s Freire suggests,the teacher should laugh with his or her students in such instances ofsuspension and rupture—not as a sovereign power but as an equal partic-ipant, exposing his or her own ignorance through the collective joy of thecurious laugh
Agreed.
Perhaps this point is nowhere more apparent then at the end ofthe film when Keating is fired from Welton Academy. As he is removing hispersonal belongings from his office, the timid boy Todd Anderson standsupon his desk and proclaims “Oh Captain, my captain!
It's a great story and very sad that something like this still happens in education. A teacher tries to inspire learning through fun but is shot down because it goes against the machine.
Mr. Keating insists, and the students proceed to tear out a scaleused to rate the “perfection” of a poem
Yes, goes back to Rancière's argument that art/poetry shouldn't have a measurable tool to define it's impact.
Combining Freire and Rancière, Iwould suggest that more than a distraction, the curious laugh is a particularpassion: joy as a spontaneously sensual affirmation of a democratic excessthat has yet to be named by words. The joy of leveling hierarchical divisionsoffers an affective lure for igniting a somatic curiosity that, in turn,focuses the will to translate the laugh into new forms of knowledge andnew practices of staging and performing, new organizations of sense andnonsense
Yes yes yes! I thoroughly enjoyed learning about both of their perspectives but this is the point I've been trying to make/find in words.
Here McLarenmight very well be right: such laughter is a distraction against confrontinginequality and is thus a corporeal expression of yet another manifestationof the hatred of democracy. In such situations, the curious laugh is a laughagainst laughing, an interruption of laughter within laughter, a joyful hopeset against joyless cynicism and contempt
Now this make more sense
the overwhelming reduction of educational outcomes to aggregated testscores indicates the statistical abstraction of the student body into a mereensemble of parts to be counted
This isn't talked about enough. When students/schools perform poorly on their mandated exams, there is always some form or mentality of seriousness and punishment. Even more fun and laughter is sucked out.
This laugh sounds curious both to itself and to those around it. Inother words, curious laughter is a kind of verbal stumble.
Sometimes when things are so disturbing or difficult to process, all you can do is laugh.
Rather it results inmore isolation, or perhaps the illusion of individual liberation throughnew age spirituality, virtual reality gaming, or the occasional work-place/classroom transgressio
Sounds more like laughter of the absurdity. Albert Camus and existentialism comes to mind.
In the classroom, the happy laugh is used regularly todissipate tension, fight off the fatigue of testing, or act as a reward for a jobwell done.
I've used humor for this purpose and it has made a difference. It helps the students realize that they're human and will make mistakes because of it.
“It reflects the belief that the real isrational, and that the established system, in spite of everything, deliversthe goods” (Marcuse 1964, 79). Happiness is thus naïve because it takesreality at face value without problematizing claims of equality, freedom,and liberty despite the ongoing existence of inequality, exploitation, andsubjugation
Satirical comedy is something that comes to mind. It can be comical in a way that reflects the insanity of society's roles and explanations. A good example of satirical comedy is my favorite movie, The Lobster.
If there is anytransgression through laughter, it is a transgression that adheres to thestructure of capitalism itself. The perfect examples seem to be “fake-news”anchors like John Stewart who insight laughter that is critical of contem-porary politics yet without “anchorage in practice” (McLaren 1999, lii)beyond ironic stunts or subversions that are more for their entertainmentvalue than for actual political transformation
Wait, are we really going to call John Stewart a "fake-news" producer? When we talk about information and education being weaponized/gatekept (am I using this right?), politics is a fine example. Many American especially don't like to involve themselves with politics because they find it either boring, unrelatable, or difficult to understand. One could argue that some politicians or news broadcasters intentionally do this to silence certain people. I think making complex concepts like politics comical helps people develop a better understanding of what's at stake and allows them to be critical.
“such resistance does not aspireto the realm of critical practice and is not sufficient to free that aspect ofagency subsumed to the larger determinations that position individuals inthe world. Students are unable to invent the multiple strategies needed tooverturn fixed ideological positions and reveal their anchorage in practice.Capitalism and its laws of motion quickly and effortlessly overwhelm thistype of student
Ok, let's chill for a second. McLaren needs to remember who it is that's in the classroom. Students don't enter the classroom to take down the patriarchy and destroy capitalism in one day. The youth attend school to discover themselves and find their place in the world. Yes, educators should explain the hardships and limiting factors of the real world, but we can't eliminate the fun altogether. Life isn't always about pain, suffering, and work. It's ok to laugh and enjoy the moment.
Through this analysis, joketelling and laughing emerge as integral parts of the aesthetics of universalteaching, redistributing the sensible that underlies educational relationsbetween masters and pupils and sense and nonsense in the classroom.
And this is why laughter/joking around is an integral part of the educational experience. When we laugh, we are showing a piece of our inner self; the parts that show what we are interested or what we find amusing. When a teacher laughs or is able to find something funny in what their pupil says or does, they are able to form a bond and eliminate the traditional hierarchal roles of teacher and student.
And yet, if Freire is tofurther our understanding of laughter and education, we have to ask whatexactly Freire means by laughter. In particular, we have to ask a series ofkey questions that Freire’s work poses. Are all forms of laughter equallyemancipatory? Does the laugh of the cynic resound with the same hopefor social transformation as that of the utopian dreamer? Certainly arevolutionary pedagogue can laugh, but should he or she, and what are thepolitical (if not revolutionary) implications of this laughter
I could be completely wrong on this, but, I believe laughter not only brings us together, but it brings back what it means to be human. Freire's Pedagogy uses the machine to represent the education system. The machine sucks out the creativity, uniqueness, and most importantly, the fun/humorous side of mankind.
