Historical Roots

The History of Popular Education

Alexandra Barrett

Ball State University

Adult and Community Education (Spring, 2017)

Dr. Bo Chang

Table 1. Comments on Course Group Blogs

Name	Commented On
Alexandra Barrett	Group #4m-- Linda
Alexandra Barrett	Group #3 -- Vashon
Alexandra Barrett	Group #2 -- Mishelle Group #1 -- Mandy

Introduction

            Popular Education has a long standing history of being associated with Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, whose work first emerged in San Paulo during the late 1960’s.  However, many other educational movements titled, “Popular Education,” were being utilized prior to Freire’s implementation of such during the late 1960’s.  As well, programs and theories closely resembling Freire’s Popular Education but categorized using different names/identifiers were found to have occurred around the globe starting as early as the late 1700’s. 

            Noteworthy programs associated with ‘education for the masses,’ ‘working class education,’ ‘education for democracy.’ ‘progressive education,’ ‘radical education,’ ‘social-change education’ and so on and so forth provide examples of educational categories, theories or philosophies, that upon examination were found to have similar goals, practices, methods, etc.  Such programs or movements were being employed throughout Europe with the largest volume occurring in England, Australia, Scotland, Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.  Additionally, within Great Britain, Sweden, the Philippines, and South Africa programs called “Popular Education” were also being employed during various times starting as early as 1850.

            The Netherlands appear to have had the earliest of these types of Popular Education programs starting in approximately 1796.  Many education programs found in the various European countries seemed to coincide with societal upheaval and/or political turbulence associated with the time period just prior to World War II; with programs initiating and continuing from approximately 1848-1939.  During this same time period, additional programs – either called “Popular Education” or programs of similar characteristics – were found to be in fairly widespread use in Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, and Cataluna.  This trend for Popular Education programs to initiate during political, societal, cultural or economic chaos would continue forward throughout history.  Similarly, Paulo Freire himself launched his Popular Education programs during times of chaos both in Brazil and later when he was exiled from Brazil to Chile.

            Although there is much literature on the various programs found related to or with a direct linkage to Popular Education throughout the world; the works of Paulo Freire in Brazil are largely the focus of this particular study.  As Freire’s work most closely resembles the notions associated with modern-day Popular Education this is thought to be a logical foci.  Similarly, the works of Myles Horton, in association with his educational center in the United States, also provides a logical reference point for the project on Popular Education going forward; as its historical background and/or theory appear to be closely linked to the characteristics most commonly associated with contemporary Popular Education.

Highlights

            One of the most challenging aspects of the literature review process has been related to the overwhelming amount of historical data on the subject.  While the availability of a large body of secondary research documents being present is typically considered a positive aspect of the research process; this was not actually the case herein.  Due to the fact that there is much confusion with regards to making clear definitions as to what constitutes, “Popular Education” the first issue was in trying to capture what qualities or characteristics were associated with such.  Secondly, attempts needed to be made with respect to determining whether or not a particular program or philosophy that had been operating under a different name or category could in fact be considered as “Popular Education” for inclusion in the project’s historical background.

            Keeping the above challenges in mind, the following definitions for “Popular Education” and the associated characteristics of such were utilized for the project at hand:  “The Popular Education Network, a network of mostly university-based educators, describes Popular Education as being: 1) rooted in the real interests and struggles of ordinary people, 2) overtly political and critical of the status quo, and 3) committed to progressive social and political change.  [Furthermore] the network states that popular education has the following general characteristics:

• ·         Its curriculum comes out of the concrete experiences and material interests of the people in communities of resistance and struggle

• ·         Its pedagogy is collective, focused primarily on group as distinct from individual learning and development

• ·         Its attempts, wherever possible, to forge a direct link between education and social action

                (Popular Education Network, n.d. Plans and Purposes section)” (Choules, 2007).

            Another key reference point utilized for separating out which programs/philosophies to include in the research process was found by identifying the key differences between “Dominant or Traditional Education” and “Popular Education.”  As many of the educational movements pointed to throughout history, with respect to Popular Education, seemed to be focused on alternatives or rebellions against Traditional Education, this seemed like a practical application towards syphoning out the correct or applicable Popular Education programs.  Table 2, offers a summary of the differences between Dominant or Traditional Education and Popular Education based on philosophies, characteristics, methods, goals and so on and so forth.  When examining the details within the before mentioned table one can see how various aspects of Popular Education appear within other educational movements or philosophies that either pre-dated Freire’s work or coincides with his work.  Despite many of the educational movements only having shades of characteristics resembling Freire’s Popular Education, it is readily apparent how these other movements might have inspired or informed Freire towards creating “Freirian Popular Education.”

