Reflections of a liberated teacher

As I mused over liberation this week, my mind relentlessly wondered into the philosophy of true liberation. Fully burdened with the question of personal liberation, two liberated educators’ works constantly featured: Ngugi wa Thiongo - Decolonizing the Mind and Paulo Freire - Pedagogy of Freedom. Truly the nation is liberated but how liberated are the people? How liberated am I as a teacher? Even more importantly, how liberating is our education? Truth be told, Rwanda is the most peaceful country in Africa and yes, it is a liberated nation. However, regarding the idea of liberation with plurality is a social injustice. The country may be independent but according to Ngugi, unless the (individual) mind is decolonised, we are just living a lie! That having been said, let’s face the elephant in the room: is Rwanda a liberated nation? Just how liberated are you? What is the best way to liberate people other than through education? According to Paulo Freire, an educator, true liberation can only be achieved through education and that a liberated teacher is the means to this end. In his book, Pedagogy of Freedom, he states that “to teach is not to transfer knowledge but to create the possibilities for the production or construction of knowledge that in its very end grants independence”. He equally argues that “it’s in making decisions that we learn to decide and in our decisions that we practice true liberation”. To bring his point home, Freire attacks the “banking model” of education contending that traditional models of education see the student as an empty vessel just waiting for the teacher to pour in the knowledge. Applied to a banking sense, Freire insists that the student in the banking model is viewed as an empty account waiting for the banker (the teacher) to deposit some money (knowledge). Other educational theorists have expressed this notion in different terms such as “tabula rasa” (Jean Jacques Rousseau), which means “blank slate”. The student is essentially a blank slate and the teacher writes on the blank slate. The student, in both these cases, is essentially assumed to be passive in this process of education. Why is this bad? It does not give room for the production or construction of knowledge that in its very end grants independence. Freire argues that, “it transforms students into receiving objects- slaves. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men and women to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power”. Simply put, it is not liberating. Students are fed what to learn, controlled in what to think and how to react. They are taught to conform, to follow. They are not free, but rather, oppressed. If such students exist in this country, do we really deserve to be called a liberated nation? He also argued that the teacher-student relationship must be re-thought. He suggests that there needs to be some mutuality between the two for true and liberating education to succeed: “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously students and teachers”. The teacher must also learn from the student and the student must also be the teacher. The teacher learns, the student teaches. However, this does not mean the teachers must stoop so low as to erase the differences in status. Freire notes that the social relationship between the teacher and the student is not one of total equality; they are not on an equal footing. The teacher is still in a social position of authority. However, the teacher needs to be humble enough to be able to understand his position and its inherent power, and still open himself enough to be able to learn from his student. The teacher must not abuse that position of authority to oppress the learner (this becomes a form of authoritarianism). Instead, the teacher’s “fundamental objective is to fight alongside the people for the recovery of the people’s stolen humanity”. Freire’s reflections are true. Education can, in fact, liberate in many ways. However, it requires effort in order for this to happen. This is because education builds, within a person, fortifications they would not otherwise have. It creates character as well as expands their existing knowledge base. It can’t, however, liberate anyone unless that person seeks to be liberated. Education requires sacrifice and hard work. It gives you the tools you need, but it is up to you to use them once you have acquired them. People can free themselves using these tools. They can gain independence, knowledge and, ultimately, become self-sufficient and productive members of society. So what exactly does education free you from? It frees you from ignorance. It frees you from not knowing how things are and how things work. It gives you an edge over those who would seek to use their knowledge to harm you or otherwise hinder your growth and your well-being. Knowing prevents you from being taken advantage of; it also protects you from being deceived and swindled. This is how education sets you free. It allows you to follow your own path and make your own decisions so that you may live as you want. Now that we are on the same page, what does it all mean in terms of teaching? Teachers need to be critical of what they do, how they act, what they tell their students. We need to remember that we are there to educate, to guide, not oppress. We need to learn from our students and yet not be afraid that by opening ourselves up to such learning we are somehow losing that authority in the classroom. Learning, for the student, is a journey. We, as teachers, need to be there for them and to help them on their journey. Telling them what to think or how to do things the way we would like to see it done is not helping them on THEIR journey. It is THEIR journey, not ours: their liberation; not our oppression. We just have to remember that. The writer is a lecturer at The Adventist University of Central Africa