In his evaluation of Paulo Freire’s “The Banking Concept of Education,” Allen Kinser highlights the Marxist agenda in Freire’s writing. According to Kinser, Freire’s thesis is centered around what he identifies as the “banking” concept of education, which Kinser points out is simply representative of capitalism in society. He believes that this system establishes an oppressive relationship between the teacher and the student, which fosters complacency in students. This complacency halts discussion in the classroom and is a trait that students will carry beyond their college years to fuel capitalist society. Kinser identifies Freire’s first piece of support for his argument to be the assertion that students are taught to think in abstract rather
…show more content…
This perceived difference seems to originate in Kinser’s distaste for Freire’s Marxist values. However, the overall subject is the improvement of the educational system and both seem to agree that this improvement is to be found in the continuation or betterment of meaningful discussion in the classroom. Kinser states, “I agree with [Freire] in one aspect: there should always be meaningful dialogue between students and teachers. There should never be a dismissal of questions, even if professor or students do not agree politically or philosophically” (Kinser 2). Both authors seem to have the same goal in mind, a stronger sense of freedom of discussion in the classroom. While Freire’s assessment of the current system and his call for absolute equality is a bit extreme, Kinser agrees to a degree with his ideas about fostering discussion in the classroom despite his condemnation of Freire’s argument as a whole: “He is completely wrong about this, but that is to be expected because the Marxist doctrine is only concerned with the accumulation of power rather than values. It is completely asinine to make the teacher equal to that of the students just as it is equally asinine to make a parent equal to that of a child” (Kinser …show more content…
There still needs to be a level of instruction, which requires the teacher to assume an authoritative role to a certain degree in order to inform students and equip them with the knowledge they need to effectively interpret and discuss subjects and ideas. In order for one to make a meaningful contribution to scholarly discussion, one must first be well informed, which comes through a more traditional form of education, a form that Freire disapproves of. I agree with Freire’s ultimate goal of continuing scholarly discussion in the classroom, even though I disagree with his seemingly excessive solution of absolute equality. Therefore, I do not agree with Kinser’s evaluation of Freire’s argument, which seems to conclude that Freire’s argument is without merit. However, I feel that if Kinser’s conclusion were complete, it might have resolved this inconsistency and come to a final conclusion about his feelings on Freire’s argument as a whole, a conclusion that might have helped to evaluate his own argument in relation to Freire’s
This perceived difference seems to originate in Kinser’s distaste for Freire’s Marxist values. However, the overall subject is the improvement of the educational system and both seem to agree that this improvement is to be found in the continuation or betterment of meaningful discussion in the classroom. Kinser states, “I agree with [Freire] in one aspect: there should always be meaningful dialogue between students and teachers. There should never be a dismissal of questions, even if professor or students do not agree politically or philosophically” (Kinser 2). Both authors seem to have the same goal in mind, a stronger sense of freedom of discussion in the classroom. While Freire’s assessment of the current system and his call for absolute equality is a bit extreme, Kinser agrees to a degree with his ideas about fostering discussion in the classroom despite his condemnation of Freire’s argument as a whole: “He is completely wrong about this, but that is to be expected because the Marxist doctrine is only concerned with the accumulation of power rather than values. It is completely asinine to make the teacher equal to that of the students just as it is equally asinine to make a parent equal to that of a child” (Kinser …show more content…
There still needs to be a level of instruction, which requires the teacher to assume an authoritative role to a certain degree in order to inform students and equip them with the knowledge they need to effectively interpret and discuss subjects and ideas. In order for one to make a meaningful contribution to scholarly discussion, one must first be well informed, which comes through a more traditional form of education, a form that Freire disapproves of. I agree with Freire’s ultimate goal of continuing scholarly discussion in the classroom, even though I disagree with his seemingly excessive solution of absolute equality. Therefore, I do not agree with Kinser’s evaluation of Freire’s argument, which seems to conclude that Freire’s argument is without merit. However, I feel that if Kinser’s conclusion were complete, it might have resolved this inconsistency and come to a final conclusion about his feelings on Freire’s argument as a whole, a conclusion that might have helped to evaluate his own argument in relation to Freire’s