Abstract
An exploration is presented of how education policy and practice may be used to transform society. Specifically, connections are made between Paulo Freire's teaching strategies and radically democratic organizing. The connections are contextualized within the prefigurative tradition, which explores how the democratic process is central to consistent and sustainable social change. The article contributes to an understanding of Paulo Freire's ontology, and the philosophy of social change, as well as how democratic strategies may address failures of revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Historians such as Howard Zinn have described the persistent problem of social inequality throughout American (US) history (Zinn, 2005). Whether inequality is defined economically or socially, groups of people have often found themselves blocked from social resources, shunned or killed in all historical epochs. Broadly, when access to social and political resources is affected by perceived social qualities, the resulting social order is unequal. Historically, discrimination has affected a wide spectrum of people based on social qualities such as their religion, race, class, gender, or perceived disability.
While critics of the existing order tend to agree that the system needs to be changed, a major obstacle still exists: how to bring about the change. Boggs (1977) considered the question through a historical lens, exploring failed revolutionary movements in the 19th and 20th centuries. Chomsky (2013) engaged in a similar project and, like Boggs (1977), argued that many of these revolutions have failed due to their lack of democratic engagement; or, in other words, the reliance on top-down leadership structures with authoritarian tendencies. Both authors explain that the means of social transformation should be commensurate with the ends, such that if a democratic outcome is desired then democratic policies/tactics should be used. The framework for which they argue may be located within the broader prefigurative tradition, which challenges many traditional strategies and assumptions about revolutionary organization (Breines, 1989).
The issue of social inequality is of particular importance to educators because education is traditionally held as one of the primary means of upward mobility (Mishel et al., 2012). However, according to a thorough study by the Economic Policy Institute, social mobility in the United States has remained relatively static since the 1970s, in spite of generally higher levels of education (Mishel et al., 2012). Furthermore, race, gender and ethnicity are not neutral and still affect upward mobility, which suggests that US society does not reflect an equal society (Mishel et al., 2012).
The present article will present an exploration of social transformation and combatting social inequality through education reform and practices. To contextualize the discussion, education's connection with social change movements and the concept democracy will be briefly explored. First, there is a consideration of the history and ontology of the prefigurative tradition. This is followed by an explanation of the Freirean approach to pedagogy, which will serve to illustrate how an alternative educational philosophy can move from theory into action. Finally, I will explore the connections between Freirean pedagogy and the prefigurative tradition as well as the overall contribution to the social change literature. The article will address several larger topics: a framework for Freire's understanding of the mechanism for social change and understanding Freire's work in relation to the prefigurative tradition; and, finally, an argument will be offered for the consideration of deeply democratic practices/theory as a framework for social transformation.
Transforming society: education and democracy
Two major themes will be explored here: the education system and radical approaches to social transformation; and democracy. The discussion of the education system will serve to illustrate how radical traditions have manifested themselves in education practices and contextualize how Freire's approach to education is connected to broader social change movements. The democracy section will briefly explore the concept of democracy in order to distinguish more radical approaches to democratic reform from approaches associated with contemporary liberal democracies.
Social change and education
McLaren (2003) helps contextualize the social atmosphere of schooling, at a time of diminishing democratic values and the ever-expanding, market-based ideals of neoliberalism, complicated with the influx of conservative moral principles. Coulson (2011) adds that contemporary debates about market-driven schools focus on global competition in the job market, and the creation of a competitive culture. McLaren explains that neoliberalism frames schooling in corporate terminology, which facilitates the formation of schools after the business model and ‘encourages students to succeed in the tough competitive world of existing social forms’ (McLaren, 2003: 187) where academic success is defined ‘almost exclusively in terms of capital accumulation and the logic of the marketplace’ (McLaren, 2003: 34). Furthermore, the framework affects education policy, characterized by ‘the rush toward accountability schemes, corporate management pedagogies, and state mandated curricula’ (McLaren, 2003: 34). Furthermore, McLaren (2003) noted the challenge posed by the increasingly normalized values of the New-Right which encourage fundamentalist religious views and reactionary ideologies. Taken together, all of these social factors affect pedagogy, encouraging ‘efficiency-smart and conservative-minded discourse’ (McLaren, 2003: 34).
Consequently, critics of US education argue that the contemporary system may actually make inequality worse (Bowles and Gintis, 2008). Theorists from the school of critical pedagogy suggest that schooling reproduces unequal social structures, through: (i) inequitable school funding; (ii) standardized testing; and (iii) even the power dynamics in the classroom itself (Chege, 2009; Freire, 2004; Kozol, 1991; Liasidou, 2012; Pappas and Tremblay, 2010). Critical educators focus on classroom dynamics – generally the relationship between teachers and students – because they observe that when the educator adopts an authoritarian identity in the classroom an inequitable society tends to result (Freire, 2004).
However, while critics of education emphasize its shortcomings and pitfalls, they are quick to point out its potential to challenge oppression (Elias, 1976). Critical pedagogues have suggested how education can potentially transform society (Freire, 2004; Leonardo, 2003; McLaren, 2003). Elias (1976) argued that both Freire and Illich focused on education because they saw it as integral to the process of socialization; and John Dewey (2008) stressed the importance of education to creating and maintaining democracy.
One of the key aspects of radical reform that the critics identify is the institution's role in maintaining ideology, or sets of principles and social mores that tend to perpetuate the status quo. Louis Althusser, a foundational figure in critical theory, suggested that schooling was among a central set of social institutions that promote the dominant ideology (Althusser, 2008). Following Althusser, critical educators have sought, in part, to address dominant ideology in education. It can be argued that Paulo Freire, one of the foundational figures in critical pedagogy, considered ‘conscientization’, or the realization of individual agency through collective work, as an integral piece to revealing and counteracting oppressive ideology.
Social change and democracy
Democracy is a political philosophy that has occupied various ideological spaces throughout modern history. In some of its earliest roots in Western society, the Greeks linked democracy to rule by the demos, or rule by the people (Critchley, 2001). However, what ‘rule by the people’ looks like, or how it is operationalized, has been a topic of contention for philosophers and activists alike (Critchley, 2001; Harnecker, 2015; Niemi, 2011). Some argue that the general population lacks the ability or skill to rule, indicating that there must remain a minimal level of expert technocrats to manage governance – which suggests that contemporary liberal society is too complicated for the general populace (Critchley, 2001; Harnecker, 2015). A more fundamental question than technical applications of democracy, however, is what constitutes a democratic system.