Table 2. Popular Education vs. Dominant/Traditional Education

Popular Education	Dominant/Traditional Education
Learning in action	Learning through absorption
Bottom-up, negotiated and inclusive	Top-down, professionalizing and exclusive
Problem-solving, evolving community driven curriculum	Pre-determined, unchanging institutional driven curriculum
Education for humans to develop social capital	Education for development of  humans as capital
Education to champion rights, as determined by the people	Education to meet the needs, as determined by the institution
Education for resisting hegemonic ways of thinking	Education for conforming with hegemonic ways of thinking
Education to strengthen the capacity of grassroots leaders	Education to strengthen the capacity of elite leaders
Education for community leadership	Education for individual leadership
Education for social change	Education for individual change
Access based on human rights, and equality for all	Access based on institutionally determined ‘merits’
Education for the common good	Education for the private, elite good
Education to support self-help initiatives	Education to help organizations manage or control employees
Education for the masses	Education for the privileged
Education as political and social action	Education as methodology
Education for community development and group empowerment	Education for individual achievement and self-serving empowerment
Education as passion and commitment	Education as detachment and technique
Education for economic, social and political democracy	Education for social mobility, private life, consumerism, authority and order
Education for participant-directed learning	Education for program-directed learning
Education for critical understanding	Education for skills development
Education for reflection	Education for diffusion of knowledge
Education for social responsibility	Education for autonomous goals
“Learner” of education	“Consumer” of education
Concern for social context	Concern for technique

(Flowers, 2004)

Influential Factors

            Many educational movements pre-dating or coinciding with the works of Paulo Freire seem to pose similar qualities (goals, methods, frameworks, etc.).  However, it does seem that the movements associated with or functioning alongside historical periods of political, societal, cultural or economic turbulence most closely resemble what we now have come to associate with Popular Education.  As stated previously, most contemporary associations with Popular Education are based upon Freire’s work, and as well upon other educational philosophers or practitioners working who were operating from within Latin America.  That being said, interestingly many of the noteworthy educational movements that appear to resemble Freire’s work originated outside of Latin America – typically in Europe, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Four categories of educational movements stand out within the literature reviewed: Working-class Education, Social-change Education, Progressive or Radical Education, and Democracy Education.  Forthcoming is a brief overview of each of the above-mentioned educational movements, and how the various strands of each pose similar to Freire’s Popular Education model.

Working-class Education.  Given the above description of characteristics and goals of Popular Education, one can easily see how educational programs and philosophies of other names/categories have similar underpinnings to those of Freire’s Popular Education.  However, some critical differences do emerge upon further examination of such.  For one instance, when focusing on Working-class Education, one notices that the goals of such programs were typically to meet the needs of the learner’s vocational or general academic needs.  However, these programs did not seek out learning goals associated with political or social change – the learners were not encouraged to question the status quo of society, politicians, employers and so forth.  In fact the goals of such Working-class Education programs were to encourage and foster greater conformity to overarching institution-based or government-based goals.

            Flowers (2004), offers an articulation of how Working-class Education was described throughout the literature review process by several authors, (Johnson 1988, Silver 1965, Neuburg, 1971), “One body of literature that employs the term ‘popular literature’ arises from the struggles of working class people in Europe and North America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to develop education that was controlled by and for the.  The principles and practices of popular education, it not always the term itself, have been in existence for more than two centuries” (Flowers, 2004).  

Social-change Education.  Social-education education, critical and creative pedagogy appear to be somewhat linked with respect to how they influence and are utilized with respect to Popular Education.  Popular education would seem to be the vehicle for social change movements and as relates to political, cultural, and societal injustices.  Righting the wrongs of institutionalized societies wherein certain groups are marginalized or disenfranchised is a key goal of Freire’s Popular Education as it first appears, “Education for the Oppressed.”  As well, this focus on equalizing and radicalizing power imbalance(s) has carried through into the contemporary objectives of current-day Popular Education.  With this in mind, many authors within the literature review process pointed to the fact that many social activities, community empowerment workers and the like operate under these guises – often using the methods associated with Freire’s Popular Education – while at the same time not explicitly identifying their own works as that of “education.” 

            Choules (2007), and Jara (2010) offer the following description of Social-change Education as it relates to Popular Education, “’Social change education, whether labeled popular education, critical pedagogy, or something else, generally uses an instructional methodology based on the foundational works of Paulo Freire (Campbell, 2011; Lather, 1998)’” (Choules, 2007).  “Critical pedagogy is the label under which much social change education locates itself in the West (Brookfield, 1995; Giroux, 2004; Lather, 1998; McLaren, 1989)… Popular education, on the other hand, arose from the lived experience of working with groups denied access to resources and power” (Choules, 2004).  “The common denominator [between the two] is that the pedagogy is employed as a tool for engaging people to transform unjust social, economic, and political conditions” (Choules, 2007). 

