#read Pedagogy of the Oppressed FOR REAL

[orfeolookback]

genuinely cant believe that "school abolitionist who sees bluey as a substantial way to learn about racism / class oppression" is a type of person on tumblr

[roselightfairy]

8, 10 and 19 for the fic writer asks!

Oh thank you for asking! From this list of questions:

8. if you had to write a sequel to a fic, you’d write one for…

Whenever I've "had" to write sequels for fics, it has been entirely because I've felt internally compelled to continue the story! Which is to say that a lot of my fics, even those that were supposed to be one-offs, already have sequels! But I do have a few fics that I've long wanted to write sequels for, but the must just hasn't moved me in that direction.

Love in a Time of Politics: I loved exploring this soft no-war AU so much, and these gentler, peaceful versions of the characters and their families. I've tried a couple of times to start an epistolary sequel to this one that is Legolas and Gimli getting to know each other better, working out a betrothal, etc., but it just hasn't had the real juice to get started (and epistolary is hard for me to write). But I would love to do it someday!

Full Moon (and by extension, Words Unspoken). Words Unspoken was actually supposed to be a one-off, and then Full Moon was already the sequel-prequel that begged to be written - but I left off the ending of the fic with a bit of a tantalizing sequel hook, and one day I'd love to write it!

Muse: Oh, the sequel to Muse is the white whale I'll never really accomplish. The premise of this story is so wild and out-there that I really wanted to try writing about Legolas from LOTR learning how to adjust to a modern life, but it got angsty really fast in my head and it also just didn't quite come together. HOWEVER! Artist @theycallme-ook did make an adorable comic series follow-up that I'm digging back into and kicking my feet wildly about, that you should absolutely check out!

10. what is the longest amount of time you’ve let a draft rest before you finished it?

This is hard to say! I've had stories I've picked up in stops and starts, and I don't know how complete a draft needs to be to fit this bill, but probably the two most notable stories for this are The Better Part of Valor and Haven. The very first scene of Better Part was actually one of the first pieces of LOTR fanfic I wrote, back before I was publishing - and it sat for four years. I assumed it was unfinished forever, but I kept wishing I'd get the right click to pull it back out and finish it, and finally that came along in the summer of 2021! Haven, similarly, was a story I wrote the first scene of back in the summer of 2022, and then finally got myself together to finish two years later after a lot of fandom journeying.

It's funny, because I'm running @goodintentionswipfest right now and encouraging people to post unfinished drafts, but at the same time . . . sometimes you really do come back to those stories!

19. the most interesting topic you’ve researched for a fic

You know, I'm actually not sure about this one! I don't tend to do as many research deep-dives as I know some people out there do (and definitely feel a little guilty about it). I've researched some strange things from time to time, but I'll just go with a mention that my ongoing splinter sect AU has been so inspired by my graduate work in cultural studies that it now has its own accompanying "inspired by" bibliography. It's not exactly a list of references, more just theorists and work that has inspired me spiritually, but I think it's probably the most research-intensive thing I've done. Also I read Pedagogy of the Oppressed recently for the sake of inspiration for something else I'm trying to work on within that universe (but also I should have read the book long ago), so I guess that does count as research!

Thank you so much for asking these! I had a ton of fun answering them. <3 I am happy to continue answering if others feel inspired to ask from the list!

[takemeinyrarmy]

thank you for the boy boy book list!!! I really appreciate it bc I’ve been trying to find more leftist books, if you have any suggestions yourself I’d love to hear them. the only one I can think of that you missed is the triumph of evil which I’m pretty sure Aleksa mentioned. Thanks again!

yeiii im so happy!!! thank u so much!!! :D My personal recommendation as Aleksa said as well is Open Veins of Latin America - Eduardo Galeano, it is the book that radicalized me lol. It is a quick look at the impact of European settlement and later US exploitation of LATAM, very good if you know nothing about LATAM, it is more of an intro than a very detailed history of the region but still valuable imo to develop real empathy with the global south and realize the ways in which imperialism benefits you even in the "simplest" things like a banana, coffee or chocolate from the supermarket and actually question if those "small privileges" are worth the brutalization of global south ppl.

A couple others I haven't read yet but I'm curious about are: Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Paulo Freire, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? - Mark Fisher, The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon.

And thank you so much for letting me know I have added the book to the list now! ˗ˏˋ ♡ ˎˊ˗

[dgr-maestro-en-progreso]

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Reflection - Alcoholism and the Working Class

As I continue to read "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire, I came across a retelling of a problem-posing story and the reaction of the participants. The story was recounted in a discussion group that, simply put, had the aim of finding, discussing, and delving into the topics and themes present in a community in Santiago. The hypothetical presents a drunkard passing by three younger people. When commenting on the hypothetical, the participating residents commented that the only person they respected among the characters in the story was the drunkard, as they could relate to him. They immediately recognized what that character was "coding" for: they saw him as the most productive character in the story, drinking to subdue his pain from the heavy work he endured and the low wage he was given for it. While there are multiple things to take away from this story, the focus here is the recognition and breakdown of reality that the participants engaged and aided each other with, including the investigators as participants themselves. The participants recognized the source of the problem, which is the first step in breaking out of the fatalistic tendencies of seeing the world, people, and humanity in general as incapable of change.

Many would be compelled to say that alcoholism and a man who engages and suffers from it simply has no virtue. This is an incredibly moralistic and, frankly, damaging mindset. However, it is what is most often employed in the world of education and politics.