Many contemporary theorists define democratic societies in terms of procedure, essentially linking democracy with the political procedure of voting and election of representatives (Critchley, 2001). However, critics argue that linking democracy to political procedure alone obscures other important aspects, including social and economic, of a holistic democratic life (Niemi, 2011). Critics of procedural democracy argue that the framework is closely associated with liberal philosophy and falls short of true democracy because it undermines freedom and contributes to alienation caused by the capitalist system (Critchley, 2001; Niemi, 2011).
Critics of procedural democracy also argue that capitalism and democracy are essentially incompatible (Critchley, 2001). This arises from prioritizing the relational aspect of democracy where individuals are equitably associated politically, socially and economically in a collective construction of human life (Niemi, 2011). These advocates draw heavily from Marxist theory with regard to the project of humanity being the ongoing creation of a complete self, reconciling the political, social and economic aspects of the individual. These aspects are a part of the dialectical process of raising critical consciousness of civic and political structures, which contributes to the simultaneous development of the individual.
Critchley (2001) discussed the ontological self relationally, as opposed to individualistically, in the context of humans as social beings where the self is never developed in isolation but, rather, in collaboration. The process of developing the self is an integral piece to overcoming the ever-expanding alienation experienced in capitalist societies where the individual is isolated from others, this isolation limiting their development as complete political and social beings. Consequently, capitalist alienation runs counter to democratic development.
As a response to procedural democracy, direct democracy is sometimes described as being a utopian dream that could not address complicated national or international political structures (Critchley, 2001; Harnecker, 2015). The critique is linked with the assertion that non-professional citizens would be unable to make sense of the complex economic and political systems that interconnect a globalized structure (Critchley, 2001). Increasingly, these global structures become more bureaucratized and complex as roles become more specialized, with the consequence of making the pool of experts limited. Furthermore, the state is often characterized as a ‘necessary evil’ and its elected representatives are viewed as integral components that protect individual rights (Critchley, 2001).
However, proponents of direct democracy argue that such interpretations of the role of the state are based on uncritical acceptance of capitalism and the pursuant liberal ideology (Critchley, 2001; Niemi, 2011). Specifically, theorists working in the Marxist tradition see this as a misinterpretation stemming from the institutional separation of the political and social spheres caused by alienating social relationships (Critchley, 2001). The humanizing aspect of the Marxist tradition urges the reconciliation of social, political and economic selves in order to promote equality and freedom (Niemi, 2011). As Harnecker argued, ‘it was pointless to speak of democracy while people continued to die of hunger, while people were homeless, while people were unable to study, while people continued to die at a young age due to lack of medical attention’ (Harnecker, 2015: Chapter 7, Section 2, Paragraph 1). Further, proponents of democracy working within the Marxist tradition argue that true democracy can only be achieved through active individuals working in creative collaboration (Critchley, 2001). Marx argued that true democracy comes about in the process of realizing ‘the essence of socialised man’ (Critchley, 2001: 379).
While developing an argument for Marxist democracy, Peter Critchley (2001) linked Marx's project with the concept of rational freedom. Critchley (2001) explained that rational freedom is rooted in a social rather than an individualistic understanding of humanity; essentially a freedom through, rather than a freedom from, others. Traditionally, in US political history, ‘freedom’ has been understood as autonomy of the individual to act as they please in so far as it does not infringe upon the autonomy of other individuals (Critchley, 2001). However, Critchley (2001) argues that this perspective fails to address the social and historical context of individuals.
Critchley's (2001) argument is derived from the Marxist understanding of human history which characterized human development as a social process developed out of human need. Discussing Marx, Critchley stated that, ‘individuals are creatures of needs’ and ‘the satisfaction of these needs involves praxis in the interaction with nature’ (Critchley, 2001: 594). Harnecker adds, ‘there is a complementary, dialectical relationship between the individual being and the social being that makes it impossible to establish a separation between the individual character and social surroundings of a human being’ (Harnecker, 2015: Chapter 6, Section 3, Paragraph 1
Marxist proponents of direct democracy argue that liberal critique of the process stems from the individualistic understanding of freedom, reinforced by the alienating aspects of capitalism. Marx's central critique of capitalism is that it tends to isolate individuals through institutional forces that divide humanity. Critchley discussed Marx's understanding of capitalism's alienating power, that the division of labor appears to individuals ‘not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them’ because ‘their co-operation is not voluntary’ (Critchley, 2001: 391). The bureaucratic forces affect political and social life as well since the separation is reinforced by state and social institutions such as in schools and political parties (Critchley, 2001).
The prefigurative tradition
The following section explores the concept of ‘prefigurative politics’ or the ‘prefigurative tradition’. Prefigurative politics is a social change framework that relies heavily upon the democratic process. First, I will consider the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement in order to contextualize the prefigurative tradition. This is followed by an exploration of the rich history of the movement and why practitioners engage with this particular organizing framework. These discussions are intended to help frame the final section which looks at the underlying ontology of the framework and makes some preliminary connections to Freirean philosophy.
Occupy Wall Street (OWS): contextualizing the prefigurative tradition
One of the largest and most well-known social change movements in recent history was Occupy Wall Street (OWS) which started at Zuccotti Park in New York in 2011 (Engler and Engler, 2014). Although the motivations of the movement were diverse, Murray (2014) argued that essentially it sought ‘radical democracy’ where the ‘goal was to actualize the ideal of self-organizing communities of free and equal persons, expand and deepen democratic participation in all spheres of life, and increase individuals’ and communities’ power over social, economic and political institutions’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: 1). OWS had numerous goals, but one of the most important was to create a democratic space where people could humanely engage with others and to show, through action, that democracy was possible, as Graeber explained. We all knew it was practically impossible to convince the average American that a truly democratic society was possible through rhetoric. But it was possible to show them. The experience of watching a group of a thousand, or two thousand, people making collective decisions without a leadership structure, motivated only by principle and solidarity, can change one's most fundamental assumptions about what politics, or for that matter, human life, could actually be like (Graeber, 2013: Chapter 2, Section 4, Paragraph 4).
