Neutrality Is Not Reality
Freire wanted We Make the Road by Walking to be written, because “…he was tired of North American audiences telling him that his ideas were only applicable to third world countries” (XVI). Freire and Horton are two men that have grown up in different parts of the world and have started their work at different times, but have somehow come to the similar ideas and methods, because “Underlying the philosophy of both is the idea that knowledge grows from and is a reflection of social experience” (XVI). People learn in different ways and have different levels of knowledge based on their life experience.
The relationship between practice, theory, and knowledge is defined as this
“… without practice there is no knowledge; at least it’s difficult to know without practice. We have to have a certain theoretical kind of practice in order to know… But practice in itself is not its theory. It creates knowledge, but is not its own theory” (98).
Basically, without practicing one cannot gain knowledge, but without a theory there is nothing to be practiced. Freire and Horton have their own theory that in order to be successful educators they must also understand their students. Horton believes that to be a successful educator you have to understand a person’s knowledge and know what level their knowledge is at, but it is not that simple. Horton says that it is essential to start at the students’ starting point, but there is no point in starting there if you have no vision for your students. To have a vision you must have a theory that helps you decide what that vision is (99–100). WOKE is a group that is trying to shed light on education through the ideas of Freire and Horton. One of the methods they use to understand a person better is the utilization of social biographies. Social biographies are meant to help a person better understand who they are and the role that their experiences have played in shaping who they are today.
Horton believes that there is no such thing as being neutral. “It’s a code word for existing in the system It has nothing to do with anything but agreeing to what is and always will be — that’s what neutrality is. Neutrality is just following the crowd” (102). The further he got into education the more he understood that we must pick sides, and when we pick a side we must be able to defend our reasoning for choosing that side. Freire sees claiming yourself as neutral as choosing the side of the dominant. “… neutrality is the best way for one to hide his or her choice… if you are not interested in proclaiming your choices, then you have to say that you are neutral” (103). Horton’s belief is that if someone is choosing to be neutral or claiming to be neutral in hopes of keeping a relationship with both the dominant and submissive then they are hoping for the impossible. You cannot play both teams without the other side getting mad about it. There is no way to remain neutral and to believe that we can be neutral is where the danger lies.
I never thought as being neutral as a bad thing, because to be neutral appeared to me as not harming one side or the other, but the more that I think about it and begin to understand Horton and Freire’s point I see now that I can never remain neutral. If I and everyone else remains neutral then nothing would happen. For example, when a car is in neutral it is either not moving or it is going whichever way gravity decides to pull it. If we are like cars in neutral then we are either going with the flow of society or remaining stagnant and getting nothing done. In terms of my community partner, a neutral attitude towards homelessness would be detrimental to the needs and purpose of the Ritter House and the community of people that it serves. If people were to just have no position on homelessness then the Ritter House would not have the resources necessary for their services or even worse, there would be no such place as the Ritter House. If people don’t care enough, then they would not try to change or eradicate homelessness.
Over the course of this class I have realized that it is very self-based. To be able to participate in this class I have had to look deeper into my beliefs, morals, and understanding of the world. This class makes me face harsh realities that I and probably a lot of other people really do not want to face. When we did our social biographies in class there was one part that I did not want to share, but feel the need to share now. I have been doing my research on police misconduct, and the reason I chose this topic was because I have wanted to see the other side’s point of view. Since I grew up with a father in law enforcement I have a very bias opinion about the topic, but I wanted to explore and delve into the other side of it. Being in this class has enabled me to interact with a group of people that I have been taught to understand as criminals or as “others”. I would never have had the opportunity to get to know the homeless population of San Rafael were it not for the Ritter House and service learning. I have been able to prove the negative discourse about them as wrong. They are extremely kind people who have just been dealt a rough hand. They may be a little rough around the edges, but who isn’t? I used to think in one way; I thought the law was always right and anybody that broke or opposed the law was a criminal. Now I see that breaking and changing the law is a necessity for a better future. I can no longer remain in the neutral state I was in, because to be neutral is to be the true danger to society.
