Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire - Book Report/Review Example

Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Inquiry Project Written Report [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] Pedagogy of the Oppressed Introduction This essay presents a summary of the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” authored by Paulo Freire. Brief statements are outlined that present the main points in the four chapters of the book in a concise form. An inquiry is also made into the broader issues that Freire develops concerning the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed and teaching methodologies or pedagogies. Chapter 1 In the first chapter of the book, Freire explains the concept of humanization. Freire emphasizes the idea that individuals demonstrate such qualities towards themselves as well as towards other individuals. Freire points out that for one to be able to acknowledge ‘humanization’, an individual also needs to recognize dehumanization. In dehumanization, an individual’s humanity is taken away (Freire, 2005). In this case, an individual becomes the oppressed. On the other hand, for oppressors to exist, a continual control over the oppressed has to exist. Freire further suggests that oppressors who take away one’s humanity are in away also dehumanized (49). Freire seeks further to portray oppression as a system where both the oppressed and the oppressor are subject to the forces of oppression. Here, he discusses the significance of the view that the oppressed are not capable of reversing the roles of oppression in a bid to realize the full manifestation of humanity (Freire, 2005). Freire refers to this notion as “human completion.” He further explains that there is an inherent phenomenon for the oppressed people to assume the role of the oppressor after a revolution. In Freire’s view, this is the entire framework of the oppressed exists within the oppression frameworks (Freire, 2005; 56). Freire explains that oppressors are not capable of engaging in ‘false charity” where they utilize the economic influence to promote oppression. The author postulates that ‘true charity’ is concerned with fighting causes that facilitate false charity (Freire, 2005; 45). For the stressed to be relieved of their own bondages, they have to partner with the oppressed in fighting. Freire says that solidarity demands that an individual experiences the situation of those with whom an individual is ‘solidary’ (Freire, 2005; 49). To free oneself from the chains of oppression is a difficult pursuit of the oppressor as well as the oppressed. In both cases, individuals have to discard ingrained ideologies of viewing people as objects and not necessarily human entities. Freire explains that solidarity demands that both the oppressed and the oppressor form a coalition to form a strong force (Freire, 2005; 54). Freire further suggests the key issues necessary for the oppressed to be freed. He emphasizes that pedagogy has to be created with the oppressed rather than for them. Freire notes that the key issue is that the oppressed have to take part in the establishing or developing the pedagogy of their freedom. He observes that provided that the oppressed perceives the process of liberation through the framework of how their situation is presently organized, they will not be able to contribute to the development of pedagogy for change (Freire, 2005). Freire suggests two stages (libertine and the humanist pedagogy) that the oppressed has to take part in. First, the oppressed has to recognize the framework and its elements of oppression. The oppressed should also commit to transforming these frameworks or structures. To avoid preserving the model that the structure was originally formed by oppressors, Freire points out that the oppressed has to confront their views of the world. Additionally, they have to overcome their fear of liberty and instead begin to be upbeat about changing the elements of oppression as well as the individuals (Kahn, 2006). Second, the pedagogy has to be relinquished to make it pedagogy of all individuals who are involved in the pursuit of permanent liberation. After myths that have been created are expelled and formed in the old order, the oppressed are free to begin embracing freedom (Freire, 2005; 55). The two processes are vital for Freire’s theory since they postulate that the oppressed remain unacquainted with the cause of their conditions, they will tend to accept their state of exploited or oppressed (Freire, 2005; 64). Freire further explains how developing pedagogy should be carried out. He points out that the process of reflection is vital for action. An individual has to reflect on as well as mull over the circumstances in which they he finds himself. The action should however be carefully considered since all people will be impacted by the pedagogy (Au, 2007). Freire explains that the process should involve dialogue and should stay away from any form of violence. He further illustrates that action and dialogues must originate from the oppressed with the view of oppressors who may recognize and comply with the pedagogy. Additionally, there has to be proceedings where liberation is emphasized as the major focus rather than the likelihood of the oppressed transforming into the oppressors (Freire, 2005). Chapter 2 In Chapter of the book, Freire examines the oppressive nature of the baking concept specifically in education. Freire explains that the banking concept involves the notion that the teacher’s narration leads students into memorising the narrated account. Freire reveals that such narration transforms students into containers that have to be filled with teachers. The more completely a