In addition, OWS helps illustrate the key differences in organizational strategies, particularly between the prefigurative and strategic traditions. Breines (1989) described strategic politics, the complement to prefigurative politics, as that ‘which was committed to building organization in order to achieve major structural changes in the political, economic and social orders’ (Breines, 1989: Chapter 1, Paragraph 16). Engler and Engler (2014) explained that these different frameworks, while occasionally intersectional, often implied different strategies. Where strategic politics favors the creation of organizations that can marshal collective resources and gain influence in conventional politics, prefigurative groups lean toward the creation of liberated public spaces, community centers and alternative institutions – such as squats, co-ops and radical bookstores. (Engler and Engler, 2014: Section 5, Paragraph 3)
The tactics of the prefigurative tradition are controversial because some claim them as necessary while others regard them as ineffectual. As Engler and Engler (2014) explained, ‘[the] project of building alternative community totally eclipses attempts to communicate with the wider public and win broad support, it risks becoming a very limiting type of self-isolation’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: Paragraph 5).
The prefigurative tradition: history and meaning
I will explore the prefigurative tradition in order to frame an alternative to traditional ways of understanding social change. First, the history of the prefigurative movement is addressed, followed by the underlying theory of the framework. These explanations are intended to help expand what social change may look like, to conceptualize the Freirean framework for social change in order to determine what connections exist.
The prefigurative tradition is an organizational model for social change that, broadly, focuses as much on the process of change as the goals, arguing that the ends must be commensurate with the means (Engler and Engler, 2014). Prefiguration means living and acting in accordance with an ethic that meets the goals of the ideal society; or, as Mahatma Gandhi famously declared, ‘be the change that you want to see’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: Paragraph 1). Furthermore, in the tradition relationships are central because they constitute the foundational pieces of a new society, as Engler and Engler (2014) explained, ‘in a 1980 essay, Breines argues that the central imperative of prefigurative politics was to “create and sustain within the live practice of the movement, relationships and political forms that “prefigured” and embodied the desired society”’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: Section 2, Paragraph 1). What can therefore be understood as the goal for prefigurative tradition is ensuring that participants are actively engaged in every aspect of planning, organizing and moving an organization forward, with the ultimate goal of transforming society into a true democracy (Chomsky, 2013). In addition, this suggests that democracy in the prefigurative tradition is not simply considered in the political sense, restricting it to a vote, but in a holistic sense, including economically and socially in addition to politically (Chomsky, 2013). Therefore, organizations or nations that fail to achieve democracy politically, socially or economically may be considered undemocratic from the prefigurative perspective (Chomsky, 2013; Boggs, 1977).
Historically there are many examples of organizations operating in the prefigurative tradition, existing along a spectrum, each varying to the extent to which they prioritize democracy in their organizations, policies and politics (Boggs, 1977). Boggs (1977), in his history of the tradition, articulated ways that some prefigurative organizations were too ‘prefigurative’ and had failed due to over-reliance on local participatory organizations and neglect of broader networks. In contrast, Polletta (2002) explained that some contemporary US organizations use aspects of the prefigurative tradition, such as popular participation, but occasionally forgo the democratic process for strategic reasons. However, Boggs (1977) warned that the forsaking of popular voices for political expediency can actually undermine the movement and may cause it to become despotic.
Generally, the most successful forms of the prefigurative tradition seek to maximize democratic participation while minimizing unnecessary authority, with a focus on maintaining the broad collaboration necessary for a healthy social movement (Chomsky, 2013; Boggs, 1977; Polletta, 2002). Regarding authority, Chomsky argued that the onus should be on those in power to justify themselves, ‘…so I think that whenever you find situations of power… the person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can't justify it, it's illegitimate and should be dismantled’ (Chomsky, 2013: 33).
Historically, the prefigurative tradition represented aspects of the social change movements of the 1960s where, as Breines, as the person who popularized the term, explained, the goal was to ‘create and sustain within the live practice of the movement, relationships and political forms that “prefigured” and embodied the desired society’ (Breines, 1989: Section 2, Paragraph 1). Thus Breines (1989) explained that prefigurative politics in the 1960s was radically democratic and resistant to bureaucracy and other hierarchy-preserving systems (Engler and Engler, 2014). As an example, a key group to emerge during the 1960s that engaged in the strategy was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) where ‘participants spoke of the desire to create the “beloved community” – a society that rejected bigotry and prejudice in all forms and instead embraced peace and brotherliness’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: 3 Section 4, Paragraph 3). The ideal served as a model for how activists would operate within their organization in pursuit of their goals and was an inspiration for bold activist work (Engler and Engler, 2014). However, academics discussing the period of the 1960s stress the importance of the differences between the prefigurative tradition and the counter-culture movement (Engler and Engler, 2014). While similarities existed between the two, prefigurative politics emphasizes goals, such as creating participatory democracy, while the counter-culture movement focused almost exclusively on culture, such as the arts and music (Engler and Engler, 2014).
However, Engler and Engler (2014) explained that while the prefigurative tradition was popularized during the 1960s it did not arise suddenly but, rather, has been a recurring discussion in social movements across cultures and contexts. Engler and Engler (2014) referred to aspects of Gandhi's organizing against the British colonizers, where he advocated ‘for a distinctive vision of self-reliant village life, through which he believed Indians could experience true independence and communal unity’ (Engler and Engler, 2014: Section 2, Paragraph 3). Carl Boggs is often credited with coining the term ‘prefigurative politics’ in reference to failed social revolutions of the 19th and 20th century (Engler and Engler, 2014; Murray, 2014).
