Hello Esther and anyone interested:

In philosophy we talk about such distinctions (different uses of concepts, etc.) as the difference between commonsense and theoretical language and more intimately, the difference between commonsense and theoretical consciousness.  To be able to walk around in both kinds of consciousness, and to know and appreciate the difference between the two, is ideal.  That is, if you are a medical doctor, you talk to other doctors in technical-theoretical language so that all your terms and meanings are the same--it would be awful if the terms meant something different.  But if that same doctor is talking to patients, she/he speaks and translates into more commonsense language.  The doctor does not expect the patient to become a doctor to know some things about their condition.

Thus, the doctor is "theoretically differentiated."

This is a bit more complex for educators because educators are more in the "applications" aspect of the field--here we, work with and draw on theory, but unlike the doctor, most of our time is spent discoursing with the commonsense world of common dialogue--both among ourselves and among our students/parents, etc.

The other problem I have experienced in teachers is a bias towards theory and theoretical language as such ("jargon," etc.)--which is really problematic--because though theory can be wrong-headed, we are totally dependent on our studies using it to legitimate our field, and our fields within fields, e.g., any of the sciences, natural or human.  

This distinction, and the importance of it, is one of the main things I try to communicate to all of my teachers as they go through my classes.  

Just some related thoughts . . . 

Catherine KIng

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Esther Prins 
  To: The Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:52 AM
  Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 227] Re: GED programs with a populareducationapproach


  Regarding academic writing, I have found the following thoughts to be quite helpful. This is an excerpt from Learning the Craft of Academic Writing < http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jff1/learningacadwrtg.htm>, an informal piece written by one of my former committee members, John Forester. Although imprecise and obscure language can certainly alienate and obfuscate, there is no reason to think, as pointed out below, that social scientists should not use complicated terms and concepts, particularly when we readily accept natural scientists' use of complex terminology. 

  Esther 

  *************
  4. I thought that I needed to use several expressions that were not quite ordinary, but I did not anticipate the results of doing that very well at all. Including "hermeneutic" or "subjective probability" or "hegemonic" in an essay that's not just written for "theorists" may be dismissed because those terms are hardly "ordinary language." At least two points arise here. 

  First, I do believe I should write in as plain and accessible a prose as possible, without sacrificing the precision of the analysis. Anything said in long sentences can almost always­or always­be said more clearly in short sentences. By improving my prose, I can gain the trust of the reader that I need, once in a special while, to use a less familiar technical term. Ideally, authors should earn readers' trust through the care and clarity reflected in their writing, sentence by sentence. 

  Second, though, where is it written that an essay in sociology, planning, or philosophy should be simpler than an essay about bio-chemistry, micro-biology, or zoology? (We can find it written in one form, actually, in Alfred Schutz's "postulate of adequacy," but that has its own problems.) Anti-intellectualism too often comes masked in the clothes of the simple reader asking for something "easy to read." Laziness afflicts readers no less than authors. But that is no excuse for unnecessarily difficult writing, poor re-writing, inadequate editing, and so on. The effects of laziness upon authors are far more devastating, ultimately embarrassing, and ironically ineffectual. 

  So we should not confused two issues: every author has the responsibility to be as clear and compelling, as editorially scrupulous as he or she can be, given the subject matter­but the responsibility only for that. The reader must not suffer an author's­a student's, a professor's, or a professional writer's­carelessness, laziness, or editorial fatigue; but that in turn is no reason for the reader not to work, not to think hard about what's written, or even to re-read.

  5. Nevertheless, I learned reasonably quickly not to use technical terms or the still more pervasive political cliches to which I'd been too blind. Using unnecessary, unfamiliar terms does precisely what Barbara Grizzuti Harrison once criticized Adrienne Rich's political rhetoric for doing: it bores the reader to disaffection. Jargon is a crutch with an ironic flaw: no one can walk on it.

  Graduate students are in a fix here. They have to read a scrambled, diffuse, rambling literature. In the social sciences and humanities they find polemical texts written in a variety of voices inevitably different than the students' own subjects. Every ordinary pressure, in the beginning at least, leads students to adopt sympathetically the style and sentence structure of the authors whose work the student finds particularly compelling. Yet that student must fight to write as clearly as he or she possibly can, for readers never to be met as well as for those indeed to be met. And that means only one thing: editing and rewriting, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, subsection by subsection (until it all fits together).