The damage of this mindset comes from its obfuscation to the real problem, one which, while it has many facets, truly comes down to a general theme: the effect the ever-increasing toll of Capitalism has on the human being.

A moralist might take this and state that, while this person might not have the best conditions at work, the alcoholism is what's truly destroying them. The issue with this, however, it that, as "banking" education (education that focuses on an authority depositing irrefutable, never-wrong information on the object) often does, it doesn't focus on the cause of the issue. At its core, the cause brings forward the result, in this case, awful conditions and physical and mental anguish leads to a desire to make the pain go away without many resources, which, in this case, is alcohol.

I go back to the comments from the participants to zoom in on one more thing: the lack of judgment. In these discussion groups and circles, part of the breakdown of topics is trying to stay away from making rigid distinctions on what's right and what's wrong. More importantly, cause, effects, and the humanity granting or destroying results of those effects must take precedent.

As I continue to post these reflections, I am better able to digest what has easily been the most difficult book I've read. Thank you for your patience so far, I hope to have a fully developed paper on the subject of this book soon.

[gothhabiba]

from what i understand harrison bergeron was a satire of conservative reactions to civil rights movements but every time i had it taught to me in school the curriculum would intentionally read it as if it was criticizing "too much equality" (a real thing my teacher told us...). but that interpretation could also be attributed to it just being poorly written idk

I don't know much about "Harrison Bergeron" in particular, though I also don't think that such a question (is this a satire of dire conservative predictions about "equality going too far," or is it a conversative satire on "equality gone too far") is ultimately decidable from the text (or any text) itself.

I think you make an extremely good point with regards to the fact that when it comes to literary pedagogy, the way in which texts are taught is perhaps more important than the texts themselves. A particular story being commonly read at a certain grade level wouldn't strike me as reactionary or whatever if the predominant way of teaching English literature in schools weren't so guided by New Criticism, and the corresponding belief that a text is an encoded object that you must decode in a specific way to figure out what it "means" (along with the assumption, in my experience, that you must agree with what the text "means," or else you have somehow failed to be "taught" by the text, and have perhaps failed to understand it as someone who reads properly should have). And if schools didn't have a vested interest in interpreting these texts in a particular way (a way that of course cannot veer meaningfully anti-authority, that probably will not veer in a direction that views oppression as anything more than a set of overt attitudes to disavow, &c.).

This is kind of what I was trying to get at when gesturing at the "no one would find [this] icky to explain to an 8th grader" aspect of the phenomenon I'm talking about (where the phenomenon = which texts get chosen to be read in classes, and why?). And I think this is what some people are missing when trying to talk about what types of text should be taught in schools and which topics children are "ready" for, &c. &c.—Regardless of what children are "ready" for, is a pedagogy that cannot accommodate ambiguity and dissent "ready" to teach children about these topics, to help children use texts as tools to think about and discuss these topics? The pedagogical system that overwhelmingly focusses on Identifying Themes with maybe some close reading strategies thrown in? The pedagogical system where if you disagree with what you believe a text to be "saying," or if you disagree with what the teacher insists the text is "saying," you're missing the point at best and insubordinate at worst? The school system with teachers who are no less likely to be reactionary and have low opinions of children than anyone else? Where children have no opportunity to meaningfully guide discussion or to opt out of discussing a specific topic at a specific time in a specific way? That school system is the one you want to be "teaching" kids texts that deal with racism, misogyny, sexual violence et al. in? Lol. Lmao even.

[bettsfic]

craft essay a day #4

fuck yesterday's essay. to me, this is the only breakdown of "write what you know" that matters.

"Fascinated to Presume: In Defense of Fiction" by Zadie Smith

beginner | intermediate | advanced | masterclass 

filed under: process, character, favorite, pedagogy

summary

yesterday's Johnston essay and today's Smith essay have very similar theses, and yet one upset me deeply (yes, i got so angry i cried; almost nothing upsets me more than the blatant disrespect of the creative process*), and one i take to be the gold standard of this entire discussion. in fact i rely so much on Smith's essay that i rarely bother to come up with my own words on the topic. why would i, when she says it better (and with more authority, knowledge, and wisdom) than i ever could?

*i know that sounds ridiculous, but when you have had dozens of students in your office visibly shaking in terror of receiving individual feedback, or who repeatedly self-sabotage because it's easier to handle failure when you tell yourself you don't care, or who start crying when you compliment their work because that's how rarely anyone gives them praise or attention, it's hard to read something that spits in the face of their experiences. i've had students write in detail about their suicide attempts and they honestly believe it doesn't matter, that those experiences are worthless. i've had students write mountains of love poems for their real partner or ideal partner or horse or one time even just frogs, generally--and they think they don't matter. they think no one cares, no one's listening. and so yeah, when i read an essay that's so narrowly focused, so clearly confirms all these wonderful students' worst fears about writing, about being seen and received and accepted, yes, i get angry.

Smith opens the essay by describing what it feels like to have the voices of so many fictional characters in your head all the time, and quotes the Whitman "i contain multitudes" poem that has now been distorted by internet meme culture in the vein of Mary Oliver's "Wild Geese" and William Carlos Williams' "This Is Just to Say." she uses Whitman to introduce the idea of "containment": that we as writers contain identities other than our own, and in writing about them, face the adage of "writing what you know."