Boggs (1977) explained that the advocates of the prefigurative tradition asked of the revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries the question, ‘how are you to achieve equality through inequitable practices?’. Chomsky (2013) recalled an instance of the recurring critique in the late 1800s when anarchists such as Bakunin, Rocker and Pelloutier questioned their Marxist contemporaries about how a socialist revolution could occur when power was concentrated in so few hands with little regard for democratic engagement. Chomsky (2013) explained that the chances for a truly democratic revolution that ‘will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left’ are slim if the process of change is not considered; or, in other words, a democratic society is unlikely to emerge from authoritarian programs (Chomsky, 2013: 6). Similarly, Chomsky refers to Martin Buber's understanding of the conflict between means and ends, ‘one cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves’ (Chomsky, 2013: 6). As in the conflicts between strategic and prefigurative politics during OWS, the recurring question of the process of social change has been discussed for over a century between libertarian socialists, who follow in the prefigurative tradition, and authoritarian socialists who argue for a strong centralized state (Chomsky, 2013).
However, the debate between the groups should not imply that anarchists are antagonistic to socialists, but rather that anarchists are socialists who argue for a specific process. Anarchists articulate a specific process of change, where through democratic, collaborative and anti-hierarchal means a new society could be realized from the old. Chomsky explained that from the anarcho-syndicalist tradition activists sought to create ‘free associations of free producers…to take over the organization of production on a democratic basis’ (Chomsky, 2013: 11). Chomsky (2013) also explained that Marx discusses the antagonistic relationship between capitalism and democracy where, because of capitalist relations, the workers becomes machine-like and alienated from their work and each other. It follows, from the anarchist tradition, that if the way that labor is organized in society (i.e. capitalism) creates dehumanizing inequality while there exists a state structure that supports inequality, then ‘both…must be overcome’ (Chomsky, 2013: 11). Chomsky's (2013) argument recalls the anti-hierarchal stance of the prefigurative tradition, which argues that hierarchies, especially those created within capitalism, lead to undemocratic societies. It is through their economic concerns that anarchists are often associated with the socialist tradition because they argue that any form of hierarchy is an obstacle to achieving true democracy (Bamyeh, 2009). Similarly, Chomsky recalled, of Adolph Fischer, that ‘every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist’ (Chomsky, 2013: 10). However, there is a significant contemporary exception; specifically, libertarians in the USA who have come to be associated with neoliberalism (Chomsky, 2013). The trend in the USA is generally inconsistent with the global understanding of the libertarian perspective, as Chomsky argued, A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. (Chomsky, 2013: 10) …the revolution was ‘apolitical’, in the sense that its organs of power and administration remained separate from the central Republican government and …continued to function fairly independently until the revolution was finally crushed between the fascist and Communist-led Republican forces. (Chomsky, 2013: 51) in Aragon, 450 collectives with half a million members; in the Levant, 900 collectives accounting for about half the agricultural production and 70 percent of marketing…in Castile, 300 collectives with about 100,000 members. (Chomsky, 2013: 52)
Similarly, in his analysis of several failed revolutionary movements, Carl Boggs (1977) described instances where popular movements were undermined by centralized and hierarchal forces. Boggs (1977) explained that the Russian Revolution had initially been democratic and anti-hierarchal because it comprised numerous locally-governed Soviets and factory committees. Boggs (1977) further explained that ‘the Soviets were defined as primarily political assemblies … [that] reflected a broad social base’ where ‘meetings were held regularly, sometimes daily’ and ‘the rapid turnover of delegates together with the quick pace of events imposed limits on bureaucratization’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 4, Paragraph 3). While the factory committees dealt primarily with workplace issues, including management of the work and workplace regulation, and ‘pushed for workers’ control and mass action – strikes, demonstrations, and occupations’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 4, Paragraph 4), the Soviets and committees worked in tandem to different levels of success throughout Russia, with roughly 200 Soviets in place by 1917 (Boggs, 1977). However, Boggs (1977) explained that there was little infrastructure between the different Soviets and committees and, consequently, they were easily coopted by a larger more centralized movement. Boggs (1977) described how the Soviets were slowly transformed from popular organizations to auxiliaries to the central governing body, ‘these councils…were gradually emptied of collective-democratic content and transformed into “transmission belts” for implementing decisions made by the party leadership’, and by mid-1918 workers’ control had been terminated (Boggs, 1977: Section 4, Paragraph 7). Boggs (1977) explained that additional reasons for the dissolution of prefigurative movements were a narrow focus on spontaneity and therefore a lack of systematic political organization, as well as becoming co-opted by liberal democracies.
Boggs argued that those working within the tradition believed that ‘statism and authoritarianism as special obstacles to be overturned’ and the goal of the tradition ‘is to replace the bureaucratic state with distinctly popular institutions’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 3, Paragraph 1). Thus Boggs explained that the prefigurative tradition has three primary concerns, including: (1) Fear of reproducing hierarchical authority relations under a new ideological rationale; (2) criticism of political parties and trade unions because their centralized forms reproduce the old power relations in a way that undermines revolutionary struggles; and (3) commitment to democratization through local, collective structures that anticipate the future liberated society. (Boggs, 1977: Section 3, Paragraph 1)
Boggs (1977) explained the purpose of social institutions within the prefigurative tradition; that they should focus on ‘small, local, collective organs of popular control’ such as ‘factory councils, Soviets, neighborhood assemblies, revolutionary action committees, affinity groups’ that ‘seek to democratize and reinvigorate revolutionary politics’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 3, Paragraph 5). Boggs argued that such organizations can develop organically and ‘combat the social division of labor’ through collective work that focuses on transforming social relationships (Boggs, 1977: Section 5, Paragraph 6). Furthermore, these democratic spaces can also empower participants and help them realize their agency through the collective understanding of their potential to produce change, ‘where a sense of confidence, spirit, and creativity would begin to replace the fatalism, passivity, and submissiveness instilled by bourgeois authority’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 5, Paragraph 6).
