Freire a la chilena ?

Mass student protests have convulsed Chile in the past few years, and their demands have focused attention on the failures of the educational system after nearly 40 years of dictatorship and neoliberal democracy. Robert Austin’s work calls attention to an often neglected but important second front in the struggle to meet the educational needs of Chileans—adult and popular education. Diálogos sobre estado y educación popular en Chile: De Frei a Frei (1964–1993) is a companion to his earlier work The State, Literacy, and Popular Education in Chile: 1963–1990 (2003). In this volume, through interviews with an impressively wide range of government officials and nongovernmental organization (NGO) personnel, Austin traces the changes in literacy and adult education efforts over three decades of dramatic political change as Chile experienced Christian Democratic reformism, the Unidad Popular’s attempted transition to socialism, the harshly repressive neoliberalism of the dictatorship, and the more socially conscious neoliberal democracy of the early Concertación. Each of the book’s 24 chapters presents a semistructured interview based on 10 questions designed to elicit information and opinions on topics such as the premises underlying literacy programs, programs for women, and the role and effectiveness of organizations such as the Ministry of Education, various NGOs, churches, international agencies, and the media. Some involve accounts of personal experiences and discussion of philosophical issues that go on for as much as 40 pages. Others are much briefer, taking only 2 to 5 pages. The interview subjects discuss and disagree on a variety of topics, among them, the definition of illiteracy and the impact on adult education of various bureaucratic restructurings such as Pinochet’s municipalización of education (making municipalities rather than the central government responsible for operating schools). In addition to criticisms of programs under other administrations, some interviewees engage in retrospective self-criticism of the programs they designed and/or implemented.

One constant in the interviews is the emphasis on the influential role of Paulo Freire. In June 1964 Freire began a five-year exile in Chile just months before Eduardo Frei Montalva was elected president promising a “revolution in freedom.” This historical coincidence profoundly shaped literacy programs and adult education in Chile from that time forward. With the Cuban Revolution inspiring leftist movements throughout Latin America, Frei’s reformism was seen as an alternative to more radical transformation and received substantial financial support from the United States. Central to Frei’s programs were an agrarian reform based on asentamientos (cooperatives) and promoción popular, the creation of a variety of organizations such as juntas de vecinos (neighborhood councils) and centros de madres (mothers’ centers) to increase social participation at the local level. Freire, in addition to publishing the books that established his reputation—in 1967 Education,the Practice of Freedom (Freire, 1976 [1967]) and in 1968 Cultural Action for Freedom (Freire, 1970 [1968]) and Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 2010 [1968]), worked for the Instituto de Capacitación e Investigación en Reforma Agraria, where he strongly influenced the Frei government’s literacy programs for rural areas where illiteracy exceeded 30 percent in 1960. All subsequent governments, even Pinochet’s, claimed to be applying Freire’s methods.

The introduction by Eusebio Nájera Martínez emphasizes the Freireian principle that education is not neutral and literacy is not merely a skill but a form of empowerment. He contrasts this ideal with the sometimes antithetical goals of governments such as Pinochet’s, which used literacy programs as a vehicle for military recruitment while retaining the veneer of Freire’s “generative word” approach. Several interviewees make similar criticisms. A useful chart by Austin reveals telling differences in the generative words used in different eras. Among the words used only under Allende were tierra (land), cesante (unemployed) and cobre (copper). Sindicato (union) and compañero (comrade), used under both Frei M. and Allende, were replaced by Pinochet and not restored under Aylwin. Pinochet added bandera (flag). The very useful illustrations include examples of lesson sheets. Discussion topics for the cobre lesson included the imperialist role of the copper monopolies and the significance of nationalization.

