Module 5: Critical Consciousness

Dialogue for Critical Consciousness

Freire coined “radicals” as people who know and believe in what they know based on evidence. Also, they are open to other interpretations, and will share their perspectives using dialogical and evidence-based means. Dialogue, by contrast to debate, means that there is no “one-upping” another opinion, but rather a peaceful and meaningful exchange of differing perspectives that will lead to joint conclusions and actions. There are no winners and losers in dialogue, only a movement towards a more critical consciousness through critical reflection. In contrast to radicals, sectarians uphold their beliefs, not based on evidence and critical reflection but, based on preconceived notions, external influences, and the machinations of those “in control.”

Thus, no matter the context, whether at home, work, or learning, fostering critical consciousness through dialogue involves critical reflection that results into action. First, it should be clear to all participants that dialogue is not the same as debate. There are no winners or losers. Conversations must be as objective as possible, providing justification for positions rather than being influenced by emotions and bias. Being objective is the best way to ensure fairness in dialogue. Second, dialogue is collaborative. Though there may be differences in positions, it is collaborative work since the outcome should be positive for all parties involved rather than be advantageous for one side. So, it follows that there should be mutual respect for different positions. Finally, by virtue of integration, rather than adaptation, critical consciousness should be accompanied by action for transformation. Though the steps involved are generally the same in all contexts, there may be more steps in more restrictive contexts such as in work and learning due to most rules and regulations being superimposed rather than made collaboratively with everyone. However, I can cite a good instance of dialogue being used to foster critical consciousness in my family.

My father is someone I consider to be a strong person. He is strict yet kind. He is conservative yet open. He is serious yet funny. His personality is quite unique, but that is why we appreciate him. Every time we hold family meetings, he serves as the “moderator.” Family meetings do not happen often in our family. In other families, meetings occur during dinner, but our family does not eat dinner together all of the time. So when family meetings occur, it becomes tacit understanding for everyone involved that the matter is serious. I would rather not disclose the topics of our discussion; however, I can describe the proceedings to be dialogic. First, he does not set rules or superimpose standards. All of us are free to make statements. Second, there is no right or wrong answers since he is open to many opinions. Finally, solutions are made collaboratively, with all persons involved taken into consideration. He makes sure that everyone has a say in decisions. He also makes sure that the meeting closes with everyone satisfied. Thus, he is a very important role-model for us. We learn to become independent through his facilitation. His approach is also something that I hope to apply in other contexts.

Conclusion

The development of a critical consciousness is not only important for adults, but also for children. Early development of critical consciousness will lead to the students’ multiplicity of perspectives and decision-making based on objective justifications. Students are less likely to be objectively influenced by their perceptions, emotions, and superimposed rules. Furthermore, they are more inclined to take action based on critical reflection. However, for adults who less likely to be open to changes, this means a need to formulate teaching strategies and learning environments that will develop habits of mind that are inclined towards reflective judgment and critical consciousness.