




































































Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

1 
 

 

Freire Critical Pedagogy. Ann Sharp, Liberating Education 
 

 
María Teresa de la Garza Camino   
 
 
 

  
fter Work War II when people were astonished at the violence that had devastated 
Europe, several intellectuals founded the Frankfurt School that proposed the Critical 

Theory of Society that aimed at the diagnosis of maladies of reason with the purpose of saving it.  
 

Enlightenment, understood in its widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed 
at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly 

enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity.1  
   

This maladie or sickness of reason comes from the human desire to dominate nature, including 
human beings. This modern rationality operates under the identity principle: it rejects the different 
and relates to everything only by manipulation and dominion. “Enlightenment stands in the same 
relationship to things as the dictator to human beings. He knows them to the extent that he can manipulate 

them.”2 
 

Horkheimer raised the need of a negative dialect emancipatory project that can diagnose the 
failure of the Enlightenment and, as a solution, he proposes a new rationality, a new praxis for the 
construction of a more humane society. 

 
J. Habermas represents the second generation of Critical Theory. He continues the work of the 

first Critical Theory and adds to the oblivion of nature, the oblivion of communication. He poses a 
change of paradigm: from modern subjectivity to intersubjectivity by means of “communicative 
reason.” 

 
He acknowledges the emancipatory self-reflection of Critical Theory, but also the Socratic idea 

of dialogue. Dialogical communication becomes an imperative for the transformation and 
reconstruction of social institution and practices. Habermas recognizes the importance of educational 
institutions for the transformation of society. The ideal of a democratic and rational society requires 
educational institutions that prepare citizens in communicative rationality through dialogue. His 
interest is mainly in Universities; he thinks universities should go back to the universal formation, 

                                                 
1 M. Horkheimer and T. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments (Stanford University Press, 2002), p.1 
2 Op Cit. p. 3 

A 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

2 
 

that is, not only empirical sciences, but humanities, to prepare cultivated men and women capable to 
be oriented to praxis, ethical and political. Education should stress the critical consciousness of 
students enabling them to participate critically in social and political life. 

 
Critical discussion of practical social questions is promoted by the formation of a critical 

community of students and professors in a democratic university. This community is ruled by decision 
making in the context of a dialogue, free of domination, and could be a paradigm for a democratic 
society. 

 
Critical pedagogy is influenced by these ideas. It can be defined as an educational proposal that 

aims to help students to question the dominant practices and beliefs by the development of critical 
thinking. Its aim is to generate liberating proposals both at an individual and a collective level. It is 
based in dialogue and aims at the development of a democratic society. 
 

Henry Giroux defines Critical Pedagogy as a theory that prepares students through practice so 
they can reach a critical conscience in their societies. Critical Pedagogy is an alternative to stop the 
reproduction of injustice in societies by means of education that promotes the humanization and 
integral development of students fostering the possibility of a progressive democratization of society 
and the commitment with those less favored in search of equity and justice. 
 

The context of Latin America in the second half of the 20th century was one of inequality, a high 
rate of illiteracy, and political unrest.  This is the context in which new pedagogical tendencies arose, 
generally known as “pedagogies of liberation” or “critical pedagogies.” They maintain the political 
character of education, denounce the alienating factors of the economic and political contexts, and 
propose a critical intervention upon reality. Freire is the most distinguished representant of this 
movement that is linked with Critical Pedagogy. 
 

Paulo Freire was born in Recife, the capital of Brazil’s northeast province, one of the most 
impoverished parts of Brazil. He was raised in a middle-class family and had educational opportunities 

that most Brazilians did not. At the university, Freire had contact with the Catholic lay movement, 
The Catholic Students’ Club (JUC) that was one of the most radical organizations at the time. He also 
began to read increasingly the authors of the Catholic left, like Jacques Maritain, Thomas Cardone, 
Emmanuel Mounier, and their radical Brazilian interpreters, such as Lace de Amoroso Lima, 
Henrique Lima Val, Herbert José de Souza and others. He always acknowledged being an eclectic, 
drawing ideas from many philosophical currents such as Phenomenology, Existentialism, Christian 
Personalism, Humanist Marxism and Hegelianism. Nevertheless, his central interest was the education 
of the poor people in his region and so he wanted to develop educational strategies for the poor. 
Because of his revolutionary ideas, he was considered a menace for those in power and therefore was 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

3 
 

imprisoned twice in his own country while becoming famous in other parts of the world. 
 