  At 11:31 PM 1/8/2007, you wrote:

    Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
             boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C733A7.13E02D22"

    The marxist stuff that you imagine has nothing to do with Marxism or Freire. It is propaganda. It is sort of associating Bush with democracy and hating democracy because of Bush. Freire incorporates theroetical constructs from many philosophies including marx. We can talk about those constructs that Freire uses and what they mean if you like. But associating Marx and Freire to Gulag, dictatorships, etc is Mcartism.  
     
    It is true that they are difficult to read. But many here have read them many times and understand them well and will be happy to articulate them for you if you like. I agree that some of the stuff is difficult and requires some effort. But that is the case with any field, when we get deep into it.
     
    I am critical of social theorists when they use language that is inaccessible to a large audience. It is not their fault either. Nor is the fault of the people that lack the language to understand them. But, we, experts in the field, have a responsibility to try to understand and mediate between the extremes. 
     
    Rather than dismiss Freire's linguistic choices, we should try to grasp the content. Then, we can decide if we agree with his argument that masses are unconscious and oppressed, that we need to expose them to society's economic forces that shape their circumstances or conscientisize them. This is what we need to be talking about. Is there any value in critical pedagogy? why/why not?  
     
    On the other hand, if we start by dismissing Freire's linguistic choices because they remind us of Gulag, then, the right wing propaganda machine has won the battle. they have managed to tie theoretical constructs that they fear to things that the society at large have been taught to fear. It is like the Joan Baez song: "I learn to hate Russians through my whole life. when the war comes, it is then we must fight.." She needs to add a few lines since now it's the arabs. How about: Bruce Springsten's"I was sent to a Foregn land, to kill the sand man". blah, blah, blah....someone shut me up please.
     
    Andres
     
     
     
     
     
    Andres


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: povertyracewomen-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Andrea Wilder
    Sent: Mon 1/8/2007 5:20 PM
    To: The Poverty, Race,Women and Literacy Discussion List
    Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 219] Re: GED programs with a populareducationapproach

    You see, Andres, with your students  you translated Freirian thoughts
    (I guess/think) into a prose that they and we could understand.  Once
    the ideas are firmly enough in your mind, you can apply them, in your
    own language. I  think this is the way it should be in application,
    paying attention to the language of the  local.

    I am referring to Freire's African interlude, and I have my notes
    somewhere but just won't go get them now--it would take weeks.    By
    "marxist stuff" I probably mean top down central planning, a certain
    use of language--soviets and china spring to mind, and a generally grim
    attitude to happier ways to live life,  a kind of gulag prison system,
    and an us v them mentality.  Also an insistence on "right" and "wrong"
    ways of thinking.  Also, a "strong man" at the center.  The words and
    language and justifications  and rationalizations get all mixed up. 
    Zinn wrote very movingly on this topic from his former life as a dock
    worker.  You have read me in the past  about capitalism, I'm sure.  I'm
    not gong to go there.

    What I think important is 1)    survival;  2)   surviving well; 3)      
    living an ordinary life.  If with my talents I can help that  along,
    then that is good and it is what I want to do.  These really simple
    three points can be  quite difficult to achieve.  You need adequate
    health care, for one, and an adequate diet--love and cherishing help,
    too, as well as basic  education, freedom to read what you want., a
    roof over your head.  And so on.  I bet everyone on this list could
    agree with these goals.

    Anyone on the list is free to talk about whatever political systems
    they want to talk about, I'm not taking up a large part of a limited
    space.  Thank you, Daphne!!

    Andrea

           
    On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Muro, Andres wrote:

