Critical - reflective essay on the conference of Dr. Hugo Zemelman, "A debate on the understanding of the process of construction of knowledge and the tension with discipline."
Dr. Hugo Zemelman was a well-known Chilean researcher and lecturer characterized by his radical approaches expressed in clear and forceful language. It is in this language that, almost by way of judgment, he develops his exposition on the subject of the construction of knowledge in the conference "A debate on the process of the construction of knowledge and disciplinary tension", establishing significant positions not only in matters educational, as it might be thought, but in what refers to the necessary transformation of man and, consequently, of society itself, through education facing the needs and conditions of the new millennium.
Zemelman seems to flirt, at the beginning of the exhibition, with eminently philosophical positions regarding concepts such as reality and construction in their purest and symbolic expressions; however, as he delves into his dissertation, its object is clearly outlined, becoming concrete from the moment he establishes as the central axis of his concern the importance of developing the ability to think and create in order to dislocate ourselves from all. those dogmas and those "immovable" truths in time and space that have been imposed on us through institutionalized mechanisms, destined to curtail critical thinking (if possible before his birth) and the disciple's capacity to dissent, in the first instance and then, as a logical consequence, of the man already formed, not to say deformed.
Zemelman begins by defending this thesis when, speaking of the phenomenon of globalization, he points out that many people assume it as a “natural phenomenon” and as such must be accepted, thus trying to impose a totally distorted reality with the support of manipulated theories and that, according to him, they lead to "reductionist and absolutely fatalistic thinking". When reviewing this last sentence we can say that it is reductionist because all those elements that do not serve to maintain that position are separated, remaining only with those theoretical and argumentative aspects that serve to consolidate it; As for the fatalistic, it refers to the fact that it is a reality that cannot be changed, therefore it is precise to accept it.
It would be worth remembering, at this point, that many authors have pointed out that the word globalization is nothing more than the subtle name of what we all know as the upper phase of capitalism: imperialism; and that, as such, is a consequence of its evolution. Therefore, it would be equally extreme positions to indicate that it is a phenomenon of nature, as well as to call fatalism the fact of accepting that globalization is the next logical and expected stage of the capitalist economic system.
Beyond, however, the issue of globalization outlined by Dr. Zemelman by way of illustration, he delves into the need to get rid of those dogmas that have led us to believe that there are structures in society that do not move, that do not suffer or they should not undergo any kind of changes. Zemelman mentions political systems, culture and States as examples of these great manifestations of a reality (or diverse intermingled realities) that changes irreparably but whose changes, being so imperceptible, generate a mistaken vision of immobility.
Reality, Zemelman rightly points out, cannot be static, among other things because it is a "complex construction of multiple actors that coexist and move in different directions…". It is then a question of various intervening actors, which, with their respective particular realities (micros) in tow, are inevitably going to promote perhaps minimal but certain changes in this macro reality, call it Culture, State or Political System. And, while it is true that changes tend to mainly scare those supporters of the status quo, it is also true that society by nature is dynamic, changing, and this cannot be dismissed “by decree” even if it is the most comfortable or the most convenient.. "There is nothing given once and for all," says Zemelman,History has been in charge of proving this sentence sufficiently; Even those great empires that once stood as invariable and eternal have disappeared, leaving only a trace of their legacy, in some cases.
In Latin America, the author points out, there is a kind of discouragement associated with the loss of certain drivers of change, of certain social and ideological movements that lost validity until finally disappearing and whose emptiness closely resembles the lack of movement, which It may be a totally wrong perception that, according to
Zemelman, translates into a dissociated and false vision of reality. Responsible for this situation: the universities. It is at this point that Zemelman enters fully into his questioning of the role played by university education in the distorted vision of reality as a result of what he calls “elaborate oligophrenia”.
Oligophrenia speaks of a severe mental deficiency that is associated with so-called mental retardation. According to Zemelman, Latin American universities are deliberately forming oligophrenics. He clarifies that this is not a generation with an intellectual deficit (which is totally tacit in the term oligophrenic) but formed as a legion of fools without the ability to think or question anything. This is true especially when we see that a high percentage of university students, as well as professionals, lack the ability to analyze a simple reading or to consistently prepare a text on any topic without necessarily resorting to a recognized author. This, roughly speaking, as the basis for deeper deficiencies.
