By: James, Michael D., Convergence, Vol. 23, Issue 1, 14-25.
James argued that the prevailing tendency in literacy programs was remedial and they aimed at adaptation in spite of the illusory notion of empowering people. Unlike the prevailing assumption, he stressed that "knowledge itself is not power. Power occurs only in material relationships" (p. 18) and "Literacy by itself does not and cannot change oppressive conditions". He argued "Literacy is a part of liberation only when it is consciously linked with the process of "rupturing colonial domination, recovering democratic life, or revolutionary triumph."(p. 24)
This article makes me think of the OP. It does not declare "adaptation" as its goal, but "liberation". Yet, does it envision material relationship or "an instrument of struggle" (p. 24)?Doesn't it enlarge the mystification that freeing mind would free one from material constraints?
Then, how this educational approach would be contrasted with my approach to education through participatory research?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Useful links
About Me
- Kay Yang
- Compose yourself, then compose. Every frame is a moment of now. Take nothing for granted. By all means, try all means. When it doubt, cut. Attain the inevitable. Allness is ripe--from a wall of a film editing room.