Throughout the volume, interviewees of all political tendencies recognize the watershed nature of the literacy programs initiated during the Frei presidency (1964–1970). The interview with Waldemar Cortés, who was Frei’s director of adult education for four years, provides an especially valuable insight into this era. Cortés recounts his personal relationship with Freire and the enthusiasm generated by Freire’s social goals among many young teachers recruited for literacy work, some of whom continued under Allende, although Cortés himself is highly critical of the UP. Under Cortés’s leadership, Freire’s method was adapted for Chile as the método psico-social. Maria Antonieta Saa, who worked in the Ministry of Education at that time, gives greater attention to the pragmatic goals of rural literacy, which was essential for equipping campesinos for the administrative tasks involved in belonging to a cooperative. She notes that, because only men could own agricultural land at that time, the programs prioritized male literacy.

Carlos Eugenio Beca, who headed Allende’s literacy and adult education programs in the Ministry of Education, distinguishes the UP programs from those of Frei in their emphasis on structural social change rather than development and in their greater attention to urban areas. Becoming literate was presented as one way of joining in the broader project of transforming the country, and great importance was given to bringing the programs to workplaces and poblaciones (poor neighborhoods). Sergio Arévalo Vilugrón, who coauthored the UP’s literacy text Sugerencias para la alfabetización, shares the Freireian perspective that literacy is not just an educational process but a social and economic one. However, he emphasizes that he became involved in adult education before he knew of Freire’s work and notes that Freire never worked with the Ministry of Education and the UP literacy materials were developed independently.

Of particular interest are the interviews with long-time education activists from the NGO sector, which played a critical role under Pinochet. The Taller de Acción Cultural (Cultural Action Workshop—TAC) is cited by various interviewees as the most important NGO involved in popular education. The interview with its director of literacy programs, María Eugenia Letelier, stresses that literacy is not an end in itself but a means to popular organization and participation. She points out that TAC’s 1986 literacy manual Aprendiendo juntos: Leamos y escribamos nuestra realidad openly dealt with repression, featuring words such as allanamiento (police raid). An illustration from the manual uses the generative word rayado (political graffito) and shows several people painting the word paro (work stoppage) on a wall. She sees the opportunity for social solidarity with others in similar situations as the main reason for poor women, who would otherwise be isolated in the home, to become involved in literacy programs. She challenges governmental programs that treat illiteracy as a disease to be eradicated in a short campaign rather than an as ongoing process that moves a person through consecutive levels of mastery. Six interviews with adults who had completed TAC literacy programs give insight into the conditions creating adult illiteracy.

Francisco Vío Grossi, a literacy worker among campesinos and Mapuches before the coup, exiled under Pinochet, and, at the time of the interview, director of another important NGO, Canelo de Nos, offers valuable insights into the complexities of literacy programs for indigenous people. Although he criticizes “one-size-fits-all” literacy programs and the assumption that literacy means learning Spanish and adopting Western forms of learning, he also acknowledges that some indigenous groups prefer to learn Spanish because it offers access to higher education, which is not available in indigenous languages. He is particularly critical of the ideological content of UNESCO programs that present the conquest as “civilizing” and promote neoliberalism.

The feminist sociologist Verónica Oxman, working for the Servicio Nacional de la Mujer, the women’s agency created by President Aylwin, offers a useful critical historical overview of literacy programs for women. She finds the sexist assumption that women’s primary role is in the home to be fairly consistent regardless of the government in power. Under both Frei and Allende, women were organized into mothers’ centers, and the literacy materials used showed women in domestic settings. Gendered social roles were even more retrograde under the Pinochet regime’s Catholic-influenced marianismo and emphasis on women’s role in fostering “patriotic” values within the family. Oxman points out that the Aylwin administration was in the early stages of developing new instructional materials with more diverse images. However, she contrasts the official materials with those developed by women’s NGOs. For example, Casa Sofía de Mujeres was using literacy manuals with lessons based on concepts such as machismo. This interview is illustrated by the machismo lesson, which suggests discussion of such topics as why men rule in the home and occupy the most important public positions and how women are taught that they are inferior.

This compilation offers a valuable overview of popular education as a social and political project whose content varies significantly with the political environment and the entity designing and implementing the program. It also makes clear that it is far easier to claim a Freire imprimatur than to put his vision of transformative education into practice.