D

Dialogue, Critical Thinking, massive popular expressions of “pseudo-critical”

and Critical Pedagogy and “anti-dialogical” communication.
The foundation of Freire’s critical pedagogy is
Raymond A. Morrow the opposition between “banking education” as
Emeritus Professor, Department of Sociology, hierarchical transmission and rote memorization
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada of knowledge, as opposed to “critical education”
based on dialogue that at times problematizes
teacher authority, without dispensing with it alto-
gether, as part of a shared (“co-intentional”) effort
Introduction
to interpret the “world.” The primary goal of
dialogical learning is critical thinking in the form
Given the variety of often conflicting meanings
of critical literacy, thus to link “reading the word”
given to the term, discussions of critical pedagogy
with “reading the world” in terms of locally situ-
need to be grounded with reference to the contri-
ated social scientific and political categories
butions of the most important founder of this
understood in terms of “generative themes,” cul-
tradition, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire
minating in “praxis-reflection,” i.e., linking trans-
(1921–1997). To do so requires a careful historical
formative political practice with critical self-
consideration of the foundational categories and
reflection. In the classic formulation in Pedagogy
methodology of his pedagogical project, giving
of the Oppressed (1970), Freire’s experience in
particular attention to his understanding of dia-
developing literacy programs for adult peasants in
logue and its relation to critical thinking as “crit-
Brazil became the foundation for a tradition of
ical literacy.” These issues have more recently
“popular education” oriented toward marginal-
taken on a new urgency. On the one hand, demo-
ized groups more generally (Torres 2019).
cratic citizenship – whether viewed from a
But there have been conflicting interpretations
national or global perspective – depends crucially
of how to apply Freire’s model to other social
on forms of critical thinking that enhance capaci-
contexts (often referred as “reinventions” of
ties for democratic deliberation and dialogue. On
Freire). In order to clarify Freire’s approach to
the other hand, “post-truth” digital culture has
dialogical learning and critical thinking, it is help-
presented a fundamental challenge to
ful to situate his approach in relation to contem-
democracy’s goal of reasoned deliberation about
porary educational theory and research, especially
competing claims with respect to knowledge and
two important more recent tendencies: the so-
values, as evident in how Internet “trolling” and
called “critical thinking” movement and the “dia-
the manipulation of social media have become
logic” turn. Reviewing these two approaches,
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019
M. A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_320-1
2 Dialogue, Critical Thinking, and Critical Pedagogy
which have developed relatively independently of
each other and of Freire, will provide a framework
and a vocabulary for analyzing the distinctive
contributions of Freire’s understanding of the
emancipatory deep structure of critical thinking
that converges with contemporary discussions of
critical national and global citizenship education.
The Critical Thinking Movement
With respect to the first theme, critical thinking in
education is associated primarily with the so-
called critical thinking movement dating from
the 1960s, which has its origins in philosophy
(logic, and especially informal logic relating to
fallacies, and argument analysis) and cognitive
psychology (e.g., problem-solving skills). In its
original form, it was based on the assumption that
there are generic, universal skills based on logical
reasoning that can be transferred directly “across
the curriculum” and into political life as a “ratio-
nal” citizen. From this perspective, reasoning is,
like logic, a decontextualized individual compe-
tence that is ahistorical and universal. Another
version of the movement in the language arts
and composition has been concerned with argu-
ment analysis (e.g., the influential “Toulmin
model” of reasoning). The dominance of such
approaches is evident in the textbook industry
concerned with critical thinking.
The critical thinking movement was criticized
from the beginning. Some questioned the assump-
tion of automatic transferability of generic, con-
text-free critical thinking skills, arguing that
adequate competence could be learned only in
“domain-specific” situations and practices of par-
ticular disciplines and professions. Further, the
focus by philosophers on the informal logic of
abstract reasoners was criticized for neglecting
the intellectual “dispositions” or “virtues” neces-
sary for motivating disciplined thinking. Another
question was the need to consider individuals as
part of learning communities. These and other
criticisms were summarized by one of the leading
representatives of the movement (Richard Paul)
in terms of the differences between the “weak”
and “strong” versions, or the “technical” and
“emancipatory” understanding of critical think-
ing. Whereas the weak version was driven by
logic and problem-solving on the part of individ-
uals, the strong version opened up a wider range
of issues relating to dialogue, collaboration, prob-
lems without purely technical solutions, and the
sociocultural implications of critical thinking (e.
g., class, race, gender, colonialism, etc.).