It’s necessary to laugh with the people becauseif we don’t do that we cannot learn from the people, and in not learningfrom the people we cannot teach them”
Laughing is a form of criticism that isn't as serious but just as neccesary.
It is in thisunfamiliar zone of ambiguity opened up through the image that newsubjects can be invented that do not fit within predetermined allotmentsof activity and passivity, nature and culture, human and animal, etc.
This is the goal of the CLF, by placing emphasis on interest and creativity, learners can experience unfamiliar subjects and new perspectives. It's important for educators to remember that there shouldn't be a forced style or expectation of the art because it contradicts the goal of expression.
For Rancière, the mother in thisinstance comes to represent a displacement of learning from the institu-tionalized expertise of the schoolmaster and a redistribution of who canthink and speak beyond the schoolhouse.
Interesting analogy.
Freire misses how art is political not simply because of its intendedmessage (or the political commitment of the artist) but rather in its abilityto produce new ways of seeing the world, new sensations, new sensorialdisruptions through the pensive juxtapositioning of regimes of expression
ABSOLUTELY! Freire has grown on me and helped me visualize education differently but his stance on art goes against his own philosophy (in my opinion). I don't think Freire is the only one who has this mindset though.
Unlike the classical regime of art withits assumption of pedagogical causality, art within the aesthetic regimedisposes of hierarchies between artistic forms, objects, and modes ofrepresentation, disconnects style and subject matter, and finally creates anequality between “high” and “low” subjects
This is why art is not valued or pursued enough. Not only are we putting such a deep and critical emphasis of its role, but the quality of the production needs to be top level. Unless you're producing renaissance level art, people are discouraged or disrespected. Is Freire perpetuating the art hierarchy too?
Is this because the illustrationinterpellates the viewers through the immediacy of its visibility? Or is it thatthe dialogue—a tool for promoting democratic agency—becomes a wallbetween the students and the pensiveness (the silent speech) of the imageat hand, and thus a tool of “narratocratic” power (Panagia 2009)?
Ohh this is a great question! For me, art is empowering and it's my narrative most times. I don't know if its sole purpose is to create dialogue. Art is a tool for expression as I've said before but it's not fair putting so much pressure on the arts to save humanity.
Stated differently, Freireall too quickly reduces visual art to a speech act, removing its muteness.
Hm, I didn't think of Freire's depiction of art like this. I can understand the criticism.
The act of translation opens a space between intent and content, leading todissensus rather than consensus over the image. It is here that democracyemerges as the possibility of disagreement over what is seen in the image
I like this definition, I might use this in my analysis.
In other words, images no longer passively illustrate existingintentions. Images can now speak back in their own language against thepower of words, producing a “rupture in the relationship between senseand sense, between what is seen and what is thought, and between what isthought and what is felt” that “can never be calculated”
Going back to how education and technology is weaponized, language is one of the tools used to discriminate. This is why we need art.
In other words, events and their representationin images are reduced to mere symptoms of societal problems which arealways already interpreted in advance according to an a priori logic. As withthe classical regime of art, the interpretive regime of the media presents adetermined relationship between word and image.
A good example of interpretive art paired with real world events is Picasso's Guernica. I think people put more value and appreciation into the classical era of art because the depictions were clearer (compared to abstract/cubism). Modern art is meant to be vague as it allows multiple perspectives to come through.
Thus images within the pedagogicalmodel embody the political intent of the artist to edify the audience as tosocial, political, or economic atrocities. This edification then correspondsto a particular action. “We may no longer believe that exhibiting virtuesand vices on stage can improve human behavior, but we continue,”
Art can be political in the sense that it raises awareness and invokes certain emotions to hopefully make an impact.
For Rancière, stumblingis never an obstacle so much as a contingently necessary condition for theverification of intelligences—no one intelligence knows what he or shepoints at or toward.
To me this would fall under incidental learning. Also, you don't need to know exactly what it is you're looking for, the quest for knowledge itself is worth it. Searching for one answer can allow you to stumble upon new knowledge or raise new questions.
For him, the image transmits the message of the author/artist through a visual form. This message can then be de-coded in a rathertransparent manner with the help of the teacher who guides the studentsto focus on specific aspects of the images in a specific order
I agree with everything minus the teacher aspect. You don't need formal education to be an artist (cough cough CLF/Illich)
Freire’s original goal can be met: where students can be recognized ascreative interpreters and translator
Yes, Freire wanted to challenge the traditional roles of education where the student was solely a receiver of information. Students are artists and are using their skills to share perspectives and educate others.
Rancière’s emphasis on “common language” which presents a “struggleto cross the barrier between languages and worlds” by reappropriatinga language that “had been appropriated by others” and in the process“affirm transgressively the assumption of equality
Reminds me of our last module commentary on race and the idea of code-switching language to fit into the professional world. Art doesn't have one language.
Drawing onthe words of sculptor Abelardo da Hora, Freire argues “drawing the world,depicting things, using other languages, [is] not the exclusive privilegeof a few. All people can make art . .
THIS! A lot of people think of art as childish or meaningless but it's a powerful communication tool. Art doesn't have a singular definition, so anyone can be an artist to portray their thoughts, feelings, and interpretations of their surroundings.
Theexistential goal of this program was to help students recognize their activerole in the production and transformation of culture. As Freire summa-rizes, the program itself was not simply a preparation for democratic lifebut rather an attempt to “be an act of creation, capable of releasing othercreative acts, one in which students would develop the impatience andvivacity which characterizes search and invention
Freire's commentary is based on his experience in his own country of origin. However, as we have discussed previously, his work reflects our current cultural/education epidemic. It's difficult to summarize American culture but with the decrease in valuing the arts, we'r making matters worse.