Freire, P. & Horton, M. We Make the Road by Walking, Intro and Chapter 1

1. What does it mean to localize something? To localize something, by definition means to constrict or confine something or someone to a certain area. In this text Paulo and Myles are discussing speaking words and questions aloud, and later transcribing them to a book. The idea behind this is to capture the reader with main ideas and questions without localizing them in individual sections and chapters.

2. I agree with Paulo and Myles that this is an effective way to write. In my own experience, I have had trouble describing the depth of my ideas thoroughly through my writing. Often times I write exactly what I am thinking first and then go back and make the necessary corrections. I find that after rereading my material I often think of supporting ideas to thicken the content of my writing. By not localizing factual ideas to chapters, Paulo and Myles create an opportunity for readers to explore their own ideas in relation to theirs without restriction or the notion they could be wrong. Everything is open. Dialogue before writing also is beneficial to this reading because readers get the chance to be open to two perspectives. Having a single author exposes the reader to a single perspective that is specifically influenced by that authors experience. This way, readers can bounce around ideas, as the authors do. Being open to more than one perspective is not only beneficial, but necessary as an educator and a student. While in college I've had experiences where curriculum overlapped, meaning I learned material in one class and that same material was used in a separate class to introduce new material. Every instructor taught what they took from that material, and though the facts where the same, the emphasis is always different. As a student, this variation of emphasis gives me a deeper and stronger understanding of the material because of the objectivity of the viewpoints. An example of this would be the American Revolution. As a history major, I've covered this too many times to count. One of my professors described the war as America's cry for freedom and the beginning of our triumphant country. Whereas, another one of my professors described the war as a necessity Americans (colonist) tried to avoid for as long as they could until it was no longer possible. Both of these are accurate concerning the history of the revolution, the only difference is the viewpoint. That is the beneficial aspect of author to author dialogue, you are not subjected to one way of thinking.

3.)What are the disadvantages of having multiple perspectives in a reading? Can this confuse or misguide the reader in any way? Is it better to localize central ideas in order to create organization? Is material easier to learn when it is organized? I think Paulo best answers these questions by saying " This should give us a duality in the conversation, a certain relaxation, a result of losing seriousness in thinking while talking. The purpose is to have a good conversation but in sort of style that makes it easier to read the words."