In the context of assemblies, and people’s many political ambitions to occupy this and that position, genuine policy questions which have the potential of advancing the struggle for economic freedom and free education and changing the material well being of students and workers lose their substance. They are reduced to fatuous sloganeering and empty rhetoric in an equally fatuous attempt to mobilize support for their political ambitions. The question of political education is one such policy which has been a victim of this fatuous political program. All those who wish to mobilize political support passionately chant politicaleducation this and political education that,without a clear understanding of what this political education is in relation to its form, content, and character, and how it is supposed to be delivered.
This piece therefore seeks to briefly ponder on the question of political education, through providing some critique on our collective understanding of political education and other problematic tendencies when treating this question of political education. Lastly, some views will be shared on what a genuine political education of the EFFSC might look like. Before we begin our brief pondering on the subject matter, I want to deal with an anticipated response and/or anticipated attitude, the ‘solutionism’ imagination that occupies those who shy away from critically thinking about issues and pretend to be doing something about them to mask their laziness in thinking critically about them.
To do this I will borrow from two left scholars the, John Holloway and the Slavoj Zizek. John Holloway in his book ‘change the world without taking power’ in the first chapter argues that beginning of thinking about problems in the social, economic, political, and cultural, is by negation, which he call the ‘scream’. Holloway goes on to say that it matters not whether the scream is ‘justified’ but what is important is that we scream. Zizek in his book ‘first as tragedy then a farce’ thinks along the imagination of Holloway, arguing that the it is important to critically think about matters before doing anything about them.
What we are getting from Holloway and Zizek is that it is possible to critically think about maters even though at that point in time one does not have any solutions for the identified problems. So, this piece will attempt to critically think about political education, and what ought to happen after will be responded to by the collective.
Contextualizing Political Education
Before we ponder on political education, I think it is important that we begin by stating the obvious, to say briefly highlight the conditions which necessitate political education. Capitalism exists, is maintained, and thrives through exploiting the intellectual and physical labour of workers. Conscious of its contradictions, it produces a philosophical framework with which the same workers it exploits will utilize to think about that exploitation. This philosophical framework ensures that in thinking about their exploitation and how to counter it, workers think and act far away from capitalism-to say far away from the land, the banks, and the mines.
Political education, therefore, is a deliberate attempt at ensuring that workers firstly understand and appreciate that the current thinking they are utilizing keeps them far away from the actual problem, in response to this, a different philosophical outlook is provided, which speaks directly to the contradictions of capitalism. In the context of the party, the EFFSC, politicale ducation is a deliberate, consciouseffortatensuring thatthe generalmembership,students,and workers utilize Marxism-Leninism-Fanonism to understand the contradictions in the social, economic, political, and cultural.
Our problematic understanding of political education
Paulo Freire in his magnum opus, the pedagogy of the oppressed, theorizes beautifully about the problem of education, and this problem he termed ‘banking approach education’. In this banking approach, the teacher delivers education to students, the students’ responsibility is to uncritically consume that education. It is a hierarchical, authoritative top down approach. Freire to correctly points out that the problem with this approach is that it assumes that the teacher knows it all and has stopped learning, the student knows nothing and must learn from the teacher.
If one can go to any branch where they are having a program of political education, one will find that there is an ideologue who is at the podium articulating Marx,Lenin, and Fanon, and other members are listening and taking notes. In Freire’s imagination, the ideologue is the teacher, and the membership are the students, and through the ideologue articulating on the podium, knowledge is supposedly imparted. This banking approach to political education is problematic as correctly argued by Freire, what we need are spaces arranged in a manner that encourages meaningful dialogue, where all those engaged in that conversation arebboth teachers and students. This is not to say the usual method must be completely abolished but relying on it alone is unsustainable.
Lack of organization and coordination
As alluded above, political education is a conscious effort by the party, meaning it is a responsibility of the party to ensure that there is political education organisations. Currently, the party, through some policies and public pronouncements speaks about the importance of political education, but there are no organized and coordinated efforts by the party to ensure that there is constant political education in all branches throughout the country. It is as if the party is hoping that somehow political education will mysteriously take place. In branches where political education takes place, it is so because of the isolated efforts of the branch leadership, not organized and coordinated efforts by the party, through relevant offices.
Downplaying the context
Another problem in relation to political education is that there is a very dangerous approach, which undermines the reality that currently, the ruling intellectual force are the ideas of the ruling material force, as observed by Marx. This is to say in relation to how students and workers collectively understand the fundamentals of their problems, they do so through neoliberalism. Therefore, undermining this reality, means you undermine the importance of political education, meaning you undermine the efforts to advance class consciousness.
What can be done in the immediate?
The Party needs to understand that it is its responsibility to ensure that there is political education in all branches across the country. Through the political office nationally, there must be anorganized conceptual program that will guide the delivery of political education in all branches. This program must be shared with all provincial political officers, who will utilize it as a guiding tool in conceptualizing their own program for their provinces, this program will be shared with political officers in all branches. From there an evaluative framework must be conceptualized and introduced, which will ensure that the political education framework is implemented, and assess the effectiveness, and establish whether there is progress.
Secondly, we must stop relying on the banking approach, we must creates paces of engagements in all branches that encourage meaningful dialogues. Mikhail Bakunin argued that if we want people not to oppress and exploit each other, we must create conditions, to say organize society in a manner that will make oppression and exploitation impossible. If we want meaningful dialogues to take place where we are all teachers and students, we must make all our political education programs to be in the form of dialogues, perhaps we can borrow from African methods of imparting knowledge, where we gather in circles and exchange ideas, and there are spaces for questioning and dialogue.
To learn, learn, learn, and learn, the as argued by Lenin.
No comments:
Post a Comment