Sociologically and historically, the emergence
of generic, logic-driven critical thinking
approaches in education can be viewed as a
response to the inherent limits of “rote learning,”
or what Freire called “banking education,” which
was no longer adequate for the formation of the
skills necessary for human capital in neoliberal
capitalism. Expressions of this shift from “bank-
ing” to what might be called individualized
“investment” education in skills training can be
found in the proliferation “critical thinking” texts
in fields such as education, law, nursing, social
work, business, etc. that adapt generic logical
competence to practical decision-making. This
larger context also helps explain the disillusion-
ment of the early critical wing of composition
studies influenced by Freire, whose hope to
develop writing programs as a form of critical
literacy was largely compromised by the neolib-
eral educational agenda and the spread of high-
stakes, standardized testing.
Dialogic Education
The second tendency concerned with “dialogic
education” has more recently emerged as central
topic in educational theory, with literary theorist
Mikhail Bakhtin, psychologist Lev Vygotsky, and
especially Freire acknowledged as the most
important precursors (Schwarz and Baker 2017).
Nicholas Burbules, in an important, pioneering
book (and subsequent articles) that is in part
inspired by Freire, analyzes the diversity of dia-
logue in teaching (Burbules 1993). He differenti-
ates four types of dialogue with distinctive
configurations of dialogue and critical thinking:
as conversation, as inquiry, as debate, and as
instruction. Also, he provides an illuminating
Dialogue, Critical Thinking, and Critical Pedagogy
discussion of “failed dialogue” and its relation to
problems of power, knowledge, and ideology.
Freire: Critical Thinking, Critical Literacy,
and Dialogue
Freire’s approach to critical thinking can be situ-
ated and reconstructed from the perspective of
anticipating the criticisms of the “weak” critical
thinking literature, as well as convergent with
more recent developments in critical thinking the-
ory and research relating to dialogue and argu-
mentation (Schwarz and Baker 2017). In short,
Freire’s pedagogy can be viewed as consistent
with the “strong” critical thinking approach
while clarifying and radicalizing some of its
themes, especially its emancipatory implications.
This complementarity has been obscured,
however, by misunderstandings of Freire’s rela-
tion to Marxism and critical literacy. Such prob-
lematic interpretations oscillate between
exaggerating the authority of the radical “Marx-
ist” knowledge of the teacher and denying it alto-
gether by reducing dialogue to the discussion of
student experiences. The first possibility is evi-
dent in defining critical literacy in simplistic and
dogmatic terms as neo-Marxist ideology critique
(see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on “critical liter-
acy”), an interpretation that is inconsistent with
his theory of dialogue and the “progressive” post-
modern understanding of knowledge and radical
democracy in his later writings. At the opposite
extreme, some view his theory of dialogue as
calling for the abolition of teacher authority and
complete abandonment of techniques of transmis-
sion and memorization. Such radical anti-author-
itarian strategies, however, do not address the
importance of dialogue facilitation by the teacher,
the differences between different domains of
knowledge (e.g., the sciences, the humanities,
and social studies), and that the crucial issue is
the overall dialogical framework for the topic at
hand, not the reduction of education to pure dia-
logue. For example, how is it possible to conceive
learning in sports, music, or mathematics without
some forms of “rote” activity such as systematic
exercise, repetition of scales, or memorization of
rules?
3
Though Freire’s pedagogy is often described as
“Marxist,” this label is misleading for a number of
reasons: it was rejected by classic Marxist regimes
(the Soviet Union, Cuba, China), relied primarily
relied on the early Marx and other philosophical
influences (existentialism, phenomenology,
Frantz Fanon’s postcolonial theory), and does
not take into account the later developments in
his thinking. Consequently, it has been argued that
Freire is best understood in relation to the Frank-
furt School tradition of critical theory, especially
as a pedagogical complement to later post-Marxist
critical social theory (e.g., Jürgen Habermas’s the-
ory of communicative action and deliberative
democracy and Axel Honneth’s theory of
recognition).