Progressive Education. Progressive education is largely associated with the philosophy or movement of education reform with respect to public education for children and youth.  However, much of the literature written about such describes how this Progressive or Radical Education informed practices and methods for teaching adults during this same movement and/or period of time.  Many characteristics are similar between Progressive and Popular Education models.  As such, it is believed that this movement informed Freire’s notions about how to most effectively “teach” using a more learn-centered model for working with oppressed adult learners.  The overall tone of Freire’s philosophy is quite noticeably learner focused with the teacher assisting the learning community as a facilitator and champion of growth based on what the learner deems necessary to meet his/her goals.  That being said, the focus or linkage to Radicalism or “Radical Education” as a vehicle for empowering learners as change-agents for the manifestation of social justice goals is also worth noting (Ferrer 2011, Jara 2010, Kane 2010 and 2013, and Dahlstedt and Nordvall 2011).

            Flowers (2004) offers the following to summarize the characteristics derived from Progressive or Radical Education that can be found within the modern-day version of Freire’s Popular Education model, “A number of features in progressive education can also be found in popular education theory and practice…. The notions of not being a teacher, of peer learning, of project-based learning versus fixed curriculum, of experience-based learning, and of the democratic or participatory way of working are all features of popular education…. Progressive and radical educators disagreed with the idea that they had a responsibility to mold or shape people… an idea that was inspired by religious [and institutional] righteousness [which focused] education to serve the interests of existing ruling classes… [By contrast,] radical and progressive traditions believed in having facilitators [of learner-centered knowledge construction] rather than ‘teachers’ [of teacher-centered knowledge dissemination]… (Simon, 1972)’” (Flowers, 2004). 

Democracy Education. Many authors throughout the literature review process seemed to point to characteristics drawn from Democracy Education or Social-change Education related to time periods associated with political upheaval or revolution movements.  The efforts of community and adult educators, often utilizing practices associated with Popular Education, were found to be present working with learners from the disenfranchised or rebelling mass population groups.  However, in some cases, the disenfranchised populations were smaller, but more critically impacted persons.  Such examples include indigenous populations (geographical based), impoverished populations (widespread, generally based), or disempowered populations based on particular identifiers (race, ethnic, gender, or religious based). 

            Flowers (2004) gives a summary of the history of Democracy Education as found with respect to education practices found in North America, “There is a body of literature about adult education for democracy in the early twentieth century comparable in size to the body of literature about popular education in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Two leading North American adult education scholar of the time – Ruth Kotinsky (1933) and Eduard Lindeman (1926) – made major contributions to the literature.  Both shared an interest in education which strengthens the capacities of people to participate in decision-making… Strengthening the capacity of people, particularly those from poor and vulnerable groups to participate in decisions about planning their community’s future is at the heart of ‘popular education’.  Heaney (1996) argues that in the 1920’s and 1930’s ‘front line, grass roots educators of adults’ (p. 8) – people concerned with promoting democracy – were at the forefront of the North American adult education movement…”  (Flowers, 2004).

Implications

            Today, as an educator one can utilize the frameworks of Freire’s Popular Education in a number of settings to serve a multitude of purposes.  Strict adherence to Freire’s model may not be viable or even desirable, but having a strong understanding of the overarching principles does give way to a more sound application of such.  Many programs were profiled within the literature review process that had employed parts or shaded versions of Freire’s Popular Education model, but still referred to such as “Popular Education” programs.  Likewise, other organizations and/or programs that did not refer to such as being associated with or in alignment with “Popular Education” were found to be in fact most significantly resembling Freire’s definitions for Popular Education programs or movements.  Keeping this in mind the following section draws upon the literature review process to form a general outline of factors that likely should be present in a Popular Education program, in order to meet the basic requirements espoused to by Paulo Freire: 1) Social Justice, and Civic Resistance Objectives, 2) Participatory Learner-centered Focus, 3) Community Empowerment, and Self-governing Leadership Goals, and 4) Collaboration with Arts Organizations, and Suggested Implementation Methods.

Social Justice, and Civic Resistance Objectives. “Some key understandings on which popular education in Latin America is based include that human beings are meant to be free, work collectively, and seek justice; that human beings have agency and are capable of transforming the world; that power and its oppressive use are located with the ruling class; and that oppression is perpetuated by economic and cultural structures and the ideologies supporting them” (Choules, 2007).

            In conclusion, with regards to Social Justice and Civil Resistance Objectives, Choules (2007) offers the following excerpt from the “CEAAL’s [El Consejo de Educacion de Adultos de America Latina – Latin American Advisory Body on Adult Education] current president defines popular education (Nunez, 1992:55) as, ‘A process of education and training carried out politically from a class perspective that forms part of or is articulated with action organized by the people, by the masses, in order to achieve the objective of constructing a new society in accord with their interests… [It] is a continuous and systematic process implying moments of reflection on and study of the group and organization… It is theory emerging from practice, not theory about practice. (pp. 43-44)’” (Choules, 2007).