Boggs (1977) argued that some of the best examples of the prefigurative tradition embrace a broad vision of social change rather than focusing narrowly on either spontaneity or action without theory. ‘Councilism’, Boggs explained, was the attempt to work through the conflicts between the prefigurative and strategic movements and they wanted ‘to incorporate the needs for structure, leadership, and coordination into a democratic and prefigurative revolutionary process’ (Boggs, 1977: Section 3, Paragraph 8). Boggs explained that the approach had three distinctive features, including: The construction of federations made up of local self-management systems into a larger system of coordination, using collective popular structures to undermine and replace existing structures from below, and a look into the future or organization based on ‘the unfolding potential of the working class’. (Boggs, 1977: Section 3, Paragraph 9) …the demands of funders may mean implementing bureaucratic allocative procedures; winning legislation or policy change may require centralized authority; responding quickly to the aggressive action of movement opponents may require leaders' unilateral action. (Polletta, 2002: 6)
Polletta (2002) argued that prefigurative organizations can have tactical advantages over traditional strategic organizing techniques, including: decentralization, which ‘can generate innovative tactics by encouraging group input’; a cooperative ethos, which can generate stronger bonds; and ‘innovation and solidarity’ (Polletta, 2002: 7). In addition, in Polletta's (2002) own research, she acknowledged the importance of dialogue, or ‘deliberative talk’ – that is, to ‘recognize the merits of each other's reasons for favoring a particular option’ – which was ‘governed by norms of openness and mutual respect’ (Polletta, 2002: 7). Importantly, Polletta (2002) explains that when dialogue is understood as ongoing, it counters the common conception of democracy being adversarial, where people are assumed to know their preferences before dialogue beings.
In addition, Polletta explained that the prefigurative tradition derives legitimate authority from the participants because authority is based on democratic principles rather than ‘the credentialed, the moneyed, the powerful’ (Polletta, 2002: 8). The process of diffusing decision making across the group can itself be beneficial, as Polletta explained; it can press ‘participants to recognize the legitimacy of other people's reasoning’ and avoid the pitfalls of majority voting which ‘leaves losers in its wake’ who ‘may forge the alliances and strike the bargains necessary to win’ or leave the organization (Polletta, 2002: 9). Finally, Polletta argued that ‘participatory deliberation yields citizens who are more knowledgeable, public spirited, better able to see the connections between their own interests and those of others, and more willing to reevaluate their own interests’ (Polletta, 2002: 11).
Looking closely at what helps participatory democracies thrive, Polletta (2002) discussed the subtleties of democratic relationships. She described a democratic etiquette, which does more than merely ‘keep things civil’, because through ‘routinizing interaction and domesticating attendant emotions, it generates trust in the process, its outcomes, and its participants’, which, Polletta argued, ‘is vital to the institution's survival’ (Polletta, 2002: 16). The social norms that guide the decision making process differ from organization to organization, but often emphasize one particular relational form (Polletta, 2002). Polletta explained, from her 2002 study, that participants in democratic organizations tended to relate based on several frameworks – including religious fellowship, tutelage and friendship.
The relational frameworks described the norms expected in each organization and how these frames affected the ways in which groups made decisions and dealt with conflict, and what conflicts were likely to emerge (Polletta, 2002). The framing also explains how each organization helps ‘promote the mutual trust, respect, and concern that are a precondition for participatory democracy's developmental benefits’ (Polletta, 2002: 208). The religious fellowship framework, for example, built trust based on a common faith and tended to have a ‘deferential’ mode of decision-making linked with belief in power outside of the organization, and dealt with inequality by accepting that ‘participants are equal before God’ (Polletta, 2002: 19). Polletta describes the model that faith-based organizations used as ‘relational’, where they focus on ‘the affection, trust, and respect shared by active church members, but they also try to counteract the deference built into those relations by affirming the importance of acting on one's “self-interest”’ (Polletta, 2002: 178).
Polletta (2002) discussed the theological roots of democratic bodies organized around religious relationships. Historically, pacifist groups have had strong ties to religious doctrine which has directly influenced their actions: Polletta explained that ‘striving to create the Kingdom of God has also meant working to bring about social justice, and pacifists since World War I have been active in causes ranging from civil rights and civil liberties to labor organizing and environmentalism’ (Polletta, 2002: 27). The motivation for doing social justice work may be surmised by the phrase, ‘do now what thou wouldst do then’, which refers to the acolyte finding solace in doing the ‘acceptable will of God in the beginning and end of every good work’ (Kempis, 2017: Book 1, Chapter 25, Paragraph 3). The phase calls to mind the prefigurative framework because it links the everyday work of the democratically engaged individual with the ideal. Polletta explained that the framework ‘aimed at embodying the cooperative society of the future, furthering the “here-and-now revolution”’ (Polletta, 2002: 27). However, Polletta (2002) also warned that by virtue of their commitment to religious doctrine participants in these organizations have a difficult time challenging those who claim special access to the will of God, thus potentially limiting the democratic potential of the organization.
Paulo Freire
Here, I will explore Paulo Freire's legacy as well as his education and social philosophies. The discussion will serve to contextualize Freire's project, to explain its connection to the prefigurative tradition. Specifically, I will briefly describe Freire's background, teaching strategies, and tangible policies that he enacted as education minister of Brazil.
Moacir Gadotti described Paulo Freire as a ‘man of his time’ who has ‘provided the conditions for countless individuals, regardless of race, gender, class and caste, to break free from their historically contingent and entrenched vocabularies to face up to their fallibility and strength as agents of possibility’ (Gadotti, 1994: xiii). Gadotti (1994), a collaborator and contemporary of Freire, explained that Freire challenged some of the fundamental assumptions of schooling and education, including how knowledge is developed.
Describing Freire's understanding of knowledge, Gadotti (1994) explained that knowledge has two parts, the production of knowledge and the moment that the knowledge is discovered or made known. Furthermore, Gadotti (1994) explained that in traditional education this process is bisected, which results in alienation. Due, in part, to the separation of the knowledge creation process, alienation manifests itself in a hierarchal relationship between teacher and student. Later, with regard to the wider US context, McLaren and Farahmandpur (2004) argued that the separation of the production of knowledge from the usage of knowledge contributes to the commodification of knowledge. Similarly, Gadotti had explained that this is an important factor preserving ideology, ‘when we separate the production of knowledge from the discovery of already existing knowledge, schools become easily transformed into shops for the sale of knowledge, which is part of the capitalist ideology’ (Gadotti, 1994: 13).