For Zemelman, universities are full of people totally disconnected from reality, submerged in numbers, statistics and half truths that have become dogmas whose function is to act as walls that isolate them from what is truly important. People full of titles, repeating theories and postulates, applying methods and techniques, whose meaning and real utility for society does not exist. Zemelman accuses the universities, then, of having created an intellectual elite, of narrow minds whose perception of reality is totally distorted.
Is this true? And, if so, to what extent is it? Inevitably, if one wishes to assume a critical stance, it must be pointed out that this excessively specialized intellectual elite, excessively immersed in their particular parcel and greatly reduced in knowledge, disconnected from each other, exists and not only exists, but are exhibited by different Mechanisms carefully elaborated as "sacred cows imbued with wisdom" that should be taken as examples to follow if you want to become someone in life, although this "being someone" does not, in the end, be of any use.
So Zemelman asks himself, according to this panorama “Why teach? Why learn? ” It all comes down to the need to "know how to think in order to build knowledge." The teaching formula -
Learning is based on the development of thought to build truly useful knowledge with a scope that goes beyond simple theoretical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is important and useful but it is contained within the general concept of knowledge. In this context, it can be pointed out, then, that it is not about attacking specialization or discarding the disciplinary per se, but rather assuming this specialization with a real awareness of what you want to know and what you want to know, without losing sight of the reality for that the knowledge reached is not a simple fiction, as Zemelman himself indicates.
The approach that is not thinking, but repeating what others thought is worrying. And what is worse, you are not educating yourself to think, you are educating yourself to repeat, to agree, to agree. Our educational system, our thoughts on studies across America, seem deliberately designed to kill thought. The ability to apprehend what is beyond us, what remains between the lines and to understand and internalize it and then return it to the world as knowledge does not seem to exist. We perish intellectual eunuchs playing at being scholars. Serious situation if you think about the great challenges that this historical moment poses, not only the region, but the entire planet.
Zemelman exposes a deep crisis that covers not only the educational field but our human condition. Between the lines, it indicates that our university education is impregnated with an eminently economicist approach based on which it has been structured. This is serious if we take into account that education must play a transforming role; a society that loses its capacity to renew itself, to reinvent itself and to challenge the permanence of what, as Zemelman initially stated, considers static and definitive, is destined to finally disappear. Skilled labor is being trained capable of performing very specific functions with a high degree of effectiveness, but not efficiency as Zemelman says, but which cannot see beyond the apparent, the illusory.
Where then is the formation of the integral man? America and the world require people who are intelligent, creative, imaginative, proactive, critical, and with sufficient security and confidence to confront the status quo, as Zemelman himself says, capable of standing up in a classroom and exposing before the teacher all the reasons why you disagree with their approaches, for example. Instead, reality shows something very different; We have as a model a submissive student whose greatest merit is to lack his own criteria and opinions.
According to this, the Latin American educational system can be defined as a mechanism of domination and control and not as the necessary formula to promote in the individual all the capacities that may be present in principle, but which must be developed so that they can fully manifest themselves.. So, according to what has been stated, what is the true role that education should play in this conjunctural moment and facing a future that appears uncertain? It is a matter, as Zemelman himself indicates, of understanding that the essence of education is in the integral development of a SUBJECT, beyond the instruction of the disciple as a malleable object destined to be the support of a certain economic system.
They need Latin America (and the world), then, of new generations made up of thinking subjects, generators of ideas, critics, and reflexives who understand reality and can explain it in their multiple relationships, without limiting themselves to repeating what has already been said as “parrots” by established authors. There are many scholars today, "encyclopedic specialists," says Zemelman. Thinkers are lacking who make themselves heard above the noise made by scholars to lay the foundations for a new society in which education is the driving force behind the necessary transformation. In summary, the need to completely restructure the study ideas and the entire philosophical, ideological, pedagogical and andragogic conception behind them prevails.If you want to form a new man, you need to completely rethink where we want to go as a society, what is the path we must follow and how we intend to get there.
References:
Zemelman Merino, H. (2010). A debate on the understanding of the process of construction of knowledge and the tension with discipline. (D. d. Teaching, Ed.) Retrieved on October 2013, from
Download the original file
