Analysis of Objections
and Convergences
It is clear that neither liberation theology nor
critical pedagogy have been widely accepted without reservation.
They have both, in fact, been submitted to substantial criticism- some
damaging and some not. In this section, the primary objections to
each theoretical system will be addressed, with attention paid to rebuttals
when possible. This should in no way be considered a comprehensive
critique of either theory; rather, it should be considered an instructive
survey of the major points addressed on either side of the issues.
They have been included under the same heading due to the fact that some
of the major criticisms are applicable to both theories in some way.
Following this survey, convergences between the two systems will be considered,
with special attention given to how they can and have been practically
combined.
One of the most vocal objections raised to both
theories is their significant reliance on elements of Marxist thought.
In the case of liberation theology, critics claim that one cannot invoke
Marxist categories without accepting the conclusions that follow from Marx's
theory of historical materialism. In light of the recent failure
of Marxist ideology in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, this
objection has gained strength in recent years. In reaction to this
challenge, some liberation theologians have begun to invoke these social
categories to a lesser degree, effectively hedging their once revolutionary
conclusions. Paul Sigmund gives us some indication of the direction of
this transition:
"Anticapitalism remains as an element in nearly all liberationst
writings, but more recently liberation theologians have recognized that
there are other sources of oppression-- sexual, political, racial, ethnic,
and ecological. Still, for most liberationists, capitalism remains
the principal variety of sinful structure, although they are willing to
admit that the historical examples of 'real socialism' .... cannot be viewed
as genuine instances of liberation (Sigmund, 1990: 177-178)."
At the same time, however, many liberationists have long argued that their
invocation of Marxist tools in no way limits them to accepting Marxist
conclusions about an inevitable worldwide proletarian socialism.
Nor, for that matter, have they tried to imitate the goals of a Marxist-Leninist
socialism. Their theories are revolutionary not because they advocate
the Marxist variety of revolution, but because they feel that any just
and substantive change in oppressive reality will necessitate drastic (hence,
revolutionary) changes in the status quo. Drastically changing the
status quo is revolutionary whether or not it results in socialism.
In this light, the failure of several historical examples of Marxist-Leninist
socialism in no way necessarily discredits the liberationist program.
Doubtless, it has had a profound effect on liberationist thought, but they
need not make the mistake of a fallacy of composition; claiming that
because some socialisms have failed, all of socialist thought is a failure.
However, it must be admitted that they are having some difficulty finding
or creating an alternate, viable form of socialism (Sigmund, 1990: 179).
Similar criticisms have been raised to critical
pedagogy as well. Critical theorists also use Marxist categories
of analysis, and many have advocated socialist revolution. Wardekker
and Miedema describe this percieved failure on the part of critical theorists:
"it is sufficient to say that for [several] reasons, of
which the waning interest in Marxist theory after the fall of the Soviet
Union is not the least, critical pedagogy is now considered by many to
have been a stillborn child that is interesting for mainly historical reasons,"
and that,
"some of the basic categories of critical pedagogy.... ought
to be revised in a fairly fundamental way- as some of its adherents, such
as [Henry] Giroux and [Peter] McLaren, have been doing (Wardekker and Miedema,
1997: 46)."
However, the same rebuttal as above still applies. Some may consider
it expedient to search for alternative political structures to advocate,
but it is not necessary as a result of this particular criticism.
Even McLaren, who is revising critical theory as just mentioned, concedes
that,
"While it is important to recognize the conceptual limits
of Marxian analysis for reading certain aspects of the [current] condition...I
believe that the main pillars of Marxian analysis remain intact: the primacy
of economics and the identification of contradictions and antagonisms that
follow the changing forces of capitalism (McLaren, 1995: 229-230)."
In more general terms, in relation to both critical pedagogy and liberation
theology, the fall of Marxist-Leninist regimes has precipitated a sort
of self-congratulatory belief affirmation among those who have criticised
the socialist project for years. To take the relative success of
one system as a denial of the potential of another a logical leap of faith
at best. It must be allowed that world capitalism has proved
more durable than several attempts at the creation of a socialist society,
but this in no way proves either the former as 'right' or the latter as
'wrong'. Capitalism is still vulnerable to many of the criticisms
raised earlier this century, and it has thus far proven itself ill-equipped
to alleviate the yawning social and political inequalities that are the
subjects of both liberation theology and critical pedagogy.
In addition to the criticisms just raised, liberation
theology has been the subject of church establishment attack for many years.
