dialogic pedagogy, the culture and language of the students become the
starting point, not some script written by a dominating class of politicians. Together,
students and teacher develop their critical readings of the world and discover those things
most problematic to them. Further critical dialogue allows the participants to appreciate
the global dimensions of their readings. However, “To achieve the goals of
transformation, dialogue implies responsibility, directiveness, determination, discipline,
objectives” (Freire in Shor and Freire, 1987, p. 102; italics added by author).
Directing
In Pedagogy for Liberation, Freire (1987) expressed his adamant opposition to a
laissez-faire approach to education. “For me, education is always directive, always. The
question is to know towards what and with whom it is directed” (p. 109). The dialogue
necessary for true education must be directive. Teachers cannot just be facilitators. They
must maintain a level of authority in the educational process that provides direction and
focus to the dialogue. To be clear, the process must be directed, not the students.
As liberatory educators, the primary directive is liberation. When teachers diverge
from this directive, their authority becomes authoritarianism. The foundation of authority
must be for the freedom of others. This characterization highlights the differences
between authority and authoritarianism. The latter is just as destructive as laissez-faire.
Authoritarianism eliminates the possibility for dialogue.
With the ultimate goal being liberation for the students, educators must also
recognize that they have a responsibility to support necessary preparations for the
livelihood of the students. As Freire explains, educators “do not have the right to deny the
students’ goals for technical training or for job credentials” (Shor and Freire, 1987, p. 68).
At the same time, however, the liberatory educator must “try to unveil the ideology
enveloped in the very expectations of the students” (Freire in Shor and Freire, 1987, p.
68). “For progressives, there is no thinking about technical education in itself, one that
does not inquire in favor of what or whom, or against what it operates” (Freire, 2001,
269). As students and teacher address the topics of technical education, there must
8