"The old—and never especially helpful—adage 'write what you know' has morphed into something more like a threat: 'Stay in your lane.' This principle permits the category of fiction, but really only to the extent that we acknowledge and confess that personal experience is inviolate and nontransferable. It concedes that personal experience may be displayed, very carefully, to the unlike-us, to the stranger, even to the enemy—but insists it can never truly be shared by them. This rule also pertains in the opposite direction: the experience of the unlike-us can never be co-opted, ventriloquized, or otherwise 'stolen' by us."

to me, what lends the most credence to Smith's argument is that she acknowledges that it's rational and reasonable to be wary of reading/writing a social identity you don't share. containment, she says, has colonial implications, and it's important to consider the greater historical context of oppression.

"Containment—as a metaphor for the act of writing about others—is unequal to the times we live in. These times in which so many of us feel a collective, desperate, and justified desire to be once and for all free of the limited—and limiting—fantasies and projections of other people." 

she then introduces an idea to better represent the concept of containment: "presumption," as defined specifically in a Dickenson poem, writing the presumption of others' grief.

"The counterargument would be that when it comes to presumption, we are in far less danger of error when writer and subject are as alike as possible. The risk of containment is the risk of false knowledge being presented as truth—it is the risk of caricature. Those who are unlike us have a long and dismal history of trying to contain us in false images. And so—the argument runs—if we are to be contained by language, let that language at least be our own."

her argument is nuanced and she makes many other interesting points, however in my summary i'm mostly concerned with defining the terms she sets out as a way to put the abstraction of writing the self/other into sharper relief. (i'm particularly interested in the paragraph about how it's the sentences themselves that create believability, and i have Thoughts on that i'm still working through.)

she concludes with what, to me, is the only answer: it depends. some writers do it right, and some writers do it wrong. some people will agree, some people won't. but you can't make sweeping declarations of what should or should not be, when the question at hand is so complicated.

"We know some representations are privileged and some ignored. Prejudice in these matters must be thought through, each and every time. Is this novel before me an attempt at compassion or an act of containment? Each reader will decide."

my thoughts

between these two essays (Johnston's essay yesterday and Smith's essay today), the ultimate point is that writing fiction is to reach outside oneself, even if we're constrained to our limited identities and experiences. and yet Johnston's essay comes at it from a place of privilege: not just that you can write outside yourself, but you should write outside yourself, and you should not write about yourself. he dismisses differences of race, gender, orientation, ability, and other oppressed social identities into a single paragraph that basically boils down to "don't worry about it." meanwhile, Smith acknowledges that the separation between self and other is a complicated one when considering the entire history of civilization. because within that history (and present), there's systemic oppression of certain social identities. and within that oppression, art exists. literature exists. publishing exists. there are identities and experiences that are offered a platform far wider and higher than others. so no, you can't just say "don't worry about it." thoughtfulness on this topic is imperative.

i labeled this essay "beginner" because i think it's a must-read for all writers and readers. ironically i haven't taught this essay yet, so i don't have a handy dandy lesson plan to quote my talking points or discussion questions. i have, however, been taught this essay in a workshop, and strangely i can't remember how the discussion went, or what i had to say about it, or what anyone else had to say about it either. this is strange namely because i'm very vocal (and possibly overbearing) in group discussion and end up replaying in my head all the things i said, wishing i'd said them better.

it does make me a little sad that Smith sort of declares fiction dead and writes about it in the past tense. i really don't think things are as abysmal as she makes them seem in certain paragraphs. there are a lot of amazing writers out there doing such great work. i don't think fiction is dead. i don't think it can ever die.

it's interesting to think of this essay in the context of fanfiction, because fanfiction is fundamentally about writing the other. we're not writing our characters, we're writing someone else's characters in our way. the concept of "self" in fandom is so flimsy anyway; as authors, as readers, we're usually either pseudonymous or anonymous. we often tuck the self as far away as we can. "write what you know" i think takes on a whole new meaning here. because...what do we know? we know our canon text, its universe and the characters within it. we are the audience receiving it and the creators speaking back to it. the readers of fanfic, presumably in the fandom for which they're reading, are also reading what they know. and yet it's always building new territory. i have a lot to think about still, and this overall topic is one that i'm considering a lot. as time goes on and i learn more, my opinions as writer, as teacher, as editor become more disparate and complicated.

despite that, my final thought is to read widely. read fanfiction, literary fiction, sci fi, fantasy, erotica. read academic journals, pop science nonfiction, memoirs and essay collections. read poems, short stories, novels, 12-book series. read old and new. read in translation. read old favorites with new eyes. read everything.

good news! i'm now cross-posting these entries to AO3, along with inputting a backlog of some of my older posts (the ones about/referring to fanfiction, to keep with the TOS) for better archiving/organizing. (all commercial hyperlinks will be removed and replaced with MLA citations in the end notes.)

craft essay a day tag | writing advice tag | ask me something

[beatyrosefirefly]

Multimedia Journal: Social Media @nowhitesaviors

The Instagram account @nowhitesaviors is managed by a group aiming to challenge the white savior complex in global aid. They post and share stories about power, privilege, and representation, highlighting voices from the Global South who are directly affected by these issues. Their mission is to shift the narrative from dependency on Western aid to empowering local communities for self-sufficiency.

The @nowhitesaviors account is relevant to our course on multicultural America as it addresses privilege and power dynamics. The white savior complex involves Western individuals acting as rescuers for people in non-Western countries, reflecting deep-seated racial and cultural hierarchies. This critique aligns with our course's exploration of how privilege and power operate in multicultural contexts.

