Picchiottino 1

Julia Picchiottino
Professor Black
WRTC 103
19 October 2016
A Critical Synthesis on the Ideas of Freire and Edmundson
Peoples needs are dynamic they are always changing. More often than not, the needs of
a person are defined by the society they are a part of and raised from. Just like peoples needs,
society is also constantly changing. Even though the education system as a whole is aware of the
dynamics involved with both people, particularly students and teachers, and society, that does not
mean they have the means to address certain major issues right as they are happening. On
average, the education system tends to be about ten years behind on addressing the dynamicity of
people and society. However, even though society tends to change majorly about every ten years,
that does not mean all of issues in society change or even go away. Wouldnt that mean at some
point, the education system would be able to address it? When comparing the ideas of Freire and
Edmundson, two major educators for their respective time periods, it appears the answer to that
question is no. In both of these educators essays, I found that they agree broadly on some
major themes. If Freire and Edmundson were able to converse with each other, they would both
majorly agree with the others work because of their belief in the power of critical thinking. To
understand their agreement in conversation, it is important to understand first where each
educator stands.
Teachers either work for the liberation of the people- their humanization- or for their
domestication, their domination (Freire 243). This quote directly shows Freires views on
teachers. This view helped him create key educational concepts such as banking concept and
problem-posing which he defines in his essay, The Banking Concept of Education. In this
essay, the banking concept is defined as [the] act of depositing, in which the students are

Picchiottino 2
depositories and the teacher is the depositor. (Freire 244). This concept supports the idea of a
hierarchical relationship between teacher and student the teacher knows all and the student
knows nothing. Because of this hierarchical relationship, the only knowledge the student receives
is the teachers knowledge. The effect of this hierarchical relationship dehumanizes both the
student and teacher. It dehumanizes the student because they do not get to develop or challenge
their own views. It dehumanizes the teacher because their views will never be challenged by a
differing view. This leaves both parties in an oppressive state. They now live in a fixed, static
way of life in which personal expression through views or creativity will not and cannot appear.
There is, however, a way to combat such oppression. According to Freire, the solution is not to
integrate them [students, teachers] into the structure of oppression, but to transform that
structure so that they can become beings for themselves (Freire 246). How these students and
teachers can move beyond their seemingly stagnant roles and become beings for themselves as
Freire said is through the use of his other educational concept: problem-posing. Freire defines
the problem-posing concept of education as responding to the essence of consciousnessintentionality- rejects communiqus and embodies communications (Freire 249). In contrast
with Freires banking concept, the problem-posing concept humanizes and equalizes
students and teachers and their relationship with each other. In this concept, a student can also
teach and a teacher can also learn because of the concepts encouragement of individual critical
thinking. This critical thinking leads to involved discussion, creativity, and action within their
thinking and lives. Critical thinking is also what Edmundson from UVA believes is missing from
students in colleges today.
Edmundson believes critical thinking is what is missing from students in universities
today because of a term he has defined as consumer culture and how it has affected students

Picchiottino 3
and their roles in higher learning. Consumer culture is defined as [a culture] ever more
devoted to consumption and entertainment. (Edmundson 40) This culture turns students into
consumers rather than learners. When students begin to look for what college they should attend,
they take into account how pretty the campus is or how nice the facilities are rather than the
merits of the professors or degree programs they would be studying under. Students also then see
the classes they are taking as services that they and their parents have paid for rather than
opportunities to expand their knowledge through discovery and discussion. This feeling of
entitlement leads to a shift in the student-teacher relationship. A teacher becomes a resource, a
thing, that is supposed to help the student get their degree rather than someone, an individual,
who challenges the students ideas and makes them think of what exactly their degree entails. If a
teacher has a differing opinion from one of their students or upsets them in any way in this day
and age it could become the reason they lose their job. Furthermore, if a teacher does not teach a
class that is deemed relevant to the success of the student, they could lose their job. The
consumer culture and shift in the student-teacher relationship is not the students fault though; it
is the fault of the universities. Universities have transformed from being places of learning to
being businesses looking to make money. Edmundson points out that Colleges dont have
admissions offices anymore, they have marketing departments. (Edmundson 43) Edmundson
believes colleges and universities have shifted from being centers of learning to businesses
looking to make a profit because of two things: demographics and money. As stated by
Edmundson: the college-going population in America dramatically increased after the
Second World War. Universities expand easily enough, [however] its not easy for a
university to contract. (Edmundson 43) Because of this huge population growth, both
demographically and in colleges specifically, colleges have to stay transfixed at the size theyve

Picchiottino 4
expanded to so that they do not lose money. They entice students to come to their schools by
upgrading and adding facilities to their campuses. Even though it appears that colleges have a
hold on students and that our consumer culture is too ingrained to fix, Edmundson preaches that
that is not the case. Furthermore, even though Edmundson points out and unpacks consumer
culture in his essay does not mean he supports it. While it could be inferred that he has bias
because of his teaching position at the University of Virginia which would lead him to express
how he does not like how students have more power over his lesson plan than he does, the merit
to what he is trying to inform of us of should debunk said inferred bias. While Edmundson
informs us of consumer culture primarily in his essay, he also informs us of what he believes can
repair the student-teacher relationship that consumer culture has fractured: critical thinking. In an
effort to compel students to think beyond what they think they know, Edmundson says
rebelling against established ways of seeing and saying things, [lets] genius help us to apprehend
how malleable the present is and how promising and fraught with danger is the future.
(Edmundson 48)
In both of these essays, I see two amazing educators pleading to society as a whole to
think for themselves. I feel that Freire and Edmundson would agree on the value of critical
thinking the most if they were to ever meet and talk together. Furthermore, expanding on the idea
of Freire and Edmundson being able to talk with one another, I feel that if they were able to share
their views they would see eye to eye most of the time. Freires ideas of oppression and the
banking concept would really tie in well with Edmundsons idea of the consumer culture and I
infer that Edmundson would pick up on that connection and discuss it. I feel that Freire would
further unpack his stance to Edmundson by saying that consumer culture is a result of
oppression. Furthering that conversation, it is in my opinion that they would then reach the

Picchiottino 5
consensus of students being able to think critically and outside the box as being the combatant to
this oppression. While I did say that I believed Freire and Edmundson would see eye to eye most
of the time, I also believe that there are one or two topics that might concern one or the other. A
prime example of this would be how Edmundson sees students having control of the teachers
lesson plan as being a bad thing. Freire might argue this because of his belief of the ideal studentteacher relationship, where a student can be a teacher and a teacher can be a student. Students
being able to influence the lesson plan might not be seen as such a bad thing. However, to
alleviate this potential argument, it should be pointed out that while it would be fantastic for
there to be a completely equal relationship between student and teacher, it simply cannot be in a
consumer culture scenario. It cannot be in this scenario because of the fact that the relationship
Edmundson points out in the consumer culture scenario shows that students have, in fact, more
power or influence than their teachers. Therefore, it would not fit into Freires ideal studentteacher relationship. However, to conclude, even though that would be where Freire and
Edmundson argue, I still firmly believe that Freire and Edmundson would agree more than
disagree.

Picchiottino 6
Works Cited
Edmunson, Mark. "On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College
Students." Harper's Magazine. September 1997. 39-49. Print.

Freire, Paulo. "The 'Banking' Concept of Education." Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Herder,

1972. 242-254. Print.