They observe that adult basic educators in this setting must take a clear stand against the social structures which perpetuate poverty, and against the approach of adapting people to them. This involves a "determination to put learning first, above the demands of the institution".20 They suggest that study be put on a collective basis, not just an individual one, and that the preoccupation with employment that is so characteristic of mainstream liberal programs be deemphasized in favour of concentration on the whole range of qualities and needs of participants, including (but not limited to) occupational ones. This, Martin suggests, might begin in the form of a critical dialogue on generative themes like "career", "unemployment", "job application", "skilled laborers", etc. 21

Similarly, Wagner suggests that a literacy program must not be limited to helping working class learners to acquire the skills of reading and writing. It must be done in such a way as to help participants "become aware of their collective environment", including the nature of class oppression.22 He suggests that while being able to read and write is a basic need, on the other hand, "to be aware of the world around us, or the place that has been designated to us, is another basic need". 23

Martin recognizes that in doing these and similar things within publically-funded adult basic education programs:

the educator is. likely to face opposition from two sources: supervisory officials who object to the loss of 'neutrality' in the program, and members of the group who resist "wasting time" needed for career advancement.24

He admits the extreme difficulty of these problems. Here, he points to the usefulness of comparative and theoretical study, e.g. confrontation with Freire's ideas. He suggests that Freire's writings contain "flashes of insight" which while by themselves are not sufficient, are starting points for advancing one's work under these difficult circumstances. 25 For example, Martin refers to passages in which Freire responds to the objection about a loss of neutrality. Freire observes that no education is neutral in the sense of lacking a concept of man and the world, and that those who object to a loss of neutrality are, "precisely those who are afraid of losing the right to use its un-neutrality in their own favour". 26

As for the reaction of participants against what they see as a waste of time needed for career advancement, Martin refers to Freire's discussion of how members of oppressed classes internalize the consciousness of the dominant class, including dominant social value judgements. 27 Martin and Williams underscore Freire's emphasis on the importance of a dialogue of equals in helping learners to differentiate between their real needs and dominant value judgements, like the belief that the sole or primary value of education is as a means of "getting ahead" in an occupational sense:

Clearly ... the dangers of misinterpretation or manipulation of "real" needs is great. It is this potential for misinterpretation on the part of the educator that leads Freire to assert that the central necessity for education is dialogue--the basic equality of the educator and the learners in the creation of new knowledge. Only the individual can know his or her real situation and real needs, but this knowledge may be hidden or undeveloped .... If the educator is thoroughly knowledgeable about the everyday life of the learners, and if he/she is not seen as being "alien" to their experience, he/she will be able to point out discrepancies between the perceptions and the reality. He/she will also encourage and lead the students to do the same.28