To alleviate this “dehumanization” produced by the banking concept, Freire introduces what is deemed as “problem-posing education”.In this approach the roles of students and teachers become less structured, and both engage in acts of dialogic enrichment to effectively ascertain knowledge from each other.
, Freire passionately expounds on the mechanical flaw in the current system, and offers an approach that he believes medicates the learning-teaching disorder in the classroom.
The flawed conception, Freire explains, is the oppressive “depositing” of information (hence the term 'banking') by teachers into their students.
Humans (as objects) have no autonomy and therefore no ability to rationalize and conceptualize knowledge at a personal level.
And because of this initial misunderstanding, the method itself is a system of oppression and control.
Within this concept Freire calls for an equal playing field, or what one of my former teachers called “mutual humanity”: “It [problem-posing education] enables teachers and students to become Subjects of the educational process by overcoming authoritarianism and an alienating intellectualism” (253-254).
However, Freire failed to observe that incessantly within the apparatus of a classroom there is an imbalanced power structure between the teacher and the students.Freire states: "Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others; the individual is a spectator, not re-creator.In this view the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside" (247).(Let it be known that for the sake of argument the ideas of “illusion” and “reality” are taken loosely to reflect the nature of different educational methods, not the nature of the ideas themselves).On the flipside, genuine problem-posing a teacher’s authority to a level that does not obstruct the exchange of ideas.But, according to Freire, a “liberating” educational practice (his problem-posing method) negates the unconsciousness of those in classroom roles, and no false intellectual stimulation can exist within that practice.On the contrary, in case, the student is responsible for understanding the material one way or another depending on what style the teacher adapts, even if the content is un-relatable to the students’ lives.The notion that students believe they are granted true independence in a classroom has consequences in and on the world at large.Illusory freedom is disastrous because it is a belief in something that is not truth- it does not exist.Necessary participation, attendance, effort in assignments, and so on and so forth are indeed authoritative, however within the classroom dialogue there is a natural conversation that is not hindered by authoritativeness.At this point it is necessary to consider the nature of freedom: the difference between being the oppression of limiting intellectualism inherent in banking and pseudo-dialectic.