For purposes of brevity, they will only be mentioned here, as a further
examination of these issues is relegated to the domain of theological reflection
and beyond the scope of this study. One such objection is a church
insistence that God is not an actor in human history as much as He is an
actor in spiritual history, and it follows that the proper realm of the
church is in spiritual history alone. Gutierrez, among many other
liberationists, disagree wholeheartedly:
"God's presence in humanity, in each man, which is expressed...
in the idea of the temple, seems to us more fruitful and richer in ramifications.
It is in the temple that we find God, but in a temple of living stones,
of closely related men, who together make history and fashion themselves.
God is revealed in history, and it is likewise in history that men encounter
his Word made into flesh. Christ is not a private individual; the
bond which links him to all men gives him a unique historical role (Gutierrez,
1973: 201)."
Liberationists feel that the establishment of Christ's role in human history
must lead to a theology that espouses political action on behalf of the
poor. Among other angles of approach, they argue that many of the
acts of Christ were indeed political as well as spiritual. The church
categorically denies these conclusions. It must be also mentioned
that if these conclusions were accepted, liberatonists argue that there
would be little justification for the continued apolitical stance of the
Vatican. Therefore, in order for the church to continue with the
current doctrine of an apolitical status quo, these conclusions would have
to be denied one way or another. This appears to be a significant
weakness.
There are significant convergences between
these two theoretical systems, however, and a deeper look into these connections
may allow the strenthening of both in relation to the criticisms directed
toward them. Oddly enough, there is a significant lack of literature
addressing these commonalities in theory and practice.
Ideologically, the origins of liberation theology
took into account the success of critical pedagogy at its inception.
By the time Gutierrez published A Theology of Liberation in 1973 literacy
programs in Brazil, Chile, and later in New Guinea and in parts of
Africa, had already achieved considerable success in the implementation
of Freire's methodology. Indeed, Gutierrez made allowances to include
Freire's ideas in his seminal work. Drawing in part on this success,
liberation theology realized the revolutionary potential of such a successful
popular movement.
The similarities are striking: both are popular base movements, both
seek a change in social order in favor of the poor, both aim at personal
development through group solidarity, both put responsibility for social
struggle in the hands of the oppressed themselves, both stress the
economic and historical nature of their projects, both accentuate the importance
of praxis, both use Marxist social analysis to provide a basis for their
ideologies, and both have achieved consideralble success in Base Christian
Communities in Latin America. Indeed, it is amazing that one is often
overlooked in the study of the other.
Barry Kanpol offers an excellent attempt to bring
the educational left and liberation theologies closer together, stressing
the commonalities in ideological and practical structure between the two.
He concludes that,
"for the educational Left to move theoretically and practically
to the kind of transformation I am advocating, the dialectic
of social transformation and one's faith will have to be negotiated and
renegotiated. They must be intertwined, feeding off each other, unified
within difference and similarity, within and among different traditions,
singing the same joyous voice of solidarity in hope and joy (Kanpol, 1996:
116)."
The form of a possible resultant convergence might resemble something to
the effect of the Base Christian Communities that have achieved such successes
in Latin America. There are approximately 100,000 of these communities
operating in various parts of Latn America today.
McNab and Rees provide a good assessment of the
nature of these communities. They define the communities as '
"local religious groups that apply the critique of religion
and society inherent in liberation theology to everyday life, an everyday
life that does not dichotomize religious and secular activity. They
represent the praxis aspect of liberation theology. Many started
as bible classes, but these led to literacy programs [of a critical structure],
reflection, and social action (MacNabb and Rees, 1993: 726)."
Many of the literacy programs instituted drew from the pedagogical methodologies
of Freire and other critical theorists, which were consistent with the
goals of these revolutionary communities. Many of them also make
use of credit cooperatives to improve the economic situation of their members
through group solidarity and collective action. They are disdained
by the church heierarchy as they pose a significant threat to the hegemony
of the Vatican. Most base communites are organized and run by lay
people, which runs against the wishes and policies of the church establishment.
Often, these communities developed out of a need for a stronger group solidarity
than that provided by their local parishes. In this respect, it is
a response to the inactivity of the church on behalf of their dispossessed
brethren.
A great need seems to exist to develop stronger
ties between these two theoretical systems that run parallel and adjacent
to each other without often meeting. As theories of social change
and social empowerment, both critical pedagogy and liberation theology
hold enormous potential for the future of the dospossessed peoples of the
world. An enlightened synthesis of these two theoretical and practical
systems would enable a convergence of two of the most effective revolutionary
programs that exist today.
This site was created with Netscape Composer,
HotDog Pro, and CoffeeCup HTML
by Craig Pendleton
