"Applying" Knowledge

A lot of you have talked about how we need to learn how to "apply" knowledge rather than just merely learn facts. But is the issue merely one of "application?" Application seems to imply knowledge as something we "use." Indeed, I tend to use the phrase "tool for thinking" when I discuss the ways your book frames the writing process.

However, is there a kind of knowledge that resists use? In a world where everything is in an instrumental relationship with everything else, in a world where our lives operate smoothly and without a hitch, is there room for disruption? Is there room for knowledge, attitudes, or skills that resist this dominant way of engaging with the world?

Is this not what Freire seeks? Knowledge that resists those that oppress others? "The problem-posing method presents this very situation ["the situation within which [we] are submerged"] to them as a problem." Indeed, it is our very situation, our very condition, our very "natural" attitudes and practices that become problematic--that become an invitation to change and resistance.


Food for thought.

Sequence versus Structure

When you read "The Banking Concept of Education," I want you to focus on the structure of the argument. This is slightly different from the 'sequence'

The 'sequence' of the argument would be "then Freire argures. . .then this. . .then this. . ." Talking about the "sequence" lends to paraphrasing the entire argument.

Instead, I want you to focus on the structure. So try to focus on how Freire transitions between paragraphs and then how the paragraphs work together to create a linear argument. The question to ask is not "what's next" but why is what's next in that position? Why did F. argue this before this? Are there 'premises' at the beginning that are necessary for F. to argue his further points. What contrasts does F. set up?