His ideas and educational praxis brought about his exile in 1964, following some time in prison 
accused of being a revolutionary. He lived for four years in Chile and then one year in the United 
States. He then moved to Geneva. In 1980, he returned to Brazil and in 1989, he became Secretary of 
Education in São Paulo, the most populous state in his country.  He then made a great effort to 
implement his ideas, to review the curriculum, and to increase the salaries of Brazilian educators, and 
he implemented a literacy campaign, crucial for his country. 
 

Today, Paulo Freire must be considered one of the most famous educators of our time and one 
of the most influential thinkers, representative of Critical Pedagogy in Latin America. He believed 
that all education was part of a project of freedom and eminently political because it offered students 
the conditions for self-reflection, a self-managed life, and particular notions of critical agency.  Freire 
worked to increase literacy in people, not as means to prepare them for the world of subordinated 
labor or ‘careers’, but a preparation for a self-managed life. A literacy campaign implies that the 
subject achieves critical consciousness liberating himself of the oppression of an imposed culture. 
Literacy situates the individual in the world and so it must be linked to praxis; it cannot be separated 
from the political and social reality. It is a way to learn and to change the world, orienting the 
pedagogical action towards democratization and social justice. More than of a literacy “method,” he 

spoke of “conscientização”, conscientization or the redeeming of the oppressed’s own voice. 
 

His critical pedagogy tries to help the learner become aware of the forces that rule their lives and 
shaped their consciousness and, in this way, to set the conditions for producing a new way of life 
where power has been, at least partly, transferred to those who literally make the social world by their 

work. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, his most influential work, he makes clear that pedagogy at its best is 
about neither training, teaching methods, nor political indoctrination. For Freire, pedagogy is not a 

method or an a priori technique to be imposed on all students but a political and moral practice that 
provides the knowledge, skills, and social relations that enable students to explore the possibilities of 
what it means to be critical citizens while expanding and deepening their participation in the promise 

of a substantive democracy. Freire’s idea of democracy is that of “radical democracy”, seeking the 
participation of the greatest number of citizens as it is possible. That is why he wanted to improve 

literacy in all parts of Brazil. His ideal is democratic socialism that implies the participation of citizens in 
all aspects of social life: economy, politics, education, etc.  
 

Practice and reflection led him to affirm that the powerful impose their educational models as 
elements to stabilize a social system convenient for them, so they will not change voluntarily; thus, 
education has an ideological character. For this reason, education for the marginalized needs to be 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

4 
 

oriented not only by didactical needs, but also and fundamentally for a commitment to liberation.  
 

H. Giroux cites Aronwitz, pointing out that Freire has highlighted the three goals of 
education: 

 
Thus, for Freire literacy was not a means to prepare students for the world of subordinated 
labor or ‘careers’, but a preparation for a self-managed life. And self-management could 
only occur when people have fulfilled three goals of education: self-reflection, that is, 
realizing the famous poetic phrase, ‘know thyself’, which is an understanding of the world 
in which they live, in its economic, political and, equally important, its psychological 
dimensions. Specifically, ‘critical’ pedagogy helps the learner become aware of the forces 
that have hitherto ruled their lives and especially shaped their consciousness. The third 
goal is to help set the conditions for producing a new life, a new set of arrangements where 
power has been, at least in tendency, transferred to those who literally make the social 
world by transforming nature and themselves.3 (Aronowitz, 2009, p. ix) 

 
Freire is against a way of educating that is organized around the demands of the market, 

instrumentalized knowledge and the priority of “training” over the pursuit of imagination, critical 
thinking and the teaching of freedom and social responsibility. 

 
Pedagogy of the Question versus Banking Education 
 

Pedagogy must be based in the reflection of those oppressed about the causes of oppression. It 

must be elaborated by the oppressed and not for the oppressed. For Freire, traditional education treats 
the student as if he were a bank which knowledge is deposited, banking education. This kind of 
education has a subject, the teacher and some passive objects, the students where the teacher deposits 
knowledge and values. In this relationship there is one that “knows” and the others that are ignorant, 
but keep the deposits using memory. This kind of education according to Freire cancels the creative 
power of students as well as their critical thinking. Banking education does not allow action, inquiry, 
creativity, and, in consequence, leads to the “domestication” of the students, adapting them to reality 
without the possibility to question and transforming it. 