In contrast, through practices that engage the learner and promote agency, Freire hoped to revolutionize traditional education practices. He sought to replace the traditional hierarchal structure of the classroom by helping the students to become equal contributors to the learning process though a pedagogical practice called ‘cultural circles’. Cultural circles build the curriculum from the lived experiences of the learners; as Freire (2016) explained, the curriculum must be adaptive to the social, political and historical context of the population. Equally, Souto-Manning described five key aspects of the cultural circle in her study of the process of the critical cycle: ‘generative themes, problem posing, dialogue, problem solving, and action’ (Souto-Manning, 2010: 32). The aim of the process is to raise culturally and locally relevant issues in order to develop an awareness of the dialectical relationship of local and global contexts with an orientation towards action.
Freire's action-oriented approach, or praxis, is a collaborative pedagogical practice that actively engages theory toward achieving social change. The framework describes civic life as inherently political; thus, as Kirylo explained, One who is engaged in political matters is a person of action, marked by the term praxis; and one who lives a life of contemplation (theory) is immersed in the things metaphysical and eternal truths, which stands taller than praxis, yet both are critical aspects of being human. (Kirylo, 2011: 153)
Praxis education is uniquely situated to address a dominant ideology because it simultaneously challenges the status quo while actively engaging in alternatives. Freire described the process of realizing dominant ideology through critically engaged practice as ‘conscientization’ (Freire, 1998). While analyzing the process, Gadotti (1994) explained that conscientization may be understood in several stages: the investigation stage; the thematization stage; and, finally, the problematization stage. The investigation stage involves the educator as a researcher seeking to create a common collection of vocabulary and meaning with the community, building towards a shared understanding (Gadotti, 1994). This is followed by the thematization stage in which the co-investigators problematize and rethink their meaning-making systems (Gadotti, 1994). Finally, the problematization stage involves informed engagement with the potential issues found in the community, as Gadotti explained: ‘concrete action becomes necessary which will overcome limiting political, cultural, social, and economic situations, that is, obstacles to hominization, the process of becoming men’ (Gadotti, 1994: 23). Smith (2015) added that the process is not necessarily linear but cyclical, though conscientization essentially helps the learner understand their ideological context and receives tools to challenge it.
The development of conscientization, or critical consciousness, seeks to link individual with social narratives to reduce the alienation brought on by capitalist relations (Critchley, 2001; Kirylo, 2011). A central part of conscientization is the dialectical relationship between theory and action, or praxis, where action mutually informs theory in collective practice towards social change. Consequently, action, or what concrete steps that need to be taken, are integral when considering social change from a Freirean framework.
Paulo Freire as education minister of Brazil – Freirean pedagogy in action
During his brief tenure as education minister of Brazil, Paulo Freire promoted policies that reflected a Freirean framework of education reform (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). After the Workers Party took office in Brazil, Freire was to serve as the Municipal Secretariat of Education from 1989 to 1992 (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). Freire developed the concept of Popular Public Schools in collaboration with local communities, with the aim of decentralizing education administration (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). Through what would be termed the Movement for Literacy Training of Youth and Adults (MOVA) Freire hoped to increase local participation in the governing of education, because it was ‘built on participative planning and delivery with support from nongovernment organizations or social movements’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1994: 209). O’Cadiz et al. described the intentions behind MOVA as a program ‘that guarantees the school's autonomy in the definition of its own pedagogic program’ where ‘all the schools of the municipal system were given the option to either formulate their own independent project or to subscribe to the secretariat's proposed Interdisciplinary Project’ (O’Cadiz, 1994: 210). Freire hoped to facilitate local planning and encourage autonomy where the ‘choice was made at each municipal school by a democratic consensus of school administrative personnel, teachers, and parents represented in the school councils’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1994: 210).
Rather than reinforce hierarchal relationships, Freire chose to build from local pre-existing movements where the central government ‘lent financial resources and technical expertise to social movements already active in the area of literacy training and political conscientization of the popular sectors, rather than imposing a particular program of literacy training’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1994: 210). As Secretariat, Freire developed the advisory capacity of the central education department through weekly meetings with local teachers, practitioner articles, and a non-coercive guide developed from Freire's critical pedagogy (O’Cadiz et al., 1999).
The teachers and administrators at the schools that adopted the Freirean program generally started with a thematic investigation of their locality in order to determine issues that concerned their constituents (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). Consistent with Freire's theme of conscientization, rooting pedagogy in locally relevant issues facilitated an individual's understanding of the interrelation of local and global issues. O’Cadiz et al. described the process thus: ‘…popular education starts from a political and social analysis of the living conditions of the poor and their outstanding problems… and attempts to engage the poor in individual and collective awareness of those conditions’ (O’Cadiz, 1994: 214). Further, the thematic investigation was described as ‘…one path towards getting to know, understand, and intervene critically in a particular studied reality… it presupposes a methodology that believes in the growth of the individual through collective work, discussion, problematization, questioning, conflict and participation’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 85). From the themes, the schoolteachers and administrators would develop curricula that focused on action and would help develop reflective students.
Curriculum reform was based on the reflection/action model Freire described as praxis, in which the connection between theory and practice was highlighted (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). The reforms were not to be taken as final; rather, they should be ongoing, that they ‘…should include a model on continuing teacher training, with a critical analysis of the curriculum in practice’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 52). Furthermore, the reforms should be based on maximized local participation and ‘should reflect diverse experiences, with a fundamental respect for the autonomy of each school’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 52).
The central education department facilitated curriculum development in a support role through a combination of developing teacher/practitioner networks and pedagogical guidelines. Local efforts towards contribution to a decentralized national network started with collaboration between teachers, staff, parents and community members (O’Cadiz et al., 1999). O’Cadiz et al. described the local networks, ‘…councils served as mechanism for increasing family and community participation in school decision-making processes’ where ‘they drew representatives from the teaching staff, the administrative staff, the students and the school community’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 77). The local councils attended to curricular issues, although primarily they ‘covered budget and personnel issues’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 77). The meetings also served as training opportunities which provided spaces for dialogue that challenged traditional educational theory, technical assistance and coaching, as well as subject specific topics (O’Cadiz et al., 1999).
Teachers were given the opportunity to expand their participation from local councils and contribute to a national network through resources made available by specialists. However, consistent with Marxist theory, the project was not isolated to curriculum development; it was designed to challenge existing power structures and to imagine change: ‘it speaks from critical perspective to the way knowledge is produced in society and how this process can contribute to either merely reproducing relations of power or to the creation of new knowledge and to the transformation of society’ (O’Cadiz et al., 1999: 89).