Using our course materials, @nowhitesaviors offers a critical look at race, privilege, and global inequality. They frequently post about the problems with voluntourism, where Westerners go to developing countries to "help" without understanding the local context or long-term effects. This critique reflects bell hooks' discussions about viewing non-Western people as objects of charity rather than equals.

For instance, one post shows Western volunteers posing with African children, explaining how these images reinforce stereotypes and power imbalances. These images often serve more to bolster the volunteer's sense of doing good than to benefit the children involved. The account encourages followers to think about the ethical implications of their actions and support local initiatives instead. This ties into our readings on empowering marginalized communities to lead their own development, as discussed by Amartya Sen and Paulo Freire.

The account also uses the concept of intersectionality to show how the white savior complex intersects with other forms of oppression, such as gender and class. Some posts focus on how female aid workers face different challenges compared to their male counterparts. This approach helps followers understand that issues of privilege and oppression are interconnected, a key theme in our course.

In addition to educational posts, @nowhitesaviors features stories and testimonials from people directly affected by white saviorism. These firsthand accounts provide powerful evidence of the real-world impacts of these practices, grounding theoretical discussions in lived experiences. By amplifying these voices, the account fosters a more inclusive conversation about global aid and development.

By reflecting on the @nowhitesaviors account through our course materials, it becomes clear how social media can challenge harmful narratives and promote equitable approaches to global aid. This account not only educates its followers but also encourages critical thinking and active engagement with issues of privilege, power, and representation.

References:

hooks, b. (1996). Reel to real: Race, sex, and class at the movies. Routledge.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.

@nowhitesaviors. (n.d.). Instagram. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/nowhitesaviors/.

Photo 1: A Savior No One Needs: White Saviorism: Examples, Impact, & Overcoming It (healthline.com)

Photo 2: Volunteer Work: Tanzania Childcare Volunteer Work - Go Volunteer Africa

Photo 3: NO WHITE SAVIORS | Much appreciation to @soyouwanttotalkabout on a great post discussing the White Savior Industrial Complex. "But i disagree with the… | Instagram

[panglossesanddiadorims]

The Apt Pupils

In one story in the comic strip Hagar the Horrible, by Chris Brownie, Hagar's son, Hamlet, asks his mother why the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west.  Helga, overwhelmed with house chores, tells him to stop bothering and go ask his father. When posed the question, Hagar does not falter and explains a long time ago only the gods were entitled to have light in the form a bright shining star while the mortals were compelled- even destined - to live in darkness.

One day a village man decides to steal the star from the gods, but is caught during the attempt. After deliberating, the gods decide to grant him the star but not without inflicting a harsh punishment. From that day on and for all eternity, he was sentenced to carry the star on his shoulder while running from east to west around the globe. Then, said Hagar, that is the reason the sun, the robbed star, always appears first in the east and sets in the west.

When Helga asks Hamlet if his father answered his question, he simply says, " No, he doesn't know either."

If only we could behave more like Hamlet, who craves knowledge and new discoveries but never relinquishes his ability to question an information and confirm its verisimilitude. See the brave new world through the lenses of the glasses given to Miguilim, rather than through a myopic blurred one provided by an ignoramus captain.

No doubt it is easier to be in a reality that fits one's ambitions, expectations, fears, mindsets, dogmas and idiosyncrasies; to anathemize the messenger than debate his ideas; to assassinate characters by spreading fallacies, and as fanatical simpletons to wave banners with messages (photos taken in 1959, but it could be today) conceived by sectarian catatonic minds, than flying over the cuckoo's nest and away from the grip of Nurse Ratchet.  

But, for a moment, let's allow her – in fact all she symbolizes - to be our tutor and we, her apt pupils. It will be an opportunity for me to, as Hamlet, learn something…or not.

#1:” Paulo Freire, an educator and philosopher, fought to eradicate illiteracy among adults and formulated the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, based on people’s social conditions and history to contextualize the language to teach them to read and write while developing critical thinking, something good in real democracies. Since his methodology used people’s lifetime experiences, it could not teach - or as some patriots claim, indoctrinate - children.

Indoctrination should be associated with far-right and far-left dictatorships, influencers, French movie lovers, football fan’s organized groups, religious leaders, and social media.  A child’s life experience is still little, even if many have worked as adults, sought food in landfills and migrated in huddled boats and deadly caravans.  

Answer: You are wrong. He was a Communist, period. Every student in every school should, after prayers, videotape teachers to inform on them and prevent the spread of subversive, atheist ideas.

#2: But isn’t informing on teachers a tactic used by the Gestapo, Stasi, NKDV, Securitate, KGB, Hitler’s Youth and Mao’s Red Guards? Besides, why is it ok to videotape teachers in classrooms but not ok to install cameras on police uniforms?  What about filming priests when left alone with children, for evidences have shown they can harm kids in far worse ways than a school syllabus.  

Answer: Next Communist question, please.

