Forging Progressive Education

Conclusion

The working dynamics and its purposes of the Gulen movement conclude that such a movement is not only addressing the student-education but is also addressing all members of the society who are interested in resolving their issues. It does that by providing them with a deeper understanding of human psyche, desires and aspirations of peace and co- existence. At the same time, this movement also addresses those people who are not interested in keeping aside the differences due to their ignorance and lack of vision. It does it by educating them with the renewed vision and understanding using the tools of dialogue and tolerance. In the movement there are inherent characteristics of ‘humanization’ and the avoidance of ‘dehumanization’ (Freire, P. 2000) through the inclusion of worldly factors being meshed with morality and ethics.

In its dynamics, it is evident that the way the movement operates, it avoids questioning the status quo by not confronting the State stand, but at the same time it also completely questions and demolishes the status quo manifested in the decades of ongoing conflicts and lack of understanding between civilizations, cultures and religions. This is the uniqueness of the movement, which ,on one hand offers a special kind of apparent irony while on the other, breaks that irony by it dynamics of results .One can also see an element of ‘quietness’ in the movement because of its deliberate choice of non- confronting stand and spiritual aspects. This is quite opposed to the Freirian notions, which clearly differentiates the ideas of the oppressed and the oppressors and questions the status quo, being created by the ‘oppressors’ for their own benefits and at the cost of the oppressed (Freire, P. 2000).Gulen movement seems to be borrowing the concept of a ‘dialogue’ that Freire writes about but at the same time deliberately excludes the exact notion of status-quo in the Freirian theory. Interestingly, the Gulen movement adopts the ‘culture of silence’ (Freire, P. 2000) for the sake of empowering the un-empowered by channelizing all its energies into the education rather than in the fight for the education. The clear differentiation between teaching and education and clear emphasis on mutual learning between student and teachers, however clearly matches with Freire’s ‘problem solving education process.’

It is also interesting to note that Gulen community functions without particularly classifying the environment of it working into two separate conflicting groups which Freire so strongly classifies as the ‘oppressor’ and the oppressor’.

In the dynamics of the Gulen movement what is seen is the complete exclusion of the potential ‘oppressor (Freire. P, 2000 ) such as the State, by a strategic agreement with it and thereby working on and working with the fighting communities who are both, oppressed, because of the belligerent behavior of the other and at the same being ‘oppressed’ due to their belligerent behavior towards the other. The movement however achieves and buys peace between the conflicting parties with the use of a ‘dialogue’ which is an integral part of the Freirian theory. Thus on one front, Gulen movement runs parallel with the Freirian movement without having to meet each other’s viewpoint, whereas on the other hands it clearly overlaps with its belief of ‘dialogue’.

One can also see the complete absence of ‘banking system of education’ in the Gulen movement, which uses its energies not only to let student learn from teachers but also to let teachers learn from students ,as well as from the constantly changing teaching environment.

The movement’s emphasis on the joy in the learning- process echoes with the experiences of Bell Hooks who experienced ‘classrooms as a place of sheer joy” (Hooks. B, 1994). The fact that Gulen schools embrace learners from a diverse religious, ethnic, class, and cultural background and foster social virtues such as respect, co-operation and tolerance to integrate its learners into pluralist, democratic society shows a dialectally opposite scenario, when seen with the experiences of Bell Hooks who enjoyed ‘Black schools’ as emancipating while tolerated ‘White schools as ‘prisons’(Hooks. B, 1994)

The broad inclusion of community as a family and the fact that the members of the community played an active role, not only as the beneficiaries of the movements but also as the active players of the movement itself, takes the movement very close to Myles Horton’s conceptualization and later construction of the Highlander School (Horton, M., 1990).Both Schools, Gulen’s and Horton’s, achieved its results by educating the members of the society by tools of sharing.

In order to address the masses with effective communication the ownership of media houses, foundations, trusts and other such organizational structures by of the Gulen community strengthens Myles Horton’s realization that ‘as individuals we are powerfulness but when we become organization, we become powerful”. (Horton. M, 1990)

Using the vales of dialogue and cooperation the Gulen movement is able to create and maintain a truly dynamic educational fabric, in many of its forms. These forms are schools, colleges and universities. They also include the unification of diversified communities and individuals through a common thread of compassion and love for each other’s diversity and acknowledgement of each other’s commonality. Also the secular structure of the Gulen schools has helped to create a balance between the individual’s needs as well as the collective needs of the society in which the individuals dwell. The constant emphasis of the movement to build the individual character and therefore the character of a collective society through universal moral values, prepares the new generation to become useful and constructive citizens of a more humane society, which is the purpose of a true education and a dream of the true educator.