I guess I feel most emancipated when I don't really feel as if I am teaching
- when there is free and frank and enlightened discussion amongst the class
(myself included). Such exchanges are only possible when people learn how
to think rather than what to think, which is, I think, consistent with
Freire. To encourage independent thinking, I again concur with Freire, in
that this happens most readily when the subject matter can be made relevant
to the students. Therefore, no matter how "old" the theory might be, there
is much to be gained from finding current examples of whatever concept is
under discussion. The presence of varying interpretations of a phenomenon
amongst what is a relatively small group can of itself encourage a greater
depth and breadth in understanding - for some, the possibility of ANOTHER
perspective has never been considered.

At other times I resort to games or tricks. For instance, this week we
needed to get Weber's notion of "verstehen" under our belts. I began by
posing a brain teaser, which not only got their minds ticking over, but was
a riddle that demonstrated "explanatory understanding" through its solution.
The discussion then moved to examples of verstehen in the TV series "3rd
Rock from the Sun" - particularly useful for showing how easy it is to get
it wrong. The point is, when they know how to think they have acquired a
skill that will go with them everywhere, while learning what to think has
very limited application. The former offers its own freedom and encourages
enthusiasm for thought itself. The latter would seem to do quite the
reverse. So Freire and I are in agreement regarding the merits of
"problem-solving" rather than "banking" education.

We part company, however, at this point. I do not see that learning how to
think (and literacy is not crucial to this process) necessarily results in
the individual becoming politicised. If that is the aim when encouraging
the process, and if the programme is geared towards such an outcome, then of
course, it is the likely prospect - but this is manipulation. If the
programme is more generally prescribed, the result allows the individual to
follow the path of most relevance to them. Personally, I find this much
more acceptable, and conducive to a more dynamic and holistic existence.

While my interests have always been connected to the "social", particularly
social justice, one of my sons is completing a management degree (and we
have constant battles over the merits or otherwise of the New Right
ideology), and my other son is very much into technology and seldom
discusses or considers things of a political nature. My daughters are still
in their teens, but their interests are similarly diverse and I wouldn't
have it any other way. My concern with what Freire advocates is that it
could result in an awful sameness, and worst of all, it would be a sameness
centred on politics! Yes, I am being facetious, and I know that social
justice was a major concern for Freire too. It's just that real
emancipatory education allows us to be who we are - and some of us may not
be political.

I do have one concern with the notion of learning how to think, however.
The very term suggests there is one correct way to think, which I dispute.
On the other hand, are there ways of thinking that we are still ignorant of?
Is it time for another de Bono? Should intuition be accorded greater
validity or would that be a step backward?