#3: The 1964 Coup d’état succeeded because of several factors. First, the Cold War atmosphere prevailed; second, president Joao Goulart (the 1946 Constitution set voting for both president and vice-president separately; Milton Campos, the contender, was Janio Quadro's’ official running mate. Had he won, hardly ever would Janio tried a coup by resigning in 1961) was never a Communist, but a left-wing populist, a " getulista", whose erratic behavior, sectarian attitudes and irresponsible actions convinced even legalists, both military and civilians, to adhere to the coup to curb the political upheaval, never to implement a fascist regime; third, the conservative (nowadays reactionary) middle class, the Church and industrialists opposed Jango’s social reforms and really believed the country was heading towards communism (radical left-wing groups, people like Brizola and infiltrated right-wing agitators, trained by CIA, helped to contribute to this mindset). Finally, the military, who instituted the Republic through a coup, had tried to seize power in 1922, 1945, 1954, 1955, 1958 and 1961; 1964 was just the perfect storm.   

After the coup, the military promised constitutional disrupt was temporary and kept the 1965 presidential elections. Then, it all went wrong. But not to the far-right wing branch of the military and their civilian lackeys. They overpowered Castello Branco, abolished popular elections for president, governors and mayors of capitals, exiled critics and opposers and first-time coup defenders like JK and Lacerda. When in 1968 even the Church, middle class and industrialists joined intellectuals, students and unions in huge demonstrations against the regime, they used the lame excuse of Congress not allowing the prosecution of a House representative to enact AI-5 that legitimized a Police State, one that also exists in Communist countries. Later they disregarded their own 1967 Constitution when the three military commanders, nicknamed the Three Stooges, arrested vice-president Pedro Aleixo, preventing him from being sworn in as president after Costa e Silva suffered a stroke, making him more mentally incapacitated than he already was. Then, the three gathered in an apartment in Copacabana and decided to use their intellectual abilities, despite military intelligence being an oxymoron, to write another Constitution, for, after all, they knew better how to keep power privileges.

Eventually, the FEBEAPA ( Stanislaw Ponte Preta) disrupt spawned for another 17 years, during which radical left-wing guerrillas fought not to reinstate democracy and Jango, but to implement a Communist dictatorship (read Combate nas Trevas, by Jacob Gorender), and also military and right-wing paramilitary groups fought to maintain the status-quo by acting as terrorists by plotting to explode the Gasometro and the Rio Centro Convention center, estimated to have resulted in tens of thousands of victims.  

Is there a contradiction in defending the 1964 coup, the AI-5, and the military dictatorship and all the damage it entailed, socially, economically and politically, and at the same time preaching for freedom and democracy?

Answer: I don’t know what the word contradiction means.

#4: Why didn't the same indignant and revolted people in the demonstrations in the past gather again to protest and make choreographies and shout around a duck like mobs during public executions when the government was accused of COVID vaccine overprice, rachadinhas, the rigging of public offices and agencies, the use of Federal agencies for family and personal interests, fake news spread and attack on opponents, State property smuggling, collusion with militias, State ministers' association with Pentecostal pastors, illegal miners and timber loggers, money laundering, the Secret Budget, the purchase of properties (but not the Triplex) by the family in cash?

If Haddad had been elected and accused of not only of all of that, but a video showed his governments intents to disrupt the election and foster a revolution if he lost the election, how would the 'patriots" behave?

Had the other candidate been re-elected, would he, his military henchmen and supporters still doubt the electoral process even after its inner circle itself admitted to spreading fake news and not finding a single evidence the system was rigged?

If after the election results, instead of truck drivers blocking highways and bridges, terrorists planting bombs near airports, mobs making riots by burning vehicles and confronting police officers, people camping for weeks (don't they work, that used to be the motto) while blocking streets, marching like idiots and begging the military to intervene (its like fetish for people in uniforms), instead of pathetic infantile sectarian imbeciles wearing yellow shirts wrapped around flags, if, instead, there had been pathetic infantile sectarian people wearing red shirts and caps wreaking havoc and mayhem, what would their opinion be?

After storming into to official buildings, vandalizing the properties, including destruction of objects and defecation on furniture, participating in an attempt to overthrow a constitutionally elected government and mocking the institutions like criminal delinquents, they were appalled for being arrested for breaking the law (do you who you are talking to or why aren't you arresting street criminals?), horrified at the precarious sub-human conditions of our jails (seriously?), vehement to associate their arrest with draconian dictatorial measures (I thought they liked it) and not feeling any remorse or guilt, would they also condone the attitudes as legitimate if the other side had acted the same way?

No need to answer. It was never about ending corruption or fighting for democracy.

Just like Hamlet, one must learn to reason and not open the door to evil and expect to not to end up devoured by the ogres as happened with the American psychiatrist Douglas M. Kelley and Hermann Goring and the character in the movie The Apt Pupil and a former SS officer; both obsessed to understand how and why the most educated, law-abiding, and civilized people in Europe could have worshipped a deranged sociopath and enabled him and his inner circle of criminal delinquents, homicidal thugs and sycophants to transform them in a nation of murderers.

It is simple. All it takes is to start thinking collectively and accepting any explanation, even if it means believing in Hagar’s story.

[carronyaflowers]

maybe it was because we were just reading it in class but i really need aziraphale to read pedagogy of the oppressed and recognize how the dichotomy of good and evil should be disbanded overall. now it may not be that it is exactly a right application of freire's work but i just keep thinking from crowley's confession that the bad of hell and the good of heaven are not necessarily those, there's not really an evil, there's not really a good, but rather there are two systems that are supposed to be at war with each other that is really just one big thing that is trapping everyone into boxes of being a good or bad person/being. TO BE JUST AN US, no good no bad no heaven no hell that oppresses them into roles picked for them. like aziraphale wants them to both be on the good side, but crowley recognizes that whether they are on the side of good or bad, they are both just gonna be under the machinery of a bigger thing, having no real freedom to do whatever they want, to exist together just as they are and i just wanna fucking scream because there's these two celestial beings playing human together for millenia, and i'm thinking of freire's humanization = liberation and they don't have that.

