Competing Educational Projects in Brazil
Lesley Bartlett
In 1963, after participating in a series of remarkably successful literacy pro- grams with peasants in Brazil’s Northeast, Paulo Freire was invited by the populist president João Goulart to head a national commission on popular culture. From that position, nestled within the national bureaucracy and using the state’s machinery (or creating new machinery when necessary), Freire was expected to diffuse his radical political-educational philosophy and his literacy pedagogy (Beisiegel 1974; Fernandes and Terra 1994). Be- fore he could begin, however, the military staged a coup: They unseated Goulart, imprisoned and eventually exiled Freire and many of his colleagues, and made radical literacy work illegal. The accession to the state apparatus of a politicized education dedicated to the redistribution of social power was nullified before it could even begin to make, much less fulfill, promises.
Nevertheless, in Brazil, as in much of Latin America, two distinct educa- tional projects continue to compete for the privilege of defining adult literacy and delimiting its uses. The first, what I call economic efficiency, places schools in the service of economic goals of the market and transnational capital, the state, and/or the individual student. This educational project predominates in systems of formal schooling. The second, which is widely known as popular ed- ucation, advocates a more communal vision of human development, wherein
schooling directed at marginalized populations encourages political action and aims to redistribute power and wealth (or at least criticizes the lack of equity and promotes social, rather than individual, explanations for that lack). This educational project predominates in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
In this chapter, I use the case of Brazilian adult literacy to reconsider neo- institutionalist theory, a.k.a. world culture theory. World culture theory illu- minates the important role of national actors who sponsor cogent, universalist models of schooling, including organization, pedagogy, and curriculum (Boli and Ramirez 1992; Meyer and Ramirez 2000; Meyer et al. 1997). However, I contend that when world culture theorists reduce educational variety and de- bate to a singular “model” for schooling, they do not adequately address the different interest groups, organizations, philosophies, and pedagogies involved in the elaboration and promotion of educational projects. When they ignore nonformal education, they overemphasize the state as actor and eliminate from consideration important educational programs (some of which increas- ingly engage directly with government-sponsored programs). When world cul- ture theorists attend to reforms generated only in the West (or in international organizations and/or educational professions dominated by the West) and
“diffused” to other places, they downplay the possible impact of other projects.
And when they fail to detail the power relations and the logic behind the im- portation and (partial) implementation of educational reforms, they grant too much autonomy to organizations while de-emphasizing human agency.
In the case of Brazil, I argue that nonformal, popular educators, in- spired by Paulo Freire, mounted and continue to maintain a significant politicized educational project that was embraced within Brazil and across the globe by nonstate actors, such as teachers, professors of education, and NGOs. These actors used (and continue to use) it to contest the dominant, widespread, economistic educational project—that is, precisely the currently hegemonic (but not permanent, ubiquitous, or omnipotent) world model of mass schooling described by world culture theorists.
In order to make this argument, I first provide a brief overview of world culture theory. I then introduce the concept of an educational project and explain why I think it is a richer concept than “models” or “world culture,”
with much more to offer to studies of education. Finally, I discuss the his- torical development of Brazilian literacy projects, using the case to elucidate my appreciation and my criticisms of world culture theory.
WORLD CULTURE THEORY: A BRIEF SUMMARY Reacting to overly functionalist theories of education, which claimed either that mass education laid the foundation for political and economic devel-
opment or that mass education was a tool used by elites to maintain social control, the sociologically minded neo-institutional theorists (including John Meyer, Francisco Ramirez, George Thomas, John Boli, and others) de- veloped a new explanation for the striking similarity among national systems of mass education (Boli and Ramirez 1992; Meyer and Ramirez 2000;
Meyer et al. 1997). They argue that two revolutions in human thinking—
the shift from corporatist or localist views to the nation-state, and the shift from God-centered to individual-centered thinking—enabled and indeed encouraged young nation-states to implement the model of mass schooling that originated in the West. According to the theory, this model then “dif- fused” over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries from the “center” to the
“periphery,” as the elite of young nation-states, eager to declare their moder- nity, adopted the model. World culture theorists argue that systems of edu- cation “are more homogeneous across countries than would be predicted by the actual variability of national societies and cultures” (Meyer and Ramirez 2000:119). Over time, they contend, the “impact of particular endogenous national political, social, and economic characteristics on national educa- tional systems declines” while the influence of international organizations and the increasingly standardized, professionalized field of education inten- sifies (2000:119).
