What is inside of a person’s brain is truly a mystery. Many times, you look at a person and wonder what went so wrong up in their head that is causing them to say the things they say (an increasingly frequent thought, taking this election cycle into consideration). However, the fact remains that if a person keeps their mouth shut, there is no way for anyone to know their thoughts and ideas. This is where Miller poses a question: what might the literate arts be said to be good for? Can they actually cause a real positive difference in the world, or are they just there so authors can make loads of money? He examines four different texts to answer this question, but he is not the only one who has pondered this idea. Both Miller and Freire have
…show more content…
As a professor, he is concerned because he sees a world where the literate arts seem to losing their importance. He prefaces his concern with some information about the Columbine shooting, but more specifically, its aftermath. Miller talks about the congresswoman Pat Schroeder who runs the Association of American Publishers. Following the shootings, she was one of those who led a movement sending the message that these types of students were being turned into mass murderers as a result of being immersed in an environment where the literate arts are placed on the back burner while things such as TV or video games are more prevalent. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold can in many ways be seen as horrible monsters, however they were not illiterate. They could by no means even be considered as ones who neglect the literate arts, as they were very actively involved in reading and producing literature that lined up with their agenda and ideals. This goes to say that the assumption that reading and writing makes you a better person is false. This is where Miller has his problem. If reading and writing aren’t there to make you a better person, then what are they good …show more content…
These things are by nature, usually unimportant in the grand scheme of things, because without a larger frame of reference than the teacher is willing to provide, the things that are being taught mean nothing. The problem with this form of education, Freire finds, is that the student’s own critical thinking mind is not needed. The student becomes a “receptacle” that needs to be “filled” by the teacher. This is known as the banking method of education (216) . When a student is being taught using this method, it nullifies the purpose of the literate arts. It has a very specific goal; create students who are cookie cutter replicas of their teacher. Freire says that “The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors...” (217) Ultimately this means that the banking style of education takes away the student's’ power of self expression a.k.a the literate arts. Freire tells us that the role of the banking style of education is eliminate the originality and creativity that can be exhibited through the use of the literate arts. The literate arts are good for nothing if the author can’t say what he wants to. The only reason
As a professor, he is concerned because he sees a world where the literate arts seem to losing their importance. He prefaces his concern with some information about the Columbine shooting, but more specifically, its aftermath. Miller talks about the congresswoman Pat Schroeder who runs the Association of American Publishers. Following the shootings, she was one of those who led a movement sending the message that these types of students were being turned into mass murderers as a result of being immersed in an environment where the literate arts are placed on the back burner while things such as TV or video games are more prevalent. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold can in many ways be seen as horrible monsters, however they were not illiterate. They could by no means even be considered as ones who neglect the literate arts, as they were very actively involved in reading and producing literature that lined up with their agenda and ideals. This goes to say that the assumption that reading and writing makes you a better person is false. This is where Miller has his problem. If reading and writing aren’t there to make you a better person, then what are they good …show more content…
These things are by nature, usually unimportant in the grand scheme of things, because without a larger frame of reference than the teacher is willing to provide, the things that are being taught mean nothing. The problem with this form of education, Freire finds, is that the student’s own critical thinking mind is not needed. The student becomes a “receptacle” that needs to be “filled” by the teacher. This is known as the banking method of education (216) . When a student is being taught using this method, it nullifies the purpose of the literate arts. It has a very specific goal; create students who are cookie cutter replicas of their teacher. Freire says that “The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors...” (217) Ultimately this means that the banking style of education takes away the student's’ power of self expression a.k.a the literate arts. Freire tells us that the role of the banking style of education is eliminate the originality and creativity that can be exhibited through the use of the literate arts. The literate arts are good for nothing if the author can’t say what he wants to. The only reason