Exploring and confronting reality need to occur for knowledge to be acquired. Freire calls the critical consciousness as responsible for this task. However, he believes that we all operate in generative themes that are framed by real consciousness that contains limited perceptions. He sees that a critical consciousness using praxis of reflection and action takes one beyond real consciousness into the potential consciousness where new themes can be generated. A supposition of this confrontation of reality is that there is an objective reality that exists independently from the consciousness. This allows for the exploration. However, he believes that our understanding and knowledge is limited by the generative themes, the perceptions of this reality, which are historically and culturally rooted. Knowledge is a living and active relative cultural construct. Since all humans exist independently of reality and are integrally experiencing reality, he believes that communal discourse allows for reality to be communally explored co-intentionally. In turn, this synthesis of generative themes, or experiences, yields a much more comprehensive understanding of objective reality.
My question: Is there something lost by appeasing the undeveloped and nascent thematic understandings of reality in illiterate people? As much as Freire advocates a horizontal playing field where every relationship and community is to be considered valuable and legitimate at illuminating themes as a whole, does understanding all people as equals create an imbalance, a regress, in the holistic understanding?
People are at different stages of reflection and their critical consciousness. How can one expect effective discourse to take place when illiteracy and proper reason, poisoned by superstitions, is rooted in their minds? (Freire addresses this in depth, of course, by presenting various methods for effective discourse between those with critical consciousness (revolutionary leaders) and the illiterate. I won’t elaborate here.)
Are there not principles? If there are, we need to be critical and ask their origin, as well as what their functional aim intends. Principles, however, offer a starting point for reason and reflection. I suppose one can lead these people to understand and utilize these principles through dialogical relationships. After all, if reality is objective, humans are capable of confronting it and gleaning the laws of thought on their own.
More later.
William Dare 