Separated by a Common Heterodoxy. Illich, Freire and the Perilous Spell of Radical Canonicity

IF 0.2 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John Baldacchino
{"title":"Separated by a Common Heterodoxy. Illich, Freire and the Perilous Spell of Radical Canonicity","authors":"John Baldacchino","doi":"10.14516/ete.506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars, students and teachers who admire and continue to find inspiration in Paulo Freire’s and Ivan Illich’s work often insist on a shared common ground. This is done for good reason: Illich and Freire sought a sense of hope and liberation beyond the limitations by which large sections of humanity remain oppressed. It is therefore too easy to argue that texts like Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Deschooling Society can be aligned in sustaining a liberating and emancipatory approach, just as Illich’s case for the disestablishment of education would make a lot of sense if it were aligned with Freire’s critical pedagogical narrative. However, as this paper begins to show, though noble, such an approach would be detrimental to the one foundational aspect which both works happen to share: the claim to heterodoxy by which both Freire and Illich have endeared to make their case. More than a standard academic paper, this is a reflection on decades of being engaged with these two books. In a mix of personal and academic thoughts, and mostly taken from an Illichian perspective, the author argues that one must clearly separate these books by further submitting them to a reading that would immediately dispense with the gloss by which they remain canonized though often confused. While not exhaustive, this paper is meant to provoke more questions than give any specific answers.","PeriodicalId":41950,"journal":{"name":"Espacio Tiempo y Educacion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Espacio Tiempo y Educacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14516/ete.506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many scholars, students and teachers who admire and continue to find inspiration in Paulo Freire’s and Ivan Illich’s work often insist on a shared common ground. This is done for good reason: Illich and Freire sought a sense of hope and liberation beyond the limitations by which large sections of humanity remain oppressed. It is therefore too easy to argue that texts like Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Deschooling Society can be aligned in sustaining a liberating and emancipatory approach, just as Illich’s case for the disestablishment of education would make a lot of sense if it were aligned with Freire’s critical pedagogical narrative. However, as this paper begins to show, though noble, such an approach would be detrimental to the one foundational aspect which both works happen to share: the claim to heterodoxy by which both Freire and Illich have endeared to make their case. More than a standard academic paper, this is a reflection on decades of being engaged with these two books. In a mix of personal and academic thoughts, and mostly taken from an Illichian perspective, the author argues that one must clearly separate these books by further submitting them to a reading that would immediately dispense with the gloss by which they remain canonized though often confused. While not exhaustive, this paper is meant to provoke more questions than give any specific answers.
被一个共同的异端分离。伊利奇、弗雷尔与激进规范的危险咒语
许多学者、学生和教师在保罗·弗雷尔和伊凡·伊里奇的作品中钦佩并继续寻找灵感,他们往往坚持有共同点。这样做是有充分理由的:伊利希和弗雷尔寻求一种希望和解放感,超越了人类大部分人仍然受到压迫的局限。因此,很容易争辩说,像《被压迫社会的教育学》和《非学校社会的教育论》这样的文本可以在维持一种解放和解放的方法方面保持一致,就像伊利希关于废除教育的案例如果与弗雷尔的批判性教育叙事保持一致,那么它将非常有意义。然而,正如本文开始表明的那样,尽管这种方法是高尚的,但它将不利于两部作品碰巧共享的一个基本方面:弗雷尔和伊利希都喜欢用异端来证明自己的观点。这不仅仅是一篇标准的学术论文,也是对几十年来从事这两本书的反思。在个人和学术思想的混合中,作者认为,人们必须通过进一步阅读这些书来明确地将这些书分开,因为这些书会立即消除它们在经常被混淆的情况下仍然被推崇的光彩。虽然这篇论文并不详尽,但它旨在引发更多的问题,而不是给出任何具体的答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Espacio Tiempo y Educacion
Espacio Tiempo y Educacion EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信