O'Cadiz et al.'s (1999) study of Freire's tenure as Education Secretary revealed successes as well as the technical and structural challenges of the program. O'Cadiz et al. (1999) described some of the theoretical and structural success of the program: teachers worked collectively with community members; there were diverse sources and content for the curriculum; pedagogy was based on lived experiences; there was development of students as active learners; and there was consciousness raising of teachers and community members. Practically, the programs raised the student retention rate, student enrollment, and brought about an increase in teacher pay (O'Cadiz et al., 1999). However, O'Cadiz et al. (1999) also described some of the limitations of Freire's project: the limited theoretical/philosophical knowledge of some of the teachers; a lack of material and personnel resources; and uneven distribution of teachers with experience.
The prefigurative tradition and Paulo Freire – the ontology of becoming
I have outlined above the prefigurative tradition, its purposes, organizational strategies and historical or contemporary manifestations. The framework has been shown to differ in some fundamental ways from traditional social change models, specifically with regard to its emphasis on the democratic process. Now, I will briefly discuss the unique focus on democracy and how it relates to some fundamental ontological implications of the framework. While the prefigurative tradition exists on a wide political spectrum, what follows will focus primarily on the anarchist iterations of the tradition, because this is an example of some of the strictest adherents to the democratic principle and arguably the best way to explore this unique feature.
The discussion will first explore how the democratic process is integrally related to an ideal or ethic which grounds the process in political and social experiences. Then, the ontological implications of the relationship between process and ethic will be considered; and, finally, this ontological framing will be compared to some fundamental ontological assumptions in the Freirean tradition in order to consider how Freirean philosophy is related to the prefigurative tradition.
While it can be readily observed that the prefigurative tradition emphasizes process, it may be less clear how this relates to goals. To be clear, the prefigurative tradition, in its strictest sense, asserts that for social change to be realized the process of change has to be equitable (Boggs, 1977; Breines, 1989; Engler and Engler, 2014). However, as Gandhi's famous phrase, ‘be the change that you want to see’ implies, there is necessarily a goal by which the process is measured. Therefore, the prefigurative tradition also implies that process is inextricably related to the goal of social change. Bamyeh's discussion of the attitude that anarchy takes towards authority helps clarify the point. Thinking anarchically means in one sense that existing order, along with the institutions that sustain it, must be constantly justified. Anarchically thinking here means attention to the original intention and continuing usefulness of collective institutions, rather than holding them sacred due to the force of habit: saving the state, upholding the law, or pursuing collective social tasks, are all meaningful only if they fulfill some agreed upon, voluntary, and negotiated rational necessity in each instance and at every moment. (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 6)
Bamyeh recalled failed social revolutions to explain the dialectic logic of means and ends. Authoritarian experiments after a revolution, a Stalin or a Mao, were not simply the result of some malignant personalities taking over the revolution. Rather, authoritarianism was more or less a natural outcome of a logic highlighting the centrality of revolutionary power over society. (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8)
Bamyeh's (2009) discussion of ‘human nature’ helps highlight the dialectical relationship between the process and the goal of social change. Bamyeh (2009) argued that human nature is neither inborn nor essential but, rather, is in a state of constant flux. Bamyeh (2009) described human nature as ‘humanity in practice’, or that ‘humanity is simply a name we give to a constant project of enrichment – spiritual and ethical, but also material’ (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4). Therefore humanity, from the prefigurative tradition, is a process or the state of perfecting, which relates to the goal – in this case, spiritual, ethical and material enrichment. Further, this conception of humanity also runs counter to the idea that there is a fixed goal; rather, that the goal is ever-changing in relation to the current social, political or ontological state. Bamyeh's (2009) ontological framing suggests the possibility of social change. With reference to law and science, Bamyeh (2009) related his framework to the ability of humanity to bring about change. Laws thus are themselves discoveries of humanity, additions to its ways of seeing. They may have the tendency to appear final, objective, natural, everlasting, but both the dynamism of humanity and the method of science mean that laws are never final – they are amendable, falsifiable, or relevant to specific calculations and ways of seeing but not to others. (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6)
Bamyeh's (2009) discussion helps illustrate an ontological similarity between the prefigurative tradition and Freirean philosophy. As Bamyeh (2009) explained, the prefigurative tradition understands humanity as an ongoing project that recognizes action and engagement as epistemology. Bamyeh explains further that the prefigurative tradition's epistemology prioritizes ‘an ever-expanding repertoire of stories and parables – not unified theories – that catalogue the vast range of motion of humanity’ (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 7). Similarly, Anderson (2016) explained how Freire developed an ‘ontology of incompleteness’, an action-based concept, where being is defined in constant relation between ‘conscious human action and the world’ (Anderson, 2016: Paragraph 3). Anderson (2016) suggested that humanity is a project that is transformative, mediated by human understanding and action within the material world.
Relatedly, Freire's (1998) term ‘becoming’ describes the ongoing process of transformation and is related to the ontological vocation of humanity being humanization (Freire, 2004). For Freire, becoming is a dialectical process, as he described when discussing critical thinking: ‘implicit in a correct way of thinking, involves a dynamic and dialectical movement between “doing” and “reflecting on doing”’ (Freire, 1998: 43). Further, the processes of humanization and becoming are ethical; as Shaull defined the term, humanization as vocation refers to a ‘Subject who acts upon and transforms his world, and in so doing moves toward ever new possibilities of fuller and richer life individually and collectively’ (Shaull, 2014: 9). Freire's conception of humanization is ethically driven, and its process of becoming through the dialectical relationship between process and goal links it with the prefigurative tradition. As in the prefigurative tradition the process is linked with an ethic and goal: as Freire explained while discussing the process of becoming, ‘it is not possible to imagine the human condition disconnected from the ethical condition’ (Freire, 1998: 39).
