Liberating “Liberatory” Education, or What Do We Mean by “Liberty” Anyway?

Abstract

In his 1999 essay, "Paralogic Hermeneutic Theories, Power, and the Possibility for Liberating Pedagogies," Sidney Dobrin argues that critical pedagogies should focus on liberating students by empowering them to negotiate the power relations that occur in individual moments of communication. Dobrin situates his argument within post-process theory and maintains that a pedagogy is inherently oppressive if it promotes codified processes, including processes of writing (prewritinglwritinglrevision, and so on) or of cultivating critical consciousness. Such "prescribed processes" deny the agency of individual students by taking care of the naming of the world for them (139). Critical pedagogy could promote "truly liberating possibilities" if critical educators avoid the prescription of process and instead help students resist the "power moves" that occur in individual moments of communication (146). This would allow students to "attain agency in a more direct manner than many liberatory and radical pedagogies profess" because it would prepare them to act at the level of one-to-one communication (146). Dobrin concludes his essay by stating that "students who become more adept at participating" in individual communication are not only more able to resist oppression, but are also empowered to "wield more adequately their will" against others (147). In short, Dobrin's theory locates liberation in the agency of the individual. On one level, this recasting of liberatory pedagogy sounds emancipatory: students would gain greater access to power with which to engage actively in individual moments of communication. A theory such as Dobrin's might provide critical educators with a framework to help

Heritage as liberation

“…Heritage as liberation can only succeed as a collective enterprise: sustained substantive action cannot be achieved singularly. If we adhere to a theory of liberation that privileges individual agency, we risk favoring “individuality at the cost of community, collectivity, and cooperation” (Ringer, 2005, 762). This is in part because if we wield the notion of liberation too loosely, it can beget the sort of paternalism that enables the very oppression we are attempting to counteract.…”

Meeting to transgress

“…By liberatory we mean setting someone free from a situation within which they were, or felt, restricted (Ringer, 2005). This could include release from a situation limiting behavior, thought, rules or a feeling of being dominated.…”

“…This could include release from a situation limiting behavior, thought, rules or a feeling of being dominated. Liberatory interactions also raise individuals' awareness of oppressive social conditions and empower them to work toward a more just society (Ringer, 2005). Liberatory professional interactions in academia may be interactions that free individuals from constraints they experience because of norms, implicit biases, or department policies and practices, and allow them to bring their full selves to the professional space.…”

Becoming Bilingual: Examining Teachers' Perceptions and Practices for Achieving Bilingualism and Biliteracy in English and Spanish in a Two-Way Dual Language Bilingual Education Program

“…Social practice principles place learning as a result of collaborative social practices in which students try out ideas and actions, and thus socially construct their learning (García & Wei, 2014, p. 153). Ringer (2005) emphasizes that a dialogic community in which individuals and communities work together, the community produces benefits for all. Benefits, through a linguistics lens, suggests the pluralist ideology in which languages co-exist and produce secure majorities (populations) who demonstrate a respect for language rights and language-minority development (Hornberger, 2003).…”