    > What do you mean by the Marxist stuff that Freire fell for? Which
    > Marxist stuff are you referring to? All of it. Can you explain what
    > specifically bothers you about "the Marxist stuff". Otherwise, it sound
    > like one of those discussions where the Marxist stuff is all evil and
    > instead of having a discussion about concepts and ideas, we are
    > starting
    > the discussion with an a-priori determinations that we cannot include
    > certain things in the conversation because someone has arbitrarily
    > dismissed it.
    >
    > It's sort of those discussions where someone feels that phonics are
    > bad,
    > or sight-word is bad and without understanding anything about the
    > things
    > that they dislike, they dismiss it a-priori and embrace a no-phonics
    > approach, or only phonics approach.
    >
    > BTW, if you read my introductions to the books that the students wrote,
    > you will not see any of the Marxist stuff. Just because I don't say
    > praxis, base-superstructure, conscientization, etc. it doesn't make it
    > less Freirian.
    >
    > Andres
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: povertyracewomen-bounces at nifl.gov
    > [ mailto:povertyracewomen-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Andrea Wilder
    > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:51 AM
    > To: The Poverty, Race,Women and Literacy Discussion List
    > Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 204] Re: GED programs with a popular
    > educationapproach
    >
    > The marxist stuff--Freire fell for it  late in life.  The person and
    > the family disappear.  Also, the small face to face community.
    > "Class struggle" and "critical praxis."  This may well be a vocabulary
    > problem, but otherwise i will not yield an inch.  I Think these are
    > short-cut words.  They often seem to be associated with a top down
    > approach  and  a big hammer.
    >
    > One of my heroes, Richard Cash,  who is  responsible for saving
    > millions of children  through oral rehydration therapy, says (I can't
    > find the exact quote) that you must go into the  local community, that
    > is where you will find the right questions to ask.
    >
    > Ujwala--thanks for asking.
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Ujwala Samant wrote:
    >
    >> Dear Andrea,
    >>
    >> You've lost me there. What language do you detest?
    >>
    >> regards
    >> Ujwala
    >>
    >>
    >> --- Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ditmar and others,
    >>>
    >>> I must put up my small flag here:  I absolutely
    >>> detest the  language
    >>> used in this educational movement.  To me, it seems
    >>> foreign and laid on
    >>> with a  trowel.  Am I for social empowerment?  Of
    >>> course.  Am I for
    >>> social movements which try to being about even  a
    >>> modicum of social
    >>> justice?  Absolutely.
    >>>
    >>> Back to the trenches,
    >>>
    >>> Andrea
    >>>
    >>> On Jan 8, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Muro, Andres wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi Ujwalla, David, Andrea, Ditmar:
    >>>>
    >>>> We did a project with our students that has strong
    >>> Freirian elements.
    >>>> This is an ongoing project with migrant students
    >>> in which they write
    >>>> their own stories and we publish them. to see this
    >>> project please
    >>>> visit:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://bordersenses.com/memorias
    >>>>
    >>>> While the stories are written in Spanish most of
    >>> them have been
    >>>> translated. If you want to read the content,
    >>> please click on each of
    >>>> the books. Also, to understand the theoretical
    >>> foundation you can read
    >>>> my introduction to both books. They are in
    >>> English. I kept the
    >>>> introductions very simple without making any
    >>> references, However, the
    >>>> work is influenced by Freire,Dewey, Giroux, etal.
    >>> You will see in the
    >>>> intrductions the elements of Freirianism that
    >>> Ditmar points to.
    >>>>
    >>>> Andres
    >>>>
    >>>> From: povertyracewomen-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf
    >>> of
    >>>> ditmar0906_inossian at netzero.net
    >>>> Sent: Sat 1/6/2007 4:26 PM
    >>>> To: povertyracewomen at nifl.gov
    >>>> Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 197] Re: GED programs
    >>> with a popular
    >>>> educationa pproach
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, Project Hope's Adult Learners Program uses
    >>> (or did use) a popular
    >>>> education approach that is distinctly Freireian,
    >>> and this program was
    >>>> the focus of Lorna's dissertation. For what it's
    >>> worth,
    >>>> "conscientisation" was the focus of Freire's
    >>> approach: a process by
    >>>> which a group (not at all about individual
    >>> empowerment here [think
    >>>> "class struggle"]) becomes aware of their
    >>> oppression and discovers
    >>>> that they have a popular culture that is both
    >>> political and
    >>>> social--has a sociopolitical role in history (as
    >>> Marx understood
    >>>> history). The group learners engage in "critical
    >>> praxis" or dialogue
    >>>> toward the end of identifying common interests.
    >>> It's rather like an
    >>>> effort to critique false consciousness through 1)
    >>> an investigation of
    >>>> the thematic universe (identifying themes); 2)
    >>> identifying those
    >>>> themes that are "generative"; 3) codification of
    >>> those generative
    >>>> themes, and 4) dialogue within the cultural circle
    >>> of learners to
    >>>> interpret those themes (i.e. create meaning). I
    >>> know this sounds very
    >>>> abstract but one might think of it as a very
    >>> Marxist-oriented version
    >>>> of the ideology critique that was advanced by the
    >>> Frankfurt School and
    >>>> later by educational theorists who continue to
    >>> work in this tradition
    >>>> (e.g. Giroux, Apple, etc.).
    >>>>
    >>>> Freire's goal was social change, not individual
    >>> empowerment nor
    >>>> individual transformation. In fact, in my own
    >>> reading of Freire, he
    >>>> didn't even think that individual transformation
    >>> was possible. In