The macro-sociological, neo-institutionalist approach helpfully re- minds us of the remarkable similarity in mass schooling, despite significant differences among nation-states in terms of their economic, political, and so- cial arrangements. It helps to unseat erroneous, simplistic causal arguments that claimed, for example, that the expansion of mass education led directly to democratization, national industrial revolution, or other forms of capital- ist integration. Finally, the approach suggests the importance of imagined communities by emphasizing the local elite’s symbolic use of mass schooling to declare their status as a “modern” nation-state.
However, I argue that world culture theory has several weaknesses that an anthropological perspective illuminates. First, the theory overemphasizes the power of elites. On occasion, the writings of world culture theorists grant agency to the organization itself, as when they suggest that organiza- tions tend toward isomorphism. This move obscures the agency of nonelite individuals and collectivities; it confuses official policies with actual practices (Sutton and Levinson 2001).
Second, world culture theorists have not paid sufficient attention to the factors that persuade states to adopt the dominant model of school- ing. At times, they suggest that national-level elites, in their yearning to be modern, embrace and unproblematically emulate these models as symbols of “world culture.” While world culture theorists’ later writings
recognize the importance of world-system integration and the role of powerful international organizations such as the World Bank and (to a lesser extent) UNESCO, they don’t address questions of power, imposi- tion, and hegemony. Yet, as Gita Steiner-Khamsi and others have shown, nations “borrow,” and often adapt, dominant reforms to legitimize (inter)national or local positions, rather than simply conform to or em- brace international norms (2000). Anthropologists have long rejected the concept of diffusion, insisting on a closer on-the-ground study of the complex reasons for which some people adopt and others resist certain processes.
World culture theory posits that first Western nation-states and then in- ternational organizations and knowledge regimes (such as educational pro- fessions) diffuse the model of schooling from the center to the periphery (Meyer and Ramirez 2000). This approach discounts the influential models developed in and communicated from the South to other parts of the globe.
Popular education, and in particular Freirean-style critical pedagogy, is a prime example. Indeed, by examining only formal schooling, world culture theory excludes a multitude of nonformal, noninstitutionalized educational efforts from consideration. However, in some regions (for example, Latin America, India) and with some populations (for example, the poor, ethnic and/or linguistic minorities, women, people living in rural areas), nonformal education historically provided a main source of schooling (see, for example, Hausmann 1998; Kindervatter 1979; La Belle 1986; Oxenham 1975;
Sheffield and Diejomaoh 1972; Singh 1987; Srinivasan 1977). In the 1970s, deschooling enthusiasts invested significant energy in nonformal education.
By ignoring nonformal schooling, world culture theorists also overlook an important phenomenon—the growing tendency of nonformal education programs to work with, and at times to be funded by, state or local govern- ments (for example, UNESCO 1986; Yadav 1987). In fact, states increas- ingly govern through “partnerships” with NGOs and private entities (see Holland et al. 2002).
Fourth, world culture theorists discuss a single model of schooling, which they insist includes tendencies as diverse as the individual and na- tional pursuit of economic mobility and an emphasis on human rights (Meyer and Ramirez 2000). This homogenization conceals the very real dif- ferences in ideologies and social actors involved in the struggles over school- ing. It marginalizes competing notions of schooling and its uses. Instead of accepting a “big tent” model, I propose that we think of educational projects, or configurations of social actors, institutions, financial sources, discourses, philosophies, and pedagogies.
EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS
I derive the concept of an educational project from Omi and Winant’s racial formation theory (1994). For Omi and Winant, racial formation involves both cultural and social structural processes. A racial project “is simultane- ously an explanation of racial dynamics and an effort to reorganize the so- cial structure along particular racial lines. Every project is necessarily both a discursive or cultural initiative, an attempt at racial signification and iden- tity formation on the one hand; and a political initiative, an attempt at or- ganization and redistribution on the other” (Winant 1994:24). I argue that we should consider educational projects in a similar vein. Educational pro- jects, which include theory, pedagogy, philosophy, training, and institutions, plus a variety of social actors and social practices, also simultaneously work at the cultural/discursive and political/structural levels. They shape how we think about things as intimate as knowledge, intelligence, and personhood, even while they structure our material world, including the kinds of build- ings we congregate in, the use or rejection of desks, blackboards, walls, or classrooms, the availability of instructional materials, and the content and form of books we read (or don’t read).
I argue that there is rarely a single, coherent educational project, as claimed by world culture theory. Instead, projects intersect with subordi- nate, less cohesive ideas of education in their implementation. Further, mul- tiple projects compete for hegemonic control of the public’s imagination. In fact, educational projects are race and class projects, in that they benefit some groups and penalize others—though in general this ideological work is obscured, for example through the naturalization of cultural arbitraries such as “intelligence” or “worth.”
The social actors involved with these projects strive for legitimacy within a social and discursive field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:41), aim- ing to control the structures, experiences, and ends of schooling. Building on Gramsci’s notion of the state as “terrain” for a war of position among peo- ple with conflicting interests, I imagine groups organized through and around educational projects; victory in the competition grants an ideologi- cal legitimacy within the “common sense” of the general population, struc- turing perception, feelings, and experience (Gramsci 1971; Williams 1977).
Educational projects proffer discourses on the purpose of education. By se- lecting which courses to offer where, to whom, which pedagogy to employ, and what classroom dynamics to foster, project proponents structure educa- tional experiences. Less evident, but just as important, is the work done in these projects to shape students’ subjectivities.
The concept of educational projects, then, widens our consideration of the impact of the world system on mass schooling. People working in and through international organizations like the World Bank and national orga- nizations such as ministries of education do, indeed, have extensive access to and influence over the institutions, funding, curricula, pedagogies, and meth- ods of assessment involved in schooling. But their decisions are not uncon- tested. They too must face the challenges mounted by other interest groups, such as social movements and political organizations, which work through al- ternate organizational structures and employ competing discourses regarding the purposes of education and the meaning of intelligence, among other is- sues. In short, the dominant educational project must accommodate, perme- ate, or surmount rival educational projects to establish hegemony.
In comparison with the notion of a singular educational model, the more nuanced concept of an educational project better captures a sense of change over time, simultaneously omnidirectional and multilateral nation- state relations, change originating from non-Western and nonelite sources, the use of educational programs in contests of political legitimacy, and con- flict between and within groups, institutions, and/or discourses. The con- cept of educational projects encourages us to look more carefully at the discursive and cultural dimensions of the debate, as well as the outright po- litical facets. Describing efforts as educational projects, rather than as a sin- gular model of schooling, enables us to see educational politics as cultural dialogues rather than unidirectional movements.
The notion of educational projects encourages us to compare ongoing educational debates, or what Holland and Lave call “enduring struggles,”
across space and time (2001; see also Rosen in this volume). According to Holland and Lave, local debates mutually partake of and (re)produce en- during social structures. For example, thanks to globalization processes, cap- italist class formations and discourses may increasingly circulate across the globe; however, they are grappled with, engaged in, and remade in unique ways in different situations.
The same is true for educational debates. For example, the divide in Brazilian literacy politics between economistic and popular education ap- proaches partakes of the same enduring struggle as the contest in the United States between schooling for democratic equality, social efficiency, and/or so- cial mobility (Labaree 1997). According to Labaree, the history of schooling in the United States demonstrates a shifting among three goals: serving democracy by promoting equality and providing training for citizenship (de- mocratic equality); serving society and the economy by training students to occupy positions in a stratified social order (social efficiency); and providing
individual social advantage (social mobility) (1997). The balance between the goals changes over time, but the struggle remains. These enduring, transna- tional struggles, with their universalist discourses on education’s purpose(s), manifest themselves in different ways across place and time. Our job as edu- cational researchers lies in tracing the differences, as well as the similarities, in order to build theories about educational systems and their interrelationships.
