Nowhere is this lack of coherence between discourse and practice more evident than in the treatment - or non-treatment - of feminism. Yes, there are a few references to feminism as an important movement of resistance, which is popular these days, but nowhere is the challenge of feminism addressed, let alone taken seriously. Even the simplest tenet of feminism - the use of non-sexist language- is not adhered to. Especially ironic is that Freire is "the one" who pointed out the power of naming, of voicing, of fighting the oppressor's language , by naming the world from the perspective of the oppressed. Not only is the generic "he" used throughout but there is also the 'invisiblisation' of women in the reference face structure and content of the text. This comes home in the literacy notebook where work is presented as man's work the only productive spheres being the farms, factories and schools as experienced through the eyes of Pedro and Antonio.

When Macedo directly questions Freire about feminism, Freire answers that all "factors" have to be understood in terms of a class analysis. I agree that class is central, but, what about gender? What is troublesome is the systematic non-reference to feminism; even indirect questioning about "differences", Freire typically turns to other oppressed groups, never women, to illustrate his points. Apparently, patriarchy does not exist. When Freire refers to oppression by elites, he includes women, as well as men, as oppressors, making no references to the difference in women's access to elite circles. While he argues that the critical educator should make the "inherent theory" in practices of resistance by feminists and other oppositional movements "flourish so that people can appropriate the theories of their own practice," he does not do this himself in the case of feminism.

While the text incites my anger, it is also well worth reading for the clarity that Freire, Macedo and Giroux bring to critical educational practice and theory. Vital to feminist practice in education is their analysis of language, experience and resistance. As to the difficult and conflict ridden issues of difference, power and authority, we need to continue to forge our own way. While class, gender and race are crucial to critical analysis and practice, they don't work in the same ways. Consciousness raising may be a feminist variation of critical consciousness, but to work we cannot assume unity , either among women or between men and women. Politics - that is, struggles of power and difference - pervade not only our classrooms, but the most intimate corners of our lives. Discourses of optimism and revolutionary transformation need to be tempered by a hard, and often painful, look at the contradictions, conflicts and chaos within and among us. This is especially true in literacy work where issues of gender, class and race are deeply structured, pervading theory and practice. However painfully and haltingly, we are learning to confront these issues, as well as each other and ourselves. Emancipator literacy is borne out of a politics of anger, as well as hope; confrontation as well as love; conflict as well as unity; chaos as well as discipline.

¹ Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, was exiled from his home country for his radical approaches to teaching literacy among the peasants. He wrote about this work in the classic, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which captured the imaginations of radical, progressive and liberal educators around the world.

While in exile, Freire, through the World Council of Churches, was influential in the design of literacy campaigns in socialist revolutionary countries, especially in Africa, but in Latin America as well. The premise of his work, that learning to read "the word" must not be separated from learning to read "the world" critically - that is, with attention to the engineering of oppression through capitalism - has been fundamental to the development of critical approaches to education, as well as the teaching of literacy, around the world.

Freire stresses the contradictory nature of education. True, education is a tool of domination, but it can also be used as a tool for liberation. It is his emphasis upon the political uses of education for liberation which has provided an important platform for revolutionary educators, a politics of hope replacing the pessimism of other Marxist approaches to educational analysis.