Page 10 - Webb_(2010)
P. 10

Cambridge Journal of Education   335

                 An interesting tension arises here. For on one level, Freire would be inclined to
              accuse Rorty of peddling the false hope of an irresponsible adventurer – a hope shorn
              of all empirical moorings in which the hope of attaining our shared utopian dream lies
              not in any careful study of concrete data but rather in the ‘astonishing’ qualities of the
              dream itself. On another level, however, Rorty’s characterisation of ‘romantic hope’
              resonates with Freire’s notion of conscientisation as the critical insertion into history
              of real subjects animated by a profound confidence in the transformative capacities of
              human agency and committed to confronting and overcoming the ‘limit situations’ that
              face them (Freire, 1972b, pp.71–72; 1976). The discourse of conscientisation is the
              discourse of transformative hope; a hope against the evidence that recognises the obsta-
              cles before it and yet grows in strength in spite of these (Freire, 2007b, pp. 71–72); a
              hope ‘full of risk’ that drives ‘the precarious adventure of transforming and recreating
              the world’ (Freire, 1972a, pp. 41, 72); a hope experienced by the hoper as ‘the taking
              of history into their hands’ (Freire, 1994, p. 176); and a hope that takes as its rallying
   Downloaded by [210.57.214.154] at 23:56 16 February 2015
              cry ‘Blaze trails as we go’ (Freire, 1994, p. 124)! When Freire talks of ‘the radical nature
              of hope’ (1998a, p. 53) he is referring to the way in which it stimulates the hoping subject
              to act in spite of reality and strive for the ‘untested feasibility’ that lies beyond the
              concrete material data of every limit situation (Freire, 1972b, p. 81; 1994, p. 90).


              The possibly impossible role of the educator
              The tensions and vagaries one finds within Freire’s reading of hope as the impatiently
              patient wait lead to conflicting demands being placed on the progressive educator.
              While it is clear that the educator must be animated by hope and committed to evoking
              it among her students (Freire, 1994, p. 3; 2007b, p. 107), how this translates into
              educational practice is rather less clear. Thus, in guiding the hope of the student –
              directing it, keeping it focused on the objective of humanization – the educator
              animated by patient hope must possess humility and renounce all claims to virtue,
              wisdom and superiority (Freire, 1985, p. 123). Humble though secure in their position,
              ‘the role of the educator is one of tranquil possession of certitude in regard to the
              teaching not only of contents but also of “correct thinking”’ (Freire, 1998, p. 34). The
              security, tranquility and certitude characteristic of patient hope enables the educator
              to engage in tolerant dialogue, earnestly and rigorously defending their position while
              respecting the right of students to adopt contrary positions (Freire, 1994, pp.65–70;
              Freire et al., 1994, pp. 149–151). Here, the proper response to a student’s refusal to
              accept the educator’s direction is to patiently and respectfully persevere, continuing to
              raise questions and problemetise reality but never imposing one’s own ideas (Freire,
              1998, pp. 75–6; 2007b, pp. 50–51). In this context Freire remarks: ‘If I fight with
              hope, then I can wait’ (1972b, p. 64).
                 In contrast to this, however, Freire tells us that there are times when ‘the educator
              cannot wait for students to initiate their own forward progress into an idea or an under-
              standing, and the teacher must do it’ (Freire & Shor, 1987, p. 157). This is because the
              brute reality of hunger and oppression ‘hurts the substantiveness of our being’ to such
              an extent that maintaining serenity becomes impossible (Freire, 2007b, p. 87; 1996,
              p. 181). The critical hope born of the No to deprivation is neither secure nor tranquil
              nor patient. Conceding that it may lead to unfocused rebelliousness, the educator
              animated by critical hope nonetheless sees a certain ‘nobility’ in impatience (Freire and
              Shor, 1987, p. 113). Driven by a restless passion and rage, the educator cannot remain
              satisfied with patient dialogue but must seek instead to engage their students in an
   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14