CONTENDING LITERACY PROJECTS IN BRAZIL In the remainder of the chapter, I discuss the history of adult literacy pro- grams in Brazil in order to illuminate the advantages of the concept of an educational project and the limitations of world culture theory. In other venues, based on two years of ethnographic research in public and NGO classrooms in two Brazilian cities, I have examined the contemporary effects of contending educational projects in Brazilian literacy classrooms (see Bartlett 2001). Here, though ethnographic research informs my argument, I generally restrict my discussion to secondary sources concerning a critical period of literacy politics in Brazil, dating from the early 1960s.
Popular Education
Since the 1960s, two radically different literacy projects have vied for control of Brazilian educational resources and for influence over popular conceptions of education’s purpose. The first, known throughout Latin America as “pop- ular education,” developed from radical Catholic liberation theology and left- ist political organizing. Popular education places education in the service of politics, society, and culture—in short, in the service of human, rather than only economic, development. Proponents of popular education argue that schooling should be democratic, that is, open to all who desire to participate.
They favor social over individual change, and encourage students to develop a social critique of the world. For example, they encourage students to see a rude or dismissive boss as a member of the exploitative owners of capital; they encourage women to place a personal experience of domestic violence in the context of patriarchy and poverty. For popular educators, literacy raises peo- ple’s consciousness by fostering awareness of oppressive political and eco- nomic structures and providing the basic skills to intervene in them. Though popular education emerged from adult literacy politics (see below), it has ex- panded to encompass schooling for all ages and in all situations. It resembles what Labaree (1997) denoted as the democratic equality goal of schooling.
However, unlike traditional efforts to promote democratic equality through
schooling in the United States, popular education has since its inception em- phasized culture as a critical arena for egalitarian struggles.
Popular education is epitomized by the 1960s experiments of educators like Paulo Freire in the Brazilian Northeast (see Beisiegel 1982; Brandão 1980; Fink and Arnove 1991; Freire 1970; Gadotti 1994; Kane 2001; La Belle 1986; Paiva 1973; Paiva 1980; Stromquist 1997; Torres 1995). In 1962, the young Northeasterner Paulo Freire rose to prominence for his radical hu- manist pedagogy developed to work with the poor of the region. His philos- ophy combined Christian notions of radical equality before God and a Marxist critique of unequal class relations. Freire excoriated the neocolonial relationship between “oppressor” and “oppressed,” which alienated the op- pressed from their true free selves. He believed that an egalitarian pedagogy would overturn class divisions and liberate both oppressed and oppressor.
Freire argued that the “banking model of education,” in which the teacher owns knowledge and deposits it in the heads of students, contributes to oppression. Freire proposed teachers as the “revolutionary leadership” who should engage in “critical co-investiga[tion] in dialogue” with students (Freire 1970:68). Though not a social constructionist, Freire certainly was relativis- tic about truth and facts, and he valorized student experiences. His pedagogy centrally featured dialogue regarding generative words or themes determined through short-term experiential, almost ethnographic research with students in their communities. Theoretically, this dialogue should encourage “consci- entization,” or sociopolitical awareness, among students and teachers.
Thus, the theory of popular education views knowledge as embedded in and emerging from social context. It aims to conscientize the individual, and thus maintains a certain individualist orientation—yet it does so through social interaction, dialogue, and eventually social action.
In the early 1960s, popular literacy programs spread quickly. Literacy was a requirement to vote in the 1960s (indeed, it remained a prerequisite until 1988). Since 40 percent of the population at that time was illiterate, the Left saw the building of literacy as an opportunity to democratize the coun- try and build a considerable populist political base. These organizations clus- tered in Brazil’s poor and highly illiterate Northeast, where they were frequently sponsored by radical Catholic university groups and attached to emerging peasant labor unions (Lemos 1996). For example, the Movimento de Educação Brasileira (MEB), propelled by Catholic activist priests and parishioners and partially funded by government supporters, set up a network of radio schools throughout the Northeast (Costa, Jaccoud, and Costa 1986).
In 1963, after extensive involvement with cultural circles and educa- tional initiatives throughout the Northeast, Freire initiated a literacy cam-