 
He proposes democratic relationships between teacher and students, undermining the power 

dynamics that hold the teacher above the students as the one who knows. Such a teacher is not aware 
of his own fallibilism and ignorance. This kind of education negates the process of inquiry and 
coming to know. The democratic teacher is willing to admit that his experience is different from that 

                                                 
3 H. Giroux, “Rethinking Education as a Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of Critical Pedagogy,” Policy 
Futures in Education, Vol. 8 Num. 6 (2010) www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE 715 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

5 
 

of the student, and by sharing they both can benefit by learning, and grow as human beings. 
 

Liberating education is centered in dialogue and the existential conditions of those who engage 
in a dialogue with reality. Problematizing reality breaks all the traditional models of education that 
separate the teacher and the student; both educate and are educated, and the dichotomy subject-object 

in the educational process is eliminated: “no one educates anyone else, nor do we educate ourselves. 
We educate one another in communion in the context of living in this world.”4 Dialogue is at the 
core of his thought: 
 

Dialogue is an existential requirement and, being the solidary encounter in reflection and 
action of subjects oriented to the world that must be transformed and humanized, cannot 
be reduced to a simple action of depositing ideas from a subject in another subject.5 

 
It is love and respect that allow us to engage in dialogue and to discover ourselves in the process. 

The answers and the truth are not at the beginning, they will emerge as we listen and speak to one 
another. 
 

The conditions of dialogue are love, faith, hope, and critical thinking.  Love because it implies 
the recognition of the other as a free and creative being capable of naming and transforming the 

world. This cannot be the privilege of a few, but a right and obligation of all. Hope is not to be 
confused with a passive waiting; it is dynamic, incessant, communitarian and brave search. It is an 
ontological need and a historical and existential imperative. It can be an instrument to advance 
towards the unprecedented: the construction of our future world and our own existence in a free, 

critical, and amorous way and, finally, critical thinking a commitment with the search for truth and 
meaning that is generated in dialogue: “Only dialogue that implies critical thinking is capable of 
generating it. Without dialogue there is no communication and without it there is not true 

education.”6 
 
Such an education will not come from those in political power who seek to maintain things as 

they are. It must come from the base with the oppressed through collaborative efforts and with a 
dialogical methodology; only so will it be possible to respect people’s wisdom, achieve liberation and 
get rid of the domesticating education of the oppressors. 
 

A culture of silence arises when society is not listened to by the dominators.  One’s voice is not 
authentic. It is just the echo of the voice of the oppressors. This dependence is maintained by the 
international economic system and ideologically reinforced by religious schemes, the cultural industry, 
                                                 
4 Freire, Pedagogía del oprimido Ed. Siglo XXI, México, 1985, 107.   The translation is mine. 
5 Op. Cit, p. 101. The translation is mine. 
6 Op. Cit, p. 107. The translation is mine. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

6 
 

militarism, individualism, and consumerism, which impose a symbolic oppressive system on the 
people. 

 
Paulo Freire and Ann Sharp 
 

Much has been said about the relationship between Freire and Lipman7. Most of those who 
write about this relationship focus on dialogue. It is a fact that dialogue is at the core of both 
educational proposals and, in both, critical thinking is also a central concept. 
 

In 1988 Catherine Young-Silva, then Director of the Brazilian Center for Philosophy for 
Children, organized an encounter between Matthew Lipman, Ann Sharp, and Paulo Freire to which I 
was invited. To be present there and to listen to that dialogue has been one of the most significant 
experiences I have ever had. Listening to the dialogue showed how following different paths and with 
truly diverse experiences and theoretical influences, these three educators had found similar problems 
and proposals. 
 

The need to develop critical thinking in students and the role of language in this development 
was discussed at length. Dialogue as the heart of educational projects, and how they described it, was 
another important topic. Freire said that the conditions of dialogue are love, hope and critical 
thinking. Lipman mentioned respect for others, caring thinking, and critical and creative thinking. 
 

When hope was discussed, Ann agreed in considering it an essential component of dialogue.  It 
is, she said, a part of caring thinking. She shared how she was impressed by Freire’s idea of the 
“culture of silence” and how she could relate it to the voices of women and children. For her, the 
community of inquiry tries to listen to the voices of all, so it could be a way to fight against the culture 
of silence in education.  
 