To avoid such problematic readings, it is nec-
essary to differentiate the two dimensions of
Freire’s methodology: the core stable, relatively
unchanging pedagogical concepts (e.g., “anti-dia-
logical” vs. “dialogical” learning, critical literacy,
etc.) and the particular, changing social theoretical
assumptions that guide social diagnosis and the
application of the foundational concepts. To illus-
trate the interaction of these two dimensions,
Freire’s career can be described in terms of three
diagnostic stances, representing different config-
urations of the stable core concepts and his chang-
ing sociopolitical diagnosis: the early “liberal
democratic” phase in Brazil where adult literacy
education was part of a project oriented toward
electoral participation on the part of peasants
(Education for Critical Consciousness,
1967–1970); a “revolutionary Marxist” phase
from the late 1960s through the 1970s linked
with the rise of dictatorial regimes in Latin Amer-
ica and the apparent impossibility of democracy
(Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970) and related
subsequent reflection in response to literacy con-
sultant work for the World Council of Churches;
and a “radical democratic” phase that emerged
following his return to Brazil with the
reestablishment of democracy in the 1980s (Ped-
agogy of Hope, 1992). It is this third, radical
democratic phase that provides the most influen-
tial and persuasive general reference point for
contemporary contextualization of his founda-
tional categories. It remains critical in focusing
on the need for multicultural recognition,
4 Dialogue, Critical Thinking, and Critical Pedagogy
economic redistribution, and eco-pedagogy. This
“final Freire” was post-Marxist in the sense of
acknowledging the foundational significance of
the Marx as a resource for social thought, but
also recognizing the democratic deficits of the
Marxist tradition and the need for rethinking the-
ory and practice in neoliberal capitalism in rela-
tion to contemporary critical social theory
informed by empirical research, democracy as a
process of deliberation, and the epochal signifi-
cance of environmental crisis. From this latter
perspective, it also becomes possible to situate
Freire in relation to both critical thinking move-
ment and theories of dialogic education more
generally.
Critical thinking as critical literacy in Freire’s
radical democratic sense can be reframed in terms
of three basic, widely recognized aspects of learn-
ing: generic skills (e.g., as described in the critical
thinking movement), the depth understanding of
knowledge that goes beyond rote learning
(domain-specific knowing that is facilitated by
generic skills), and learner dispositions or intel-
lectual virtues (e.g., curiosity, self-directed learn-
ing, making claims and justifying them publicly,
engaging in learning as a collaborative process).
In Freire’s pedagogy, the concept of critical liter-
acy implicitly integrates these three aspects of
learning. This point can be illustrated by recog-
nizing that critical literacy involves generic logi-
cal and argument skills, a particular kind of
knowledge that is domain-specific (e.g., forms of
social awareness that inform and motivate active
democratic citizenship), and a variety of learning
dispositions related to a capacity for both dialog-
ical argumentation and translating social knowl-
edge into practice. In other words, critical
thinking in this strong sense has two analytical
aspects: a generic or formal dimension based on
reflexive logical reasoning and learning disposi-
tions that enable dialogical argumentation and a
substantive (socio-critical) one that informs criti-
cal literacy. These two forms of reasoning are in
turn integrated in social practices: praxis-reflec-
tion on the part of subjects with capacities for
dialogical agency.
The generic skill aspect was referred to in
Freire’s early writings as “critical transitive
consciousness” but can be reframed as formal-
dialogical thinking that has diverse characteristics
and requires a variety of learner dispositions or
intellectual virtues as evident in the following:
The critically transitive consciousness is character-
ized by depth in the interpretation of problems; by
the substitution of causal principles for magical
explanations; by the testing of one’s “findings”
and by openness to revision; by the attempt to
avoid distortion when perceiving problems and to
avoid preconceived notions when analyzing them;
by refusing to transfer responsibility; by rejecting
passive positions; by soundness of argumentation;
by the practice of dialogue rather than polemics; by
receptivity to the new for reasons beyond mere
novelty and by the good sense not to reject the old
just because it is old-by accepting what is valid in
both old and new. Critical transitivity is character-
istic of authentically democratic regimes and corre-
sponds to highly permeable, interrogative, restless
and dialogical forms of life. . .. (Education for Crit-
ical Consciousness, 2005 {1967–1970}, New
York: Continuum, p. 14)
The formal aspect of reasoning corresponds to
the logical and problem-solving skills described
in the “weak” version of the critical thinking
movement (e.g., causal rather than magical expla-
nations; “soundness of argumentation”), but also
includes the “strong” approach’s awareness of
learner dispositions that are related to communi-
cative interaction, collaboration, and democratic
deliberation. The dialogical aspect refers to an
interactive capacity for “dialogical argumenta-
tion,” that is to say, the ability to engage in various
forms of dialogue that employ argumentation
skills and related learner dispositions that are
appropriate for the context at hand (e.g., as inti-
mate dialogue across difference, as inquiry, as
debate, and as instruction). Though the “weak”
version of critical thinking neglected this latter
dialogical dimension, the more recent introduc-
tion of a “collaborative” component to the inter-
national PISA testing of 15-year olds suggests a
belated recognition of such issues.