Participatory Learner-centered Focus. “The practice of education must be participative, radically democratic, and reject all forms of authoritarianism.  There must be coherence between political objectives and practice.  In popular education, the educator disappears as the source of authority and a horizontal relationship is established in which students and teacher educate each other.  The educator works to achieve critical awareness followed by transformative action, through ongoing dialog and problem solving” (Choules, 2007).

Community Empowerment, and Self-governing Leadership Goals. “In the early 1960’s in Brazil Paulo Freire developed an innovative approach to literacy education… Freire argued that educators should help people analyze their situation, and saw literacy as part of the process of engaging in this analysis….  Freire aimed to shift his learners from passivity to a critical and active awareness and the used the term ‘conscientization’ to describe this type of transformation” (Flowers, 2004).

Collaboration with Arts Organizations, and Suggested Implementation Methods. “Freire’s pedagogy has influenced a body of practice called community cultural development which constituted one of the major research foci of the Centre for Popular Education at the University of Technology, Sydney” (Flowers, 2004).  Through the works of the Centre, in collaboration with other agencies related to the arts movements, popular education was facilitated throughout the community.  Such arts organizations and associated members included theater companies, visual artists, circus performers, writers and dancers (Flowers, 2004).

Conclusion

            Throughout the literature review process several ideas as to how and where Popular Education could be used came to mind.  Current day applications with populations of refugees and/or immigrants would certainly present a strong choice wherein such programming might be very valuable to participants.  As well, the recent developments within the LGBTQ community might represent another focus wherein a Popular Education framework might be useful.  Furthermore, with respect to issues pertaining to female rights and gender asymmetries, there might be another population desirous of programming aligned with the Popular Education model.  Lastly, it is surmised that many of the same issues and challenges faced by the originating educators who developed such “Popular Education” programs and/or who promoted the above-mentioned educational movements are still challenges and issues that the current day societies are facing.  With this in mind it is thought that the works of Freire with respect to his Popular Education model would still to this day be highly relevant towards rectifying some of these overriding societal problems.

Table 3. Summary of Discourse

Areas	Summary
Social Background	Pre- World War II Vietnam War 1960’s social and civil activism Women’s movement Civil rights movement Marxism Latin culture Oppressed/marginalized populations
Highlights	Popular Education/other forms/Europe Paulo Freire, Popular Education Popular Education in Latin America Myles Horton, Popular Education in USA Traditional vs. Popular Education
Influential Factors	Working-class Education Social-change Education Progressive or Radical Education Democracy Education
Implications	Refugee and/or immigrant education LGBTQ empowerment education Female and gender empowerment education Disability persons empowerment education Universal literacy education Political consciousness, civil action education Adult literacy education Public health/wellness education Peace relations education Cultural awareness education

References

Braster, S. (2011).  The people, the poor, and the oppressed: the concept of poplar education        through time.  Paedagogica Historica, Vol. 47, No. 1-2.

Choules, K. (2007).  Social Change Education: Context Matters.  Adult Education Quarterly,        Vol. 57 No. 2.  American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.

Crowther, J., Martin, I. & Shaw, M. (1999).  Popular Education and Social Movements in             Scotland Today, Leicester: NIACE (p. 4).

Dahlstedt, M. and Norvdvall, H. (2011).  Paradoxes of Solidarity: Democracy and Colonial          Legacies in Swedish Popular Education.  Adult Education Quarterly.

Fischman, G. (1998).  Donkeys and Superteachers: Structured Adjustment and Popular     Educaiton in Latin America, International Review of Education, Vol. 44, No. 2/3, Social           Movements and Education (1998). Pp. 191-213: Springer.

Flowers, R. (2004).  Defining Popular Education.  Popular Education Forum for Scotland.

Jara, O.H. (2010).  Popular education and social change in Latin America.  Community      Development Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, Oxford University Press.

Kane, L. (2010).  Community development: learning from popular education in Latin America.     Community Development Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3, Oxford University Press.

Kane, L. (2013).  Comparing ‘Popular’ and ‘State’ education in Latin America and Europe.          European Journal for Research on Education and Learning of Adults, Vol. 4, No. 1.

LaBelle, T. (1987).  From Consciousness Raising to Popular Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.  Comparative Education Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, the University of Chicago Press.

Parissi Morales, R. (2010).  Popular education as a methodology for international cooperation:      the Chilean experience.  Community Development Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3, Oxford        University Press.

Wiggins, N. (2011).  Popular education for health promotion and community empowerment: a      review of the literature.  Health Promotion International, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oxford        University Press.