Then there was a discussion about democracy, and in this topic, there were differences. Freire’s 
idea of democracy is that of “radical democracy”, seeking the participation of the greatest number of 
citizens as it is possible through improving literacy in all parts of Brazil. His ideal is democratic 
socialism that implies the participation of citizens in all aspects of social life: economy, politics, 
education, etc. For Lipman and Sharp, as we know, the ideal is deliberative democracy fostered by 
education inspired in the work of John Dewey.  But they agreed in the idea that a democratic 
education implies that the teacher must renounce the tendency to impose their own reading of the 
world on their students, and embrace the obligation to show students that there are different possible 
readings of the world. 
 

There have been also some scholars that compare Freire’s “cultural circles” with Philosophy for 
Children’s “communities of inquiry”. Cultural circles were for adult illiterate persons, and 
communities of inquiry have been thought of as for children and adolescents, but that does not mean 
                                                 
7 Walter Kohan, Cfr., Paulo Freire mais do que nunca: uma biografía filosófica. (Belo Horizonte, Vestigio, 2019). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

7 
 

that adults cannot benefit from the participation in such a community, as we all know. 
 

Beyond such considerations, here I would like to focus on the ideas of Ann Margaret Sharp that 
I think are close to the liberating education proposed by Freire. From early on, Sharp’s academic 
activities and relationships were characterized by a sensitivity to injustice. She became adept at reading 
“the face of the other” for signs of suffering. She noted that women and children typically belong to 
what Paulo Freire describes as a “culture of silence”8 

 
Such individuals view themselves as impotent. They keep their eyes down when the 
powerful walk by. They don’t look you straight in the eye. They know they are outside the 
real conversation, the conversation that matters. Cut off from the flow of ideas, hopes, 
dreams of those in power, the oppressed are powerless to question the assumptions or have 
a role in defining the concepts that affect their daily lives.9 

 
Listening to Freire in the encounter in 1988 and reading the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, she found 

coincidences with her own concerns about education. According to Ann, the task of education 
becomes one of political ethics: it is defined by the need to do justice to the oppressed, by bringing to 
the surface their perspective. The perspective of those who suffer injustice is the critical perspective 
and, therefore, the perspective of hope.  This silence must be interrupted by the questions of the 
oppressed, who must, in turn, learn how to break from the culture of silence imposed on them. 

 
Similarly, for Freire, education must help the oppressed to use their own voice, to conquer 

people’s right to pronounce the world and to assume the direction of their own destiny. For him, as 
for Ann, education is an act of love, therefore it is an act of courage. 

 
Language is in both, Freire and Sharp, an indispensable tool for a critical, reflective process of 

conscientization that leads to liberation. And language in the form of dialogue as a critical and caring 
encounter of consciences searching for truth, meaning and hope for the future is also essential for 
both.  
 

They also shared the importance of hope in education. Sharp’s political hope was also inspired 
by Simone Weil,10 who promoted education to free women, workers, and peasants from oppression. 
Weil joined the International Brigade in support of the Spanish Republic, fought the structures of 
patriarchy, rejected gender roles, and worked tirelessly to put her ideal of education for social justice 
into practice. 
 
                                                 
8 Ann M. Sharp carefully read the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and was inspired by it as shown in the next quotation. 
9 A.M. Sharp, “Women and Children and the Evolution of Philosophy,” Analytic Teaching 10 (1989): 46-51. 
10 A.M, Sharp, “Simone Weil on Friendship,” Philosophy Today, Winter (1978) 266-275; “Work and Education in the 
Thought of Simone Weil,” Pedagogica Historica 24 (2) (1984): 493-515 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

8 
 

Democracy and the construction of a democratic society was a shared ideal for Freire and Sharp, 
despite some differences of approach. Freire says: “…the point of departure must always be with men 
and women in the ‘here and now,’ which constitutes the situation within which they are submerged, 
from which they emerge, and in which they intervene.”11  

 
A democratic quality may be characterized by openness, equality, and a willingness to share, 

learn, and create together, which needs the practice of virtues such as open-mindedness, listening, 
empathy, courage, humility, trust, receptivity to others’ experiences, and a willingness to be 

transformed by the experience. As other proponents of radical democracy, Paulo Freire thinks that it is 
through our relationships and within the immediate experience that we have of each other that our 
ideals have the capacity to become actualized experiences. Democracy must be more than merely a 
procedure to elect a few individuals to represent the community’s political interests. Radical 
democracy criticizes liberal theories for equating democracy with legal guarantees, or with the 
procedure of periodic voting, as well as for the belief that it is through private property that individual 
liberty is achieved. Even when critical democracy is informed by liberal democracy, it is also critical of 
it. It is developed in colonized experiences of dehumanization, oppression, corruption, and abuse of 
power.  Paulo Freire says that democracy is based on faith in humanity, in the belief that all are 
capable to discuss together and to find new ways to recreate the world. He acknowledges some of 

Dewey’s ideas, proposed in Democracy and Education, for example, the idea that originality is not the 
fantastic, but rather the new use of known things.  
 