Therefore it may be argued that, regarding social transformation, both traditions have an ontological similarity that is related to an ethic, or a dialectical relationship between the goal of, and process of, social change. In the prefigurative tradition, and perhaps most apparent in anarchist philosophy, activist organization is informed by a goal of democratic equality and centered on the means of bringing about a new society. Similarly, in the Freirean tradition, the concept of ‘becoming’ is a process related to the goal of social, political and economic equality developed through strong interpersonal and social relationships, known as humanization (Freire, 1998; 2004). Similarly, from the prefigurative tradition, Bamyeh explained that humanity is an ongoing, dialectical relationship between the individual and society: ‘we understand a dynamic, ongoing symbiosis between psyche and socious, between individual and self-oriented project and the individual as a communally embedded experiment’ (Bamyeh, 2009: Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 2, Paragraph 29).
Furthermore, though both traditions emphasize the importance of the relationship between means and ends, neither prescribe specific remedies for social transformation. As Freire (2016) remarked about his work in Guinea-Bissau, social activism is contextual and historical and cannot be transplanted; rather, change should reflect the engagement of the local people and context. Similarly, Bamyeh (2009) explained that within the anarchist tradition the goal is not to outline social change but to create the conditions in which people may collectively create a new order. As Bamyeh stated, ‘the goal is to cultivate the quality of the human life by adding to it new ideas that are discovered in direct and free practice’ (Bamyeh, 2009: Part I, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8).
Policy implications of prefigurative Freirean pedagogy
In the context of an international movement to the political right (Greenwald, 2016), there are larger policy implications of using Freire's framework to create broader democratic practices. The rightist frame, largely defined by neoliberal market-oriented principles (Chomsky, 2017), defines freedom individualistically in terms of market choice rather that collective civil, economic or political rights (Critchley, 2001). Contrary to deeply democratic systems that consider social or political freedoms, adherents to neoliberal ideology prioritize the capitalist marketplace and often argue that intervention of any type undermines the strength of the market and is thereby ‘un’democratic (McLaren and Lankshear, 1994). However, the neoliberal framework often does not account for the rampant inequality found in capitalism, which has become increasingly injurious for each generation since the early 1900s, such that in 2012 the income going to the top 10% was the highest since 1917 (Kimball and Mishel, 2015).
In addition, when schools are understood in terms of the market, ‘good’ schooling increasingly reflects the (social) class status of the participants (Lafer, 2014). Such is the case in the United States, where increasing income disparity is associated with polarized education outcomes and access to quality education becomes closely associated with the privileged elite (Lafer, 2014). Furthermore, economic disparities are often difficult to disentangle from the ever-widening social and political disparities which compound inequitable education outcomes, as access to civic participation and public goods become increasingly diluted (Reich, 2012). This is the case in the United States, where increasing numbers of citizens are barred access to the vote (Vann, 2016).
The United States' new (2017) education secretary Betsy DeVos reflects President Trump's and the international right's narrative for the support for the wealthy (Rizga, 2017). Rizga (2017) noted that DeVos, through a unique blend of conservative religious ideology and neoliberal market-based prioritization, was moving to continue to dismantle the public tradition in American education in favor of private, competitive models. The private model has been associated with lax ethical guidelines, lower proportions of funding going to instruction, lack of transparency, and little public representation, all of which is consistent with the ideology of private, individual-first systems (Lafer, 2014). The implications of such traditions in the US model threaten to increase the ever-widening social, political and economic inequalities for most Americans.
In this context, Freire's framework offers a rational and systemic ethic from which to approach education policy which may help support a sustained critique of the privatization of US education. As developed above, Freire's philosophy offers at least two contributions: a broad, system-wide framework, and an on-the-ground suggestion for developing teaching practices in American schools. At the broader level, the prefigurative tradition under Freirean influence suggests a deeper level of democratic engagement that is fundamentally incompatible with the neoliberal privatization model.
In the context of prefiguring a more equitable society, enacting policies such as DeVos' model, which makes education competitive, deepens rather than alleviates structural stress (Lafer, 2014). In contrast, according to the Freirean model education at the broader level should be jointly constituted and constructed with local input, conforming to an ethic of maximizing participation and thus affording students, teachers, parents and administrators alike the opportunity to enact democracy and local control. Equally, at the specific instructional level, a prefigurative Freirean teaching policy should seek to co-develop teaching strategies that are informed by locally constructed research, to help inform instructors of relevant community policies or issues taken within the larger socio-political context. As with Freire's generative themes, locally-based research can help inform teaching strategies with the aim of raising the consciousness of interrelated national and international issues (Gadotti, 1994).
These approaches, of course, come into direct conflict with the US affinity for standardized testing strategies which shrink individual differences in favor of nationalistic narratives of sameness and universality, based on research that shows little more than the perpetration of inequalities (Knoester and Au, 2017). Such strategies could be replaced with student-centered, critical work that seeks to upset the nationalistic narrative – as in the case of some radical approaches at the turn of the twentieth century which employed direct community engagement, anti-hierarchal school structures, and the use of critical scholarship in the classroom space (Avrich, 1980).
Conclusions
I have explored how education can be used to engage in social change; specifically, how democratic engagement outlined by the prefigurative tradition and enacted through Freirean pedagogy can help create spaces for social justice to emerge. The framing challenges traditional strategic forms of social change which may rely on top-down structures, opting instead for strategies based on flat, decidedly democratic organizations.
Furthermore, I have suggested a specific understanding of democracy; that, rather than being understood in a limited political sense, democracy should be conceptualized in its fullest sense. Democracy in its fullest sense suggests considering economic and social, as well as political, structures, where class-based structures and social obstacles such as racism, sexism and discrimination based on perceived disability (among others) should be understood as barriers to democracy. For example, in the US context, where the vote is broadly considered to be the pinnacle of democracy, serious problems regarding race, class and gender are still widespread. We need look no further than at contemporary campaigns such as Black Lives Matter and the fight for a living wage to identify issues that create serious structural barriers to the kind of democratic engagement that Freire and those from the prefigurative tradition advocate.
It is hoped that framing education in this manner will help with understanding, as critical theorists have, that education can play a central role in change. To be democratic, these changes may not be able to be prescribed from above but, rather, constructed horizontally, toward an ethical purpose. Furthermore, by connecting Freire to the tradition it may be helpful to understand how these democratic goals can be actively applied in the classroom.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.