On the other hand, socio-critical thinking as a
second dimension of critical literacy is domain-
specific (e.g., relating to local and global citizen-
ship education) and substantive in involving
social scientific knowledge about “how society
works.” The term that Freire originally used for
Dialogue, Critical Thinking, and Critical Pedagogy
understanding socio-critical thinking can be trans-
lated literally from the Portuguese as
“conscientization” and often rendered more
loosely and ambiguously as “critical conscious-
ness.” Indeed, his frustration with conflicting uses
of the term led him to avoid it for a number of
years. Nevertheless, it remains useful to denote
the transformative outcome of a specifically
Freirean conception of critical literacy, as long
as the social theoretical content relating to oppres-
sion and domination is understood as both univer-
sal (applicable to any kind of society) and yet
taking distinctive forms, whose understanding
requires appropriate sociological concepts, in dif-
ferent historical contexts. Though his early work
cultivating critical literacy involved the identifi-
cation of “generative themes” that defined peasant
experience in Brazil in the 1960s and facilitated
emerging from the passivity of the “culture of
silence,” later he was influenced by postmodern-
ism and critical social theory (e.g., Henry Giroux)
and was concerned with a range of marginalized
social standpoints in neoliberal capitalism, an
issue now referred to as the intersectionality of
class, race, gender, indigeneity, etc.
Socio-critical thinking also requires learning
dispositions (or virtues). The preoccupation in
Freire’s pedagogy with the intellectual disposi-
tions of democratic subjects relating to dialogue
is one of the most original and least discussed
aspects of his approach. His understanding of
intellectual virtues was thus focused on the pre-
requisites of dialogue as mutual learning: avoid-
ance of the anti-dialogical effects of “fanaticism”
and “sectarianism,” “humility” and civility as cru-
cial to dialogical argumentation, and the impor-
tance of “rigor” and value-oriented “scientific”
approaches to the knowledge necessary for
informing praxis-reflection and learning from
error.
Another distinctive feature of Freire’s
approach was also a concern with what could be
called “learning indispositions,” or psychologi-
cally internalized, unconscious obstacles to learn-
ing and dialogue. For Freire, following the
example of the German critical social psycholo-
gist and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm
(1900–1980), the most fundamental obstacle was
5
the “fear of freedom”: a depth psychological
indisposition to critical learning arising from
how power and domination cultivate blind obedi-
ence to authority and the internalization of the
perspective of the oppressor. He also followed
Caribbean philosopher and psychiatrist Frantz
Fanon (1925–1961) in extending this theme to
colonialism. But Freire also recognized that there
were many other more or less anti-dialogical
forms of society that inhibited critical thinking.
To conclude, reading Freire in relation to the
critical thinking movement and dialogic educa-
tion more generally provides a framework for
reframing his pioneering contributions and
linking them to contemporary developments. On
the one hand, it becomes evident that socio-criti-
cal thinking can develop in any of the forms of
dialogue, including conversation, inquiry, debate,
and instruction, especially when accompanied by
formal-dialogical reasoning. But conversation –
dialogue as an existential encounter – also has a
distinctive, depth psychological and intercultural
function relating to transforming consciousness
and overcoming difference. For example, such
questions have increasingly become evident in
teacher education from the elementary classroom
through postsecondary and adult education (Clin-
ton 2017; Obenchain and Pennington 2015). The
relation between dialogue and critical thinking
can also be also illustrated by the contrast between
relativist and dialogical approaches to difference.
The relativist conception of tolerance encourages
indifference to others, reproducing the status quo.
If all claims are equally valid, there is no motiva-
tion to question them. In contrast, a dialogical
approach encourages the learning disposition to
engage difference through comparative justifica-
tions, hence mutual exchange of reasons for
belief. The great difficulty of such dialogue is,
however, to balance the standards required for
“accountable talk” (Lauren Resnick) with the
right of everyone to speak, not just those “in the
know.” Otherwise those who think they don’t
know remain silent, or alternatively “dialogue”
breaks down into the anarchy of mere expressions
of opinion, without accountability to the relation
of knowledge to often contestable facts, reasoning
as providing rational justification of claims, and
6 Dialogue, Critical Thinking, and Critical Pedagogy
the solidarity that flows from giving respect to the
thoughts and experience of others (Schwarz and
Baker 2017: xi).
Cross-References
▶ Freire and the Struggle for Social Justice, Ped-
agogy of the Oppressed Half a Century Late
▶ Habermas and Education
▶ Social Justice Framework for Teachers, Key
Concepts and Applications
▶ Teaching for Critical Democratic Citizenship
References
Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and
practice. New York/London: Teachers College Press.
Clinton, J. (2017). Argument as dialogue across difference:
Engaging youth in public literacies. New York/Lon-
don: Routledge.
Obenchain, K. M., & Pennington, J. L. (2015). Educating
for critical democratic literacy: Integrating social stud-
ies and literacy in the elementary classroom. New
York/London: Routledge.
Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argu-
mentation and education: History, theory and practice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Torres, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of Paulo
Freire. Malden/Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.