“An A/r/tographic Métissage: Storying the Self as Pedagogic Practice” by Osler et al. and Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” albeit being two distinct texts, can be seen as interconnected works that share a common thread in their commitment to transformative pedagogy. While Freire’s seminal work focuses on the liberation of oppressed individuals through guiding them on a path towards self-reflective and critical thinking, Osler’s essay explores the transformative potential of a/r/tography in the realm of education. Let’s delve into the comparison, shall we?

In “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Freire emphasises the importance of dialogue and participatory education. He states that “…[d]ialogue cannot exist without humility. How can I dialogue if I always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own? It’s a rare person who is humble enough to listen to his peers; most of us are committed to winning.”

This echoes Osler’s approach to a/r/tography, where the authors engage in a reflective and dialogical process, opening up a space for self-interrogation and shared narratives, fostering humility and openness to diverse perspectives. Both works recognize the value of breaking hierarchical structures in education to create an environment conducive to mutual learning.

On one hand, Freire discusses the concept of conscientisation assuming that “…[c]onscientisation is indispensable to the pedagogy of the oppressed. It is an act of cognition, not transfer of information.” On the other hand, Osler emphasises self-discovery through non-linear networks of knowledge and exchange of practices. Through the thinking proposed by both studies, the process of storying the self then becomes a means of conscientisation, a journey towards self-awareness and critical reflection.

Moreover, Osler stresses the role of visual and artistic elements in education – “The visual provides an alternative language, one that can transcend the limitations of verbal expression alone.” This resonates with Freire’s acknowledgment of different modes of communication and the need to consider the cultural context in education. Both works advocate for a more inclusive and multimodal approach to pedagogy which should be every educator’s primordial concern. 

For example, our first session had the objective to enhance our collaborative and shared experiences, however, our session was set up in a auditorium-like room, where chairs could not be moved, and we were positioned to look at a small stage in front of us where we could see the projection prepared by our tutors Chris and Linda. In future, I would expect the accessibility and appropriateness of the room to be factored in for all interactive activities – yet, I completely understand that due to room availability and administrative bureaucracy, it is not always simple to marry all those concepts at once.

In conclusion, while Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” lays the foundation for critical pedagogy and conscientization, Osler et al.’s extend this discourse by incorporating a/r/tography as a transformative pedagogic practice. Both works share a commitment to breaking oppressive structures in education, promoting dialogue, and recognising the diverse ways in which individuals can engage with and contribute to the learning process – something that should be the core of all teaching approaches.

Interesting words and parallels brought by the readings:

A/r/tographer – (Irwin, 2013 – Becoming A/r/tography) A/r/tography is a research methodology, a creative practice, and a performative pedagogy that lives in the rhizomatic practices of the in-between. Resisting the tendency for endless critique of past experience and bodies of knowledge, a/r/tography is concerned with the creative invention of concepts and mapping the intensities experienced in relational, rhizomatic, yet singular, events.

Métissage – miscegenation (french root) “We take métissage as a counternarrative to the grand narrative of our times, a site for writing and surviving in the interval between different cultures and languages, particularly in colonial contexts; a way of merging and blurring genres, texts, and identities; an active literary stance, political strategy, and pedagogical praxis…We braid strands of place and space, memory and history, ancestry and (mixed) race, language and literacy, familiar and strange, with strands of tradition, ambiguity, becoming, (re)creation, and renewal into a métissage.” (Hasebe-Ludt, Chambers, and Leggo 2009, 9 – Life Writing and Literary Métissage as an Ethos for Our Times,) 

Anthropophagy – as conceived by Brazilian Modernist Oswald de Andrade, it involves metaphorically “eating” or assimilating elements from other cultures. It suggests a process of cultural cannibalism where diverse influences are ingested and transformed into something uniquely Brazilian. Similar to Métissage, Anthropophagy rejects the idea of a hierarchical order among cultures. It challenges the dominance of European cultural traditions and advocates for a more egalitarian and inclusive approach to cultural expression. Anthropophagy encourages the creative transformation of external influences. Instead of passively adopting foreign elements, it promotes the reinterpretation and adaptation of these elements to suit the local context, contributing to the formation of a distinct cultural identity.

Hybridity and Transformation:

• Both Métissage and Anthropophagy celebrate hybridity and transformation. They view cultural exchange as a dynamic process that leads to the creation of new and unique forms rather than mere imitation or assimilation.

Rejection of Cultural Purity:

• Both concepts challenge the notion of cultural purity. They embrace the idea that cultures are inherently interconnected, and richness arises from the interplay of diverse influences.

Inclusive Cultural Identity:

• Métissage and Anthropophagy advocate for an inclusive cultural identity that transcends narrow definitions. They encourage a broader, more open-minded perspective that values contributions from various cultural sources.