There are many
principles, method and practice of teaching. And no one can tell what the best
method or what the most effective one to use. In this paper, I will compare and
contrast Pedagogy of the Distressed by Jane Tompkins
and Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo
Freire.
In Pedagogy of the Distressed, Tompkins tells about the true
ideals that are necessary to teach. She clearly stated that on the top of them
is particularly, fear. She uses her awareness of fearful teaching to relate
herself and the teachers and pointed out that it’s normal to be a fearful
teacher. At first, I was kind of confused because I was used to the idea that
teachers are supposed to be fearsome and students are the fearful ones. The
idea vanished when she stated in page 654 in the second paragraph, “Each person comes into a
professional situation dragging along behind her a long bag full of desires,
fears, expectations, needs, resentments—the list goes on.” This clearly
supported her. All people, even teachers, have emotions. These teachers are
doing their best to educate their students.
And in
page 655, Tompkins said, “we exemplify a model of performance which our
students succeed in in emulating, thus passing the model down to future
generations. Ironically, as teachers, we are still performing for the teachers
who taught us.” She clearly pointed out that if teachers use this kind of
passing down of teaching through generations, more likely students of younger
generations will have better understanding of their teacher. The students will
have a strong bond or connection with the teacher which will help to build a
stronger relationship for better learning. And as for the teachers, teaching
(in some sense) will be lighter or easier.
There
wasn’t really anything entertained me while reading Tompkins’ work, aside from
her analogy of sex as teaching. I thought it was witty and at the same time
accurate. It is on page 655, “In this respect teaching was exactly like sex for
me—something you weren't supposed to talk about or focus on in any way but that
you were supposed to be able to do properly when the time came.” Then she
added, “It’s something you do alone, although you’re always with another person
or other people when you do it; it’s hard to talk about to the other while
you’re doing it, especially if you've been taught not to think about it from an
early age. And people rarely talk about what the experience is really like for
them, partly because, in whatever subculture it is I belong to, there’s no
vocabulary for articulating the experience and no institutionalized format for
doing so.” In here, she somewhat stated that teaching is something you do
alone. (The argument in my head rose again and later, Freire’s work will
cultivate it.)
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire
tackled the relationship between oppressed and their
oppressors. Or I’ll just use the term the dominant and the subordinate. In
teaching, in my idea as I said before, teachers are always dominant and
students are the submissive ones. Freire stated that for oppressors, to be is to have and the endless control over the
oppressed is what they need to have. And men who dominate others see these
submissive ones as things or objects, not humans to be treated with integrity.
As a student, I had already seen a scenario like this. Whereas the teachers
implants to their students the idea that they should just seat, be dependent
and learn and the rest will be done by the teacher. They develop this in their
head, "We ought to keep quiet and let you talk. You are the one who
knows, we don't know anything." It is very teacher-directed and not
interactive. The students later develop some kind of inferiority for the rest
of his life. Or some will build the indication of revenge. I've heard a lot of
my high school classmates before that they would like to be a teacher and
punished the next generations of students because that’s what they experienced
throughout their learning. Freire stated this, "Their
(the oppressed) ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be
oppressors. This is their model of humanity. They are still identified with
their oppressors' values. The peasant who becomes a foreman may be harsher
toward the other peasants than the owner. The context of the situation remains
unchanged.” This is somewhat scary because this is like revenge to the ones who
oppressed you. And you can’t be teacher if you are like this. You will be like
a monster created by monster. The opposite of what Tompkins is trying to say.
“The oppressor, who is
himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, tries to hang onto his power
and dehumanizing practices.” Not only have the oppressed needs to be aided but
also the oppressor. They must help each other to see another perspective
without oppression. In teaching, teachers and students are at the same time
both teachers and learners. They learn from each other and help each other
learn. The reverse of what Tompkins said “It’s something you do alone, although you’re always with
another person or other people when you do it.” Freire created the idea that the students, while being taught, also teach the one who teaches
them. "They become jointly responsible for a process in which all
grow.", as he stated.
The idea that teachers are always dominant and students are the submissive one
that I got used to is Freire’s oppression. And this is completely off beam.
With Tompkins stating that it’s okay to be a fearful teacher combined with Freire’s idea, “the students, while being taught, also teach the one who teaches
them” somehow fits teaching. Teaching, in my understanding, is the interaction
between the teacher and the learner. There has to be some kind of bond or link
between the two that makes them utterly vice-versa at the same time. Thanks to
Freire and Tompkins, my idea of teaching in the future will be much more
reasonable and humane.