There is a social interest in Dewey´s theory of democracy that could relate to Sharp´s idea of it, 
especially the idea of the participation of all for the creation of a more just and freer world, as we can 
see in this quote from Dewey: 
 

Democracy as compared with other ways of life is the sole way of living which believes 
wholeheartedly in the process of experience as end and as means; as that which is capable 
of generating the science which is the sole dependable authority for the direction of further 
experience and which releases emotions, needs and desires so as to call into being the 
things that have not existed in the past. For every way of life that fails in its democracy 
limits the contacts, the exchanges, the communications, the interactions by which 
experience is steadied while it is also enlarged and enriched. The task of this release and 
enrichment is one that has to be carried on day by day. Since it is one that can have no end 
till experience itself comes to an end, the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a 
freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.12 
 

                                                 
11 Freire, Paulo. Pedagogía del oprimido. Ed. Siglo XXI 2nd. Edition, México, 2005, p. 98. The translation is mine. 
12 J. Dewey, Creative Democracy. The Task Before us. In M. Fish, “Classic American Philosophers” (New York Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1951), p. 394 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

9 
 

For Sharp, the use of Philosophy for Children for the empowerment of women and children 

became a dominant theme in her scholarship. As she wrote, “[f]or Feminism and Philosophy for 
Children, the doing of philosophy within a community is a critical and creative enterprise aimed at 
criticizing and changing the beliefs and practices of the dominant culture that sustain the unjust 
conditions that characterize the oppressed.”13  
 

She was also thinking of a democratic way of life and liberation through thinking together 
critically:  

 
Philosophy for Children is an attempt to take the discipline of philosophy and reconstruct 
it so that children … can learn to master its tools and concepts and appropriate its content 
for themselves in such a way as to bring about their own liberation.14 

 
Sharp argued that: “Participation in such a community [of inquiry] is a democratic approach to 

moral education, preparing youngsters to speak their voice in shaping the institutions of their society. 
A strong democracy must rely to a great extent on the critical, creative and ethical intelligence of each 
generation.”15 This is to be expected if ethics and politics are understood as dimensions of everyday 
experience—including the experience of children—and if philosophy is construed as inquiry into these 
dimensions. 
 

The community of inquiry prepares children to participate in a democratic society, and to 
rebuild it, thus giving rise to what Sharp called “the child as critic,” in two senses. As critics of society, 
children move from personal claims of injustice to theories about the conditions of structural 
injustice. As critics of one another’s ideas, children’s perspectives become broader and more complex. 
Both involve self-correction and the construction of new political, moral, and aesthetic ideals. Sharp 
was aware of the radicalness of her idea but she thought that:  “With time and practice in communal 
inquiry they come to realize that their teachers and classmates really do care about them as persons. 
They believe in their potential ability to make a difference. In turn, this realization makes it possible 
for children to care about a variety of things and motivates their acting with courage and hope in the 
world.”16 
 

Paulo Freire thinks that one of the characteristics of an education for liberation is love. In a 
similar way, Sharp focuses on the practice of care: 
 

Sharp claims that learning is more than an accumulation of knowledge. It involves 
education of the feelings and emotions so as to promote growth of the capacity to care. 

                                                 
13 A.M. Sharp, “And the Children Shall Lead Them,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18 (2) (2004): 177-187. 
14 Op. Cit. 177 
15  Sharp, Ann, “The role of intelligent sympathy in educating for global ethical consciousness.” In In Community of Inquiry 
with Ann Margaret Sharp. Childhood, Philosophy and Education. Maughn Rollins Gregory and Megan Jane Laverty, Editors.  
(Routledge International Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 2018), p.230 
16 Ann M. Sharp, “The other dimension of caring thinking,” Journal of Philosophy in Schools 1(1) University of New South 
Wales 1997. P. 16 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

10 
 

Without such growth we cannot develop as persons. The capacity to judge, value and be 
motivated to act are all of necessity tied to care.17  

 
Critical, creative, and caring thinking are all developed through the participation in a 

community of inquiry and can contribute to the creation of a new social ideal. 
 