[hyenadon]

I've seen so many trans men just adore the barbie movie and i'm on that team too. And ive seen and heard them talk about how masculinity and patriarchy is this...it's a prison. It's a beautiful golden perfect prison. If you are seen as a cis man, particulalrly a white cis man who has no disability and no neurodivergence, you get everything. Everything. It's just fucking handed to you. You never worry about the pepper spray clipped to your keys. You've never even bought pepper spray. You don't even think about it, you don't have to think about it. And idk something about this movie maybe made me realize that I will never feel like a cis man. I will never feel like a man and maybe that's okay. Maybe I prefer that. But my connection to masculinity will always be through the lense of being trans and gay and having grown up as a little girl. I like my identity. I like who I am. But my identity will always and inextricably be tied to being a little gay and a little fruity. And I shouldn't have to just like. Abandon my history as a woman to call myself by he/him pronouns. I think my history of living life as a girl is important to me. also just tagging this back to barbie - the first experience barbie has in the real world is some hardcore sexual harassment. And I just wanna ask anyone who has ever been perceived as a woman - do you remember the first time you were ever threatened like that?

I do. I was twelve. I was twelve years old and a teenage boy screamed "i'll rape you in your dreams" to me when I was walking home from school. I was TWELVE YEARS OLD. That's wrong. that's just WRONG. jesus christ. can you just imagine offering that violence to a child? and like. I actually can't even imagine being a teenage boy offering that violence to someone. I don't want to be that. I don't like that. I feel deeply viscerally uncomfortable with the fact - the *fact* that men and masculinity are tied along with violence. And so this whole thing is making me think. This stupid little movie about dolls, this stupid, derivative, easy movie, about a fucking doll, it's making me think harder than I have in- god, i swear, years.

The brain is a muscle (it's not, it's an organ, but stay with me for the metaphor) and I am working it out so hard that my brain is so sore. I'm thinking about so much. I'm thinking about my own gender and how gender is inextricably linked to power dynamics. I'm also thinking about men and masculinity. I'm also thinking about how I need to read some more bell hooks. I'm also thinking about feminist pedagogy. i'm also thinking about how like. well. the movie did indeed feature many characters of color, the movie was still incredibly white, and therefore the movie is and will always be about white feminism. I'm thinking about how there is nothing I can do to fix it. The world. I can't fix it. It's wrong and awful and I can't fix it. I can't be a woman enough to fix it and I can't be a good enough man to fix it. There is something so wrong and broken about the world. I want to make it better. I can't.

I don't even know what to do or what to say. This movie gave me a boost in self confidence - that's great - but as I said to my bestie - I don't want that. I don't wanna feel smart. I don't enjoy this. Feeling smart means I am aware of how awful the world is. How incredibly prevalent misogyny is. Every second of every day is misogynist. Every movie. Every tv show. Every book. It's hatred. I mean. I like that I know i'm smart now, my Media Analysis Powers are turned the fuck ON (ive always known that my superpowers are just in analyzing media and writing. even when I am at my worst self hatey self, I know that I can think about fiction, and write)

but I want my media analysis powers turned back off. because it's *painful* to think about this. It hurts too much. Its only been a couple days and I am so, so tired.

being aware of the world and myself and my friends and the systems that oppress us. It sucks. i feel stabbed.

[zenruption]

Pedagogy Of The Oppressed

When I was a senior in college, I was introduced to a theory on education that I had never heard of prior. This theory grabbed me and has grown roots in my mind and shaped many aspects of the way I see the world. The ideas were termed liberatory pedagogy at the time and came from writings from Paulo Freire and his disciples. I almost attended graduate school at Columbia University due to Dr. Mann’s close affiliation with Freire’s teachings. Here is a brief review of Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is a seminal work by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, first published in 1968. The book is a critical analysis of the traditional banking model of education, which Freire argues reinforces the oppressive structures of society, and proposes an alternative liberatory pedagogy that involves dialogue and critical reflection.

In the banking model of education, teachers are seen as the depositors of knowledge, and students are the passive recipients who are expected to memorize and regurgitate information. This approach, according to Freire, maintains the status quo of oppression, as it fails to challenge the dominant narratives and structures of power in society.

In contrast, Freire proposes a liberatory pedagogy that involves dialogue between teachers and students, and encourages critical reflection and action. This approach emphasizes the importance of students' experiences and perspectives, and encourages them to question the oppressive structures of society and work towards social transformation.

"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" has had a profound impact on educational theory and practice, and has been widely influential in fields such as critical pedagogy, adult education, and community development. The book has been translated into many languages and has been read by educators and activists around the world.

One of the strengths of the book is Freire's clear and passionate writing style, which makes complex ideas accessible and engaging. The book is also notable for its emphasis on the role of education in social transformation, and its call for educators to be agents of change in their communities.

However, some readers may find the book to be overly theoretical or abstract, and may struggle to apply its ideas to their own educational contexts. Additionally, some critics have argued that Freire's approach is too idealistic and ignores the practical challenges of implementing a liberatory pedagogy in real-world educational settings.

