3.1. Social Constructionism
3.1.1. Social Constructionism in Education
The introduction of social constructionism in the education discipline is attributed to Paulo Freire, an educationist and philosopher who in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), challenges traditional approaches towards education. Within the discipline of education, social constructionism emphasizes that students are not tabula rasa for whom the banking system of education is cardinal for knowledge acquisition, nor is the teacher the expert who
―pours‖ knowledge into ―empty‖ students. Through his humanistic approach, Freire (1970) emphasizes how education ought to be to the benefit of humanity and not mere knowledge and skills transmission. Premised on this, Freire (1970:72) critiques the banking system of education for its depository approach towards students, with the teacher being the depositor and students as depositories. This system of education leads to disempowerment and dehumanization of students as it does not take into account the invaluable experiences of the students as part of the knowledge construction process, thereby, stifling the processes of knowledge (re)creation (Freire 1970:72).
Therefore, Freire suggests ‗problem-posing‘ education to counter the banking system of education.
Whereas banking education anesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem- posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality. The former attempts to maintain the submersion of consciousness; the latter strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality (1970:81).
The problem-posing education encourages constant engagement, inquiry and interaction with reality. It does not assume that phenomena is what it is and should not be questioned, it instead questions the very reality usually taken for granted. Problem-posing does not promote maintenance of the status quo but questions why things are as they are and explores alternative ways of constructing and approaching reality. Another salient idea in Freire‘s (1970) work is the need for Conscientizacao which ―refers to learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality‖ (1970:35). Problem-posing education provides the propensity for personal agency in the liberation process. In their article ―Perspectives on a Freirean Dialectic to Promote Inclusive Education‖, Thousand et al (1999:324) observe that problem-posing education thrives on critical pedagogy which includes dialogue, dialectic, voice, praxis and reflection.
In the process of knowledge construction, issues of language, dialogue and the cycle of action and reflection are paramount. Thus, the process of liberative knowledge construction is dialogical, agentic and on-going; rendering knowledge what I term as an ―unfinished product‖.
Within the educationist use of social constructionism, there have been significant theoretical shifts. While Freire (1970) focusses on largely political domination in the process of knowledge construction, Giroux (2016) focusses on corporate domination in the process of knowledge production. In his article ―When Schools Become Dead Zones of the Imagination:
A Critical Pedagogy Manifesto‖, Giroux observes how corporate sovereignty has replaced political sovereignty in the production of knowledge by encroaching into schools, therefore creating ―a pedagogy of repression‖ (2016:355). Within the pedagogy of repression, knowledge construction is based on corporate figures and icons as the epitome of knowledge and accomplishment. The pedagogy of repression:
defines students largely by their shortcomings rather than by their strengths, and in doing so convinces them that the only people who know anything are the experts – increasingly drawn from the ranks of the elite and current business leaders who embody the new models of leadership under the current regime of neo-liberalism (2016:355).
Once more issues of domination in the production of knowledge are highlighted, only this time, the corporate world is the expert while the students are insignificant others flawed with shortcomings and not knowledgeable. Within the discipline of education, social constructionism pays attention to sites in which knowledge is constructed, thereby challenging dehumanizing and disempowering processes of knowledge production in which the student is objectified and acted upon.
However, the application of social constructionism in education has been critiqued mainly on account of the techniques used by Freire (1970) and terminologies applied. Although there are a number of critiques to Freire‘s concept of conscientization, I choose to use his contemporary, Berger (1974). Sociologist Peter Berger in his book The Homeless Mind:
Modernization and Consciousness critiques the use of the concept of conscientization which he regards as raising consciousness of peasants by external forces. His argument is that the notion of raising consciousness assumes that ―…lower-class people do not understand their own situation, that they are in need of enlightenment on the matter, and that this service can be provided by selected higher-class individuals‖ (1974:113). This argument highlights hegemony inherent within the process of knowledge production in instances where a higher class takes part in the knowledge production that the lower class engages in. Berger seems to suggest that the lower-class people should be left alone to navigate their experiences which they understand better and therefore, produce their own knowledge in this process without any external factors or influences.
As discussed above, within education, social constructionism has transformed approaches in knowledge production and educator-student dynamics by placing emphasis on dialogical pedagogy and student agency. Another discipline which has adopted social constructionism is social and development psychology as discussed below.