Freire, Paulo. (2000, 1993, 1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition). N. Y: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
My rationale for selecting this book spawned from my passion for philosophy. I was first introduced to Paulo Freire in a Philosophy of Education course at Alliant International University. From this course, I found a personal connection to Postmodernism, Liberation Pedagogy, and Critical Theory. Hence, this selection was chosen out of my interest in Liberation Pedagogy, the idea that “education…frees a person from domination and oppression” (Gutek, 2004, p. 236), a philosophy in which Paulo Freire is primarily associated.
Paulo Freire (1921-1997) was a Brazilian educator who developed his educational ideas by working with impoverished, illiterate peasants and the urban poor in teaching them the skills needed to read and write. After being banished from Brazil for his radical and “leftist” approach to education and politics, Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed in the 1960s while working as a visiting professor at Harvard University. In fact, Freire’s central argument seems to stem from the idea that education is always related to politics, either for purposes of maintaining it or bringing about social change.
Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition), in which it refers to the “pedagogy of the people engaged in the fight for their own liberation” (p. 53), is divided into four chapters with an introduction by Donaldo Macedo. The introduction focuses on establishing the foundations of Freire’s ideas about education and politics by briefly comparing them to John Dewey and Postmoderism, and Neoliberalism among others, as well as highlighting that even today some Third World countries will not allow the reading or purchasing of this book.
In chapter one, Freire establishes the constructs of the oppressors (dominant social culture) and the oppressed (non-dominant social culture), the humans (dominant social culture) and the sub-humans (non-dominant social culture).
The central problem is this: How can the oppressed, as divided, unauthentic beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation? Only as they discover themselves to be ‘hosts’ of the oppressor can they contribute to the midwifery of their liberating pedagogy. As long as they live in the duality in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor, this contribution is impossible. The pedagogy of the oppressed is an instrument for their critical discovery that both they and their oppressors are manifestations of dehumanization (p. 48).
In order for the oppressed to become “human,” they need to transform themselves not according to or against the oppressors, but rather “by means of the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 51). He uses concepts such as Sadistic love to describe the pleasure the oppressors take in dominating over the oppressed by “having more” in regards to money and possessions. Hence, the belief that “to be is to have” (p. 64) that which should not be our societal goal, but rather, it should be putting trust in our fellow man instead of the objects we possess. This is the act of true humanitarianism.
In chapter two, Freire’s concepts related to education are discussed. He examines how the traditional “banking” concept of education (i.e., memorizing facts, lecturing or “preaching,” etc.) mirrors our oppressive society as a whole (p. 73). It gives ultimate power and authority to the teacher, the oppressor, and no power or authority to the student, the oppressed. Using this method of teaching, students are to act as depositories of information fed to them by the teacher; this is the way they obtain knowledge, not by living with the world, but living in the world (p. 75). Instead, Freire introduces a contrasting approach to obtaining knowledge called “Problem-posing” in which the teacher is no longer the one whom teaches, but rather, the one whom is taught in dialogue with the students, “who in turn while being taught also teach” (p. 80). Hence, both actors, teacher and student, become responsible for the process of growing.
In the third chapter, Freire focuses on reflective action in which he further discusses his ideas about what he calls “praxis.” This construct is based upon critical, dialogical reflection. He sees reflection or education and action as one. Therefore, action is based upon reflection, which is “the starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be present, existential concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people” (p. 85).
In the final chapter, Freire globalizes his ideas. His primary concern is that revolutionary leaders genuinely foster liberation and not become just another oppressor. Leaders need to engage in praxis, which is action combined with critical reflection, with the people not just for the people. Acting with the oppressed means that leaders need to be in constant interactive communication or act dialogically. Leaders who do not do this will retain characteristics of the denominator and are not truly revolutionary (p. 119). Therefore, in contrast, antidialogical leadership is acting for the people instead of with the people, which in turn, objectify them. Ultimately, Freire believes that a revolution requires community action and a dialogical leader where “subjects meet in cooperation in order to transform the world” (p. 167).
I found this book to be quite interesting and informative. I like the perspective Freire takes with regard to obtaining knowledge and his stance on education. His philosophy surrounding his concepts of the oppressor and the oppressed, or the haves and have nots, does mirror my personal experiences with those that have money and power versus those that do not.
On the contrary, I did find the book difficult to read. Freire jumps around a lot from general to specific and he does tend to beat his ideas down by not being concise. This book could easily be half the size in length. Also, I think his ideas may be better served if there were more concrete examples; he tends to be abstract too often. Moreover, I find it ironic that he is a true revolutionary leader, especially in regards to his work on adult literacy, however, in order to read this book and understand the concepts and the context in which it was written, one would need to have a higher education.
Reference:
Gutek, G. L. (2004). Philosophical and Ideological Voices in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