Overall, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is a seminal work that has had a profound impact on educational theory and practice. While it may not provide all the answers to the complex challenges facing educators and communities today, it offers a powerful critique of the traditional banking model of education and a compelling vision for a more liberatory and transformative approach.

[educationalphilosophy]

Educational Philosophy

My approach to education is mainly influenced by bell hooks. Her books Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (1994), All About Love (1999), Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope (2003), and Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom (2009) have shaped the way I think about teaching. I read All About Love during my first job working with middle school students after my supervisor, who I looked up to, mentioned what an impact it had on him. I admire the way bell hooks put her whole heart and soul into teaching; you can really tell from her writing that she had a passion and a great love for what she did, and that had a direct impact on her students and their ability to grow and learn. 

When I think of my own educational philosophy these are some of the terms that feel most important to me: Love, vulnerability, freedom, growth, reciprocity, community, and autonomy; all of which are components that can be found in hooks teaching philosophy. Hooks believes in both students and teachers being learners, and learning from one another. In order to do this, she says that teachers have to be willing to be vulnerable alongside their students. She believes that love does have a place in the classroom, unlike many others who do not think that emotions play a role in education. However, I would argue, humans are complex, emotional beings, our emotions make us who we are, and to not hold space for them in the classroom does a huge disservice to both students and teachers. Feelings are bound to arise in a classroom that prioritizes dismantling domination. I believe that the classroom is a place for people to learn about systems of oppression and how our life experiences and identities impact the way we are able to live our lives, and so emotions and conflict are almost guaranteed to arise. That is why I believe every teacher should be equipped with the skills, knowledge, and self-awareness to navigate having challenging conversations alongside their students. 

I believe that each of the educational philosophies have aspects that I incorporate into my own facilitation. Social reconstructivism is the one philosophy that resonated the most with my own personal morals and values in relation to education, and one that I felt bell hooks references the most in her work. Hooks often cites the Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire whose work is referred to as the foundation for what is now known as critical pedagogy, similar to social reconstructivism. Freire’s philosophy has influence from existentialism as well, in that he believed in the importance of each individual student being their own autonomous being with their own way of thinking. Freire also believed in an education practice that functions as a tool for thinking critically about the world in order to bring about change, and utilizing lessons that diminish domination and oppression in the classroom. I believe students would be more engaged in lessons if they understood the real life application of what they were learning. The common practice of teaching students information for the sole purpose of seeing how well they can regurgitate it on a test, without providing any context, gives students no reason to want to care about learning. If you explain to a student why what they are learning is important, and how they could use it in the future to help themselves, their community, or the world, it would give them more incentive to be engaged in the topic and has the potential to create a more just world. 

Education as the practice of freedom, as hooks and Freier would say, allows for emotional, spiritual, and intellectual growth amongst all of its participants. School should be the place where transformation happens. Where ideas can blossom and flourish. Where systems of oppression can be dismantled. School should be a place where people are taught to think critically. School needs to be a place of safety for children (see ending gun violence) where they feel the freedom to explore their minds.

[ultimatesponge]

Humanæ is a photographic work in progress by artist Angélica Dass, an unusually direct reflection on the color of the skin, attempting to document humanity’s true colors rather than the untrue labels “white”, “red”, “black” and “yellow” associated with race. It’s a project in constant evolution seeking to demonstrate that what defines the human being is its inescapably uniqueness and, therefore, its diversity.

Art, Artist, Race, Art Resource

What are the characteristics of multicultural and anti-racist/anti-oppressive pedagogy grounded in CRT? How do they differ from each other?

Read: 

Christine Sleeter, ‘Creating an empowering multicultural curriculum’ in Race, gender and class, 2000

Acuff, J. B. (2014). ‘(mis)Information highways: A critique of online resources for

multicultural art education,’ International Journal of Education through Art, 10(3), 303-316.

Dipti Desai, ‘The Challenge of New Colorblind Racism in Art Education.’ In Art Education, 2010

Beverly Tatum, ‘Critical Issues in Latino, American Indian, and Asian Pacific American Identity Development’ in ‘Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’ And Other Conversations about Race, pp. 131-190

Rethinking Schools, Teaching for Black Lives: ‘Schools and the New Jim Crow, Interview with Michelle Alexander’

Media//Watch:

Race: The Power of an Illusion, Part 3 [57 minute video, If link doesn’t work, access via NYU Kanopy]

School to Prison Nexus website created by NYU Art+Ed students (2020)

Artwork:

James Luna, Take a Picture with a Real Indian, 2013

Angelica Dass, Humanae Project https://angelicadass.com/photography/humanae/ 

[evellys--blog]

Okay so I just got done reading/listening to Mark Fisher/Mart Colquhoun’s book Postcapitalist Desire: The Final Lectures, along with having pretty good familiarity with Fisher and Colquhoun’s other works, and I’ve been increasingly interested in reading Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy, and have read reviews and summaries of it online etc. As someone from the US who’s been philosophically “raised” on YouTube philosophy, the (French) postmodern philosophers and such are the most prominent and impactful to what I have consumed in terms of theory, but another writer I was introduced to which has been very impactful to my own thought is Paulo Freire —who also declares himself as a radical postmodernist in his Pedagogy of Hope. 