    >>>> other words, he never intended for his theory to
    >>> be used as a means
    >>>> for helping learners function within the given
    >>> social system. One
    >>>> might argue that if you change individuals, you
    >>> will change society
    >>>> (one person at a time). However, this can be true
    >>> only from an
    >>>> anthropological view of history (i.e., the driving
    >>> force behind
    >>>> history is human experience/consciousness). From a
    >>> structuralist (or
    >>>> Marxist) point of view, the consciousness of the
    >>> individual makes no
    >>>> difference; it's class consciousness that matters
    >>> because one's
    >>>> individual consciousness is a product of ideology;
    >>> individuals become
    >>>> subjects only through their subjection to
    >>> processes of production
    >>>> (i.e., the reproduction of production, or more
    >>> commonly, the
    >>>> reproduction of inequality). So basically "popular
    >>> education" becomes
    >>>> a mechanism for bringing about class struggle.
    >>> Finally, Freire never
    >>>> specified the end results of pedagogical praxis
    >>> because the "solution"
    >>>> or product was not known, in fact could not be
    >>> known--it evolved
    >>>> among/through the people. Social change was then
    >>> the process of
    >>>> peaceful intervention into the system
    >>> by initiating dialogue with the
    >>>> "oppressors" to develop alternatives.
    >>>>
    >>>> The philosophical foundations are to be found in
    >>> Catholic humanism
    >>>> (Catholic Action, Liberation Theology,
    >>> etc.), orthodox Marxism, and
    >>>> German philosophy (particularly Hegel). Freire
    >>> also integrated bits of
    >>>> critical theory into his approach, which
    >>> evolved into his "Movement of
    >>>> Education from the Base" (a take-off on the
    >>> "Popular Church from the
    >>>> Base" that evolved during the revolutionary period
    >>> in Latin America).
    >>>> See his two major contributions to adult education
    >>> theory and
    >>>> practice: Pedagogy of the Oppressed and
    >>> Education as the Practice of
    >>>> Freedom (both late 1960s). Lorna's dissertation is
    >>> a marvelous
    >>>> illustration of how one GED program puts these
    >>> principles into
    >>>> practice.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks. --Ditmar
    >>>>
    >>>> C. Ditmar Coffield
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -- eleonelli at aol.com wrote:
    >>>>
    >>> David - I think that Project Hope in Dorchester, MA
    >> takes a popular
    >>>> education approach in their program.
    >>>>
    >>>> Esther
    >>>> __________________________________
    >>>> Esther D. Leonelli
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>> From: djrosen at comcast.net
    >>>> Sent: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:14 AM
    >>>>
    >>> Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 194] Re: GED programs
    >> with a popular
    >>>> education approach
    >>>>
    >>>>    Hi Andrea,
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks.  I have emailed Lorna.
    >>>>
    >>>> All the best,
    >>>>
    >>>> David
    >>>>
    >>>> On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Andrea Wilder wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> David,
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you for the list, it makes me feel very
    >> happy to have all these
    >>>>
    >>>> values in teaching spelled out. What a
    >> comprehensive list!  Lorna
    >>>>
    >>>> Rivera I believe used the term "popular education"
    >>  in her
    >>>>
    >>>> dissertation.  Perhaps you have already asked her
    >> about GED
    >>>
    >> === message truncated ===>
    >> ----------------------------------------------------
    >>> National Institute for Literacy
    >>> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    >>> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    >>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings,
    >>> please go to
    >> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
    >>
    >>
    >> __________________________________________________
    >> Do You Yahoo!?
    >> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    >> http://mail.yahoo.com
    >> ----------------------------------------------------
    >> National Institute for Literacy
    >> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    >> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    >> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
    >> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
    >>
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > National Institute for Literacy
    > Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    > PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
    > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > National Institute for Literacy
    > Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    > PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
    > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
    >

    ----------------------------------------------------
    National Institute for Literacy
    Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
    ----------------------------------------------------
    National Institute for Literacy
    Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
    PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
    To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen 




  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Esther Prins
  Assistant Professor and Co-Director
  Goodling Institute for Research in Family Literacy ( http://www.ed.psu.edu/goodlinginstitute)
  Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy ( http://www.ed.psu.edu/isal)

  Adult Education Program, Dept. of Learning & Performance Systems
  Pennsylvania State University
  305B Keller Building
  University Park, PA 16802
  814-865-0597
  814-865-0128 (fax)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ----------------------------------------------------
  National Institute for Literacy
  Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
  PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
  To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/povertyracewomen/attachments/20070109/1f00f3b0/attachment.html