Popular educators facilitate groups, assisting them to identify their strengths and abilities to change their social conditions. One of the leading exponents of education for social change in recent years has been the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire.

Popular education begins on a local level, with logical debate focusing on the problems, or deficiencies of society. This discussion searches for answers to conflict between individuals and within their everyday lives. Popular education is most often initiated from outside a community by:

* Identifying the problems, expectations and expressed needs of a community;
* Identifying areas of change relevant to the groups' needs;
* Considering the community's history, its local power base and economic distribution;
* Understanding why there are those who are disadvantaged, or oppressed.

Popular education has evolved to overcome exploitation and social alienation. Freire (1972) talked about ordinary working people wanting to learn skills relevant to their harsh and oppressive lives. Social change begins with individuals reflecting on their values, their concern for a more equitable society, and their willingness to support others in the community.

As we learn about ourselves and understand our strengths and limitations, we are better able to recognize and understand the political, economic and social conditions that surround us. We must view ourselves positively in order to move from passivity to active participation, to be critical of the status quo and reject oppression.

As our social awareness becomes more refined, we explore the process known as hegemony, which, according to McLaren (1989), is demonstrated when the dominant culture is able to exercise control over subordinate classes or groups. The ideology of the dominant group, according to Thomas (1993), is that it has a shared set of fundamental beliefs, attitudes and assumptions about the world that justify “what is”.

The "what is" represents the status quo, which is meant to be followed without question. For example, the values we learn from the dominant political, financial and corporate world condition us to believe that to consume more is better, or, that we should follow without question a corporate agenda which, it is claimed, is ‘for the benefit’ of us all.

For many years, the dominant forces that influenced working people’s lives were associated with politics, religion, and industry. Gramsci expresses his concern about ‘traditional’ professional intellectuals, who directed the ideas and aspirations of the class to which they belonged. He suggests that ecclesiastics throughout history formed a group that was organically bound to the landed aristocracy, by sharing in the ownership of land and using state privileges connected with property.

Freire (1972) reminds us that it is by means of manipulation that the dominant elites try to conform the masses to their objectives. Capitalists and politicians together manipulate society to symbiotically feed off each other to satisfy their greed and need for power in a process that we are told (by them) is globalization. The wealth goes to the corporate and political cartels, while the labor is provided by the average man and woman ‘fortunate’ to be employed. This practice used to be called colonialism, or imperialism, and it was always managed with the singular goal of exploiting masses of marginally-educated people for financial gain.

The ideology of the dominant group is usually repressive. Consequently, Giddens (1987) asks what types of social change are feasible and desirable, and how should we strive to achieve them. The implication, according to Thomas (1993), is that in thinking, and thereby identifying the processes by which cultural repression occurs, we challenge the so-called “truth” of the dominant ideology in ways that subvert taken-for-granted ways of thinking. This process is not negative. It is a socially responsible one in which the participants take a pro-active role in their own lives.

The alternative is to take the path of least resistance in which we accept the status quo. In so doing, we fail to question what is being done to us as people. When this happens, we will eventually become reactive because we have not learned the skills to ask questions, or to say, ‘enough’! Instead, we become afraid, and more likely to strike out in anger. On the other hand, if we learn appropriate communication skills and become part of local decision-making, we can make our own contributions to change society.