The community of inquiry, at its best, offers an immersion into a democratic and aesthetic 
experience that can serve as funded experience of the group in envisioning new possibilities 
and making judgments. The sensitivity, the appreciative discerning of parts and wholes, the 
imaginative manipulation of elements to construct something of harmony and vision, will 
be dependent on the consciousness and quality of this immersion. As we become more 
conscious of the social and aesthetic dimension of the inquiry process, we find that it takes 
on more and more meaning and we truly care about its process and its outcomes.18 
 

To foster caring thinking, we need more than logic, and in the environment of the community 
of inquiry, children become aware of the richness of their relationship with each other and with the 
world, and they view themselves as capable to create together a new way of life.   

 
In a real sense what we care about is manifest in how we perform, participate, build, 
contribute and how we relate to others. It is thinking that reveals our ideals as well as what 
we think is valuable, what we are willing to fight and suffer for.19 

 
Despite coming from different countries, contexts, and different philosophical influences these 

two thinkers, Freire and Sharp, shared the dream of a liberating, critical education that could lead to a 
true democratic society.  
 
 
References 
 

Aronowitz, Stanley (2009). Foreword, in Sheila L. Macrine (Ed.) Critical Pedagogy in Uncertain Times: 

      hope and possibilities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 
Cam, Philip. Commentary on Ann Margaret Sharp’s ‘The other dimension of caring thinking.’  

      Journal of Philosophy in Schools. University of New South Wales, 1997.  

De la Garza M.T. Política de la memoria: una mirada sobre occidente desde el margen. Anthropos/ 
      Universidad Iberoamericana, Barcelona, 2002. 

-----Educación y Democracia: Aplicación de la Teoría de la Comunicación a la construcción del conocimiento en el 

      aula.  
                                                 
17 Philip Cam, “Commentary on Ann Margaret Sharp’s ‘The other dimension of caring thinking,’” Journal of Philosophy in 
Schools 1(1) (University of New South Wales, 1997), p. 15  
18 Ann M. Sharp. “The other dimension of caring thinking,” Journal of Philosophy in Schools 1(1) (University of New South 
Wales, 1997): 16-21, p. 17 
19 Philip Cam, “Commentary on Ann Margaret Sharp’s ‘The other dimension of caring thinking’,” Journal of Philosophy 
in Schools 1(1) University of New South Wales, p. 15  
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

11 
 

Dewey, J. Democracy and Education. Macmillan, New York, 1944.  
------Creative Democracy. The Task Before us. In M. Fish, “Classic American Philosophers”, New York  
     Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951, p. 394. 

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogía del oprimido Ed. Siglo XXI, México, 1985. 
-----Educación como práctica de la libertad. Ed. Siglo XXI, México, 2011. 
-----Pedagogía de la esperanza, Ed. Siglo XXI, México, 2018. 

Giroux, H. Rethinking Education as a Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of Critical Pedagogy 
    (2010) www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE 715 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010 

Habermas, J. Teoría de la acción comunicativa: complementos y estudios previos. Cátedra, Madrid,  
     1989. 

-----Toward a Rational Society. Beacon Press, 1970. 

Horkheimer, M. and T. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments. Stanford University  
      Press, 2002. 
Kohan, Walter. “Paulo Freire mais do que nunca: uma biografía filosófica. Belo Horizonte, Vestigio, 
      2019. 

Maughn Rollins Gregory and Megan Jane Laverty, Editors. In Community of Inquiry with Ann 

      Margaret Sharp. Childhood, Philosophy and Education. Routledge International Studies in the  
      Philosophy of Education, 2018. 

Sharp, A.M. Women and Children and the Evolution of Philosophy. Analytic Teaching 10 (1989): 46-51. 
----- “Simone Weil on Friendship.” Philosophy Today, Winter (1978): 266-275.  
----- “Work and Education in the Thought of Simone Weil.”  Pedagogica Historica 24 (2) (1984): 493 
     -515. 

----- “The Child as a Critic.” In E. Marsal, T. Dobashi and B. Weber (Eds). Children Philosophize 

      Worldwide. New York: Peter Lang, 2009: 201-208.  
----- “And the Children Shall Lead Them.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 18 (2) (2004): 177- 
     187. 

----- “The other dimension of caring thinking.” Journal of Philosophy in Schools 1(1) University of New  
      South Wales, 1997: 16-21. 
 
Address Correspondences to:  
María Teresa de la Garza Camino   
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 
Universidad Iberoamericana Campus Sante Fe 
Email: garzacamino@gmail.com 

about:blank

