Most of “The Banking Concept of Education” was insightful, and elaborated much more philosophically my own thoughts on how we view “learning”. One area of the essay, however, was not as clear to me. I therefore choose this to blog about in hopes that handling it further will solidify my own understanding of what Friere is saying. (My attempt to learn in the spirit of Friere!)
On page 321, there’s a paragraph that specifically states the region I just referred to.
“Implicit in the banking concept is the 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 bits of the world which surrounds me—would be “inside” me, exactly as I am inside my study right now. This view makes no distinction between beings accessible to consciousness and entering consciousness. The distinction, however, is essential: the objects which surround me are simply accessible to my consciousness, not located within it. I am aware of them, but they are not inside me.”
I think the part that I understand the least is how Friere views the relationship with a human and its environment (although it could be the lack of sleep deterring me from making this connection). In my psychology class, I was absolutely fascinated when we discussed the spectrum of consciousness, and I feel as though much of that textbook information perhaps had roots from the teachings of philosophers such as Friere. What I am taking away from that paragraph/concept is this: in the banking concept of education, our ability to interact with our environments is belittled. We are what is given to us as “knowledge” and are not considered knowledgeable on our own because it wasn’t instilled in us (literally). Perhaps I’m not being articulate enough, so I will try to expand this in a slightly more concise fashion.
The scope of the student is limited to what the teacher can “teach”. We are spectators, not thinkers. He is saying that this view does not allow us to exist as what we were put upon this earth to be. We accept what we are told, we passively absorb the knowledge, instead of questioning, challenging, wondering. I might be as bold as to assume that he is saying the banking concept forbids us from utilizing the complex mental faculties we are given at birth.
Perhaps I am being brash in that assumption.
I think the gist of your reading is right---there is a distinction between passivity and activity. EXCELLENT quotation by the way. This is exactly the kind of thinking I am looking for in blogs. Quoting a passage and going "Huh?"
ReplyDeleteAllow me to do a little close reading here:
A person is not a "conscious being" but rather a "possessor of a consciousness." Freire argues that the banking concept of education affirms this idea that the world merely "enters into" our consciousness, as if it were empty and needs to be filled. We "possess" the consciousness in the sense that it is not part of our interaction with the world--it is part of us that needs to be filled.
Furthermore, it affirms that the world is "objectively" out there whereas I am a subjective consciousness rather than a co-creator in the world (a re-creator). My own thoughts, intentionality, choices, meaninings help "make" the world or what we might call "reality." This is not meant to deny the legitimacy of studying the world through "objective" ish methods, but rather to point out that we do not "receive" the world into our consciousness as if it were already constituted and we have merely to "learn" about it.