In responce to Nick
Nick and I both thought using the term “necrophilic’ was an extreme way of communicating this idea of the ‘banking concept of education’. Why would Freire choose to use this terminology when talking about education? In re-reading the preceding paragraphs, it made more sense to me. I still don’t think the term necrophilia is used correctly in this paper, within the definition that I found. If necrophilia is more defined by Fromm’s quote on page 3 then I can somewhat get behind his ideas on this. Fromm’s idea: control in education kills. That the banking system of education is more ‘nourished by the love of death, not life’.
Freire says that the banking system of education treats the student as objects. Object’s don’t have life. Something that is dead doesn’t grow. A teacher who is so oppressively controlling kills all things creative and beautiful in their student. Freire goes on to say that this kind of oppressive domination ‘attempts to control thinking and action’. It reminds me of Germany in World war ll, when Hitler brainwashed the Germans to hate anyone who wasn’t purely German. Unfortunately, he succeeded. Did that mean that it was a good thing? Any type of education that destroys a love for learning, attempts to control the student’s ability to reason and think deeply, only benefits the teachers and school, and creates automatons is, in my opinion, a deeply failed education system.
Nick
Ruthie