In reading Postcapitalist Desire, I found great similarities between Fisher’s analysis and Freire’s ideas of the oppressor’s parasitism, to put it one way, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire’s idea is similar to, and could help connect, three of Fisher’s ideas here, the parasitism of capital in the bourgeois, Lyotard’s idea of the proletariat desiring suffering in his Libidinal Economy, which I am the most interested in this comparison, and, in a way, Fisher’s Capitalist Realism itself. It’s obvious to see the connection to the first idea, however I do think it’s an interesting exploration, because if you apply Freire’s own formulation of the oppressor’s parasitism, in which the oppressed get trapped the oppressor’s mindset of “to be a man, to be alive, is to be an oppressor”, to capital, it gains an interesting idea of the oppressor looking up to capital as necessary to be alive and to exist, effectively coming back to the idea posited in Postcapitalist Desire of “economics is theology! economics is the science of reification”. This could also echo another level down into the oppressed through neoliberalism to create what Fisher described as Capitalist Realism. Most interestingly, however, is Freire’s similarity to Lyotard’s idea that the proletariat, the oppressed, desire suffering under capitalism. The thing I find interesting is both how opposed Freire and Lyotard seem in their writing style and such, and that Lyotard got such, almost reflexive, criticism for his idea, though when Freire posited almost the exact same thing, it was praised. There are some differences, I will note, between Freire’s “fear of freedom” and Lyotard’s “desire for suffering” but ultimately they end up in the same place, and, if we use Fisher’s analysis of Libidinal Economy, both call for the listening to the desires and real situations of the oppressed for a better future.

I may be just spewing nonsense, and/or just saying something already well-known, but I haven’t heard anyone talk about it. I find it very interesting how both “routes” of thought, both with foundations of Marx and inspired by Marcuse etc, sort of end up converging again, or they could. What I bring here is that I feel like, in reading the Freudo-Marxist->postmodernist->accelerationist works and problematics they pose, in which Fisher and Helen Hester allude to a conclusion of a sort of Promethean invention of the future in response to the lack of an access to the Outside of capital, Freire, and his emphasis on hope as an ontological need, could be very important if not necessary to the formulation of that future and raising consciousness.

Freire, Libidinal Economy, Marxism and accelerationism?

[seaoflove]

I LOVE how you explained windows and mirrors! The quote you’re talking about is a derivative of Radine Sims Bishop’s quote! It’s used a lot in discussions of American English/Literacy teaching pedagogy because of the prevalence of white male authors/protagonists. We talk about how mirrors can be used, as you said, to heal and validate and know you aren’t alone; windows allow you to see others’ perspectives and experiences and help foster empathy for others; and the rest of the quote, sliding doors, which is your fantasy, imagination, etc! It’s a quote used a lot when arguing for a variety of texts within the classroom. There are people out there who just want us to teach the same old white dudes and you end up with many many people growing up without seeing themselves in a book. I think that’s also where #ownvoices comes into play- allowing for more mirrors for marginalized/oppressed people, and windows for those who fall under the category of the privileged/oppressor group.

this is so interesting! you worded this so elegantly & yes i can’t help but agree. the literary canon is sadly very narrow in this aspect (read: old white dudes), and im so grateful of the wider view modernity have unearthed from silenced underrepresented/oppressed voices... when thinking about a book as a door i believe it’s equally as important to ask: a door to where? from whose perspective are we witnessing this new world?

(& i had to look up the quote u mentioned)

Books are sometimes windows, offering views of worlds that may be real or imagined, familiar or strange. These windows are also sliding glass doors, and readers have only to walk through in imagination to become part of whatever world has been created and recreated by the author. When lighting conditions are just right, however, a window can also be a mirror. Literature transforms human experience and reflects it back to us, and in that reflection we can see our own lives and experiences as part of the larger human experience. Reading, then, becomes a means of self-affirmation, and readers often seek their mirrors in books.

[teacup-tai]

Hello my darling! I’m here to ask you things ☺️ I wondered what your three most important books are, and why!

Hello my lovely Bella! 💖 Oh that's not an easy question. I will choose the most important books that informed my writing and my own story of wanting to be a writer.

1) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

I got the first book of the saga as an Easter gift in 1999, when I was 9, just after my parents divorced. This book is important to me because the characters made me company in one of the hardest moments of my childhood, and they kept keeping me company throughout so much hardship. But I'm choosing the first one, bc it felt like an open door to imagination and creativity like never before. I rapidly became obsessed about it 😅 and after the second book I started thinking I could give back to the world the marcel of stories, and I decided I wanted to write. And that's how I started writing.

2) The Hour of the Star by Clarice Lispector

Clarice is my favourite writer in the whole world. She's Brazilian, and one of the biggest authors of our literature. I read this book for the first time when I was 15, and I've been in love with her writing since then. It's visceral, raw, real, she uses often times stream of consciousness in her books, though not in this one. This one, written in first person, is narrated by a writer about the struggles of writing a novel, at the same time we get to read the novel. It's amazing, it's one of the best things I've ever read. Everyone who enjoys writing should read it, it's short and gorgeous. I totally rec!

3) What I Talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami

Well, Haruki Murakami is my favourite contemporary writer since 2008 when I first read Norwegian Wood. I believe that this book is very nice and informs a lot about how his creativity works, how his routine is perfectly tailored to his writing. How he balances things. And this gave me so much inspiration and ideas on how to invest on my own writing and all. I love how he writes, and also he tells his own story as a writer. Also another great rec!

Bonus: the books that are most important to my professional life are: Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire; The Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano; Teaching to Transgress by bell hooks; and a bunch of essays by Audre Lorde. And I rec them all 💖