teacher fills a container, the better the teacher is regarded (Freire, 2005). On the other hand, the more meekly the containers permit themselves to be filled, the better the students are. Simply put, Freire regards the teachers as purely filling the minds of the students with information. Freire points out that the problem with such scenarios is that it hinders students from being creative and instead makes them free-thinkers. Freire translates the concept to a society of adults that lacks the capacity to think independently or to question anything (Brouse, Basch and Wolf, 2010). Freire further notes that the baking concept is a tool of oppression, and that its manifestations and assumptions are aimed at problematising the concept of freedom and education. Freire emphasises that generally, the banking concept leads to an oppressive society. According to him, some practices of the concept are that teachers teach and that students are taught. Additionally, the teachers are all-knowing while the students know nothing (Freire, 2005). Further, teachers do the thinking while the students are thought on. Freire refers to such situations as one where the student is perceived as a container or a repository of knowledge. Here, Freire notes that the teacher is the depositor while knowledge is the material that is deposited into the containers. Freire notes that the bank concept seeks to transform the minds of students to enable them to adapt to actual learning scenarios that they dominate with greater ease. He suggested that the more passive individuals are, the more they will be likely to adapt. Additionally, the more their creativity will decrease as their gullibility increases. Such a scenario creates conditions that allow oppressors to appear to be generous benefactors (Freire, 2005). Freire further commented that when an individual fails to fight or protect his interests as well as campaign for socio-cultural emancipation, it would appear that such an individual has lost his ‘love of life’. Freire calls such a condition ‘necrophilia of the situation’ regenerated by the form of education imparted to students in schools (Carrol, 2000). At this point, Freire proposes a pedagogy that suggests that an individual acquires a life by cultivating his being, or simply put, by ‘being with the world’ rather than ‘of the world’. He remarks that such a situation can be attained through liberation. For such a scenario to occur, a form of education is needed that refrains from being mechanistic and alienating (Rossi, 2013). In Freire’s view, education that liberates students should be a conscious act that has content that is considered and analysed, thus prevailing over dichotomy existing between the student and the teacher. Freire further commented that it must set aside unidirectional relationship and permit bidirectionality in a way that can contribute to the mutual learning benefits of both the student and the learner (Freire, 2005). This is because both parties possess elements that they can contribute to learning. Freire commented that an ideal form of education is the problem-posing education, through dialogue. In this scenario, the teachers cease to be merely the one designated to teach but one who also gets taught while in dialogue with the students, and who in the processes of learning also teaches. Freire commented that under such a situation, the teacher and the student both grow. In cases where this is reciprocal, then the value of meaning is lost. Therefore, the learning transforms in a unilateral act of memorising. Here, the role of the teacher lies with problematizing the world surrounding the oppressed as well as creating proper condition to allow learning to move past the “doxa” and to arrive at the degree “logos.” This form of learning helps individuals to create newer expectations to attain a reflective state where they get to discover their own reality (Freire, 2005). Chapter 3 Freire discusses the concept of dialogicity, which he defines as the essence of ‘education as being freedom in practice’. He demonstrates that dialogue sets off in the search for programmatic content (Freire, 2005). In explaining these concepts, Freire comments that an individual is not permitted to transform and understand the reality surrounding him when education is perceived to be simply an instrument for adapting to a reality. Freire further explains that individuals learn to transform and understand reality. In a bid to achieve such goals, it is critical for dialogicity to be developed between the student and the teacher since man has no capacity to create himself solitarily in silence. Rather, through actions, words and reflections. Freire points out that dialogue is therefore a key element in learning. The established dialogue between the two subjects will help increase the reciprocal compassion or kindness. Such should be considered an act of bravery rather than cowardice (Freire, 2005). Freire further explains that some individuals view themselves to be leaders who go at great lengths to initiate a dialogue. In any case, it is to their interests rather than the interests of the community they pursue. Such leaders also encourage other individuals to adapt to new ways of life without the need to attend to their historical requirements. Freire observed that such individuals fall into naivety while thinking that they should adapt to the existing conditions instead of constructing their new and proper conditions called upon through critical thought. Freire describes critical thought as one in which spaces and opportunities are built to create opportunities for liberations as well as overcome oppression through a deliberately conscious action (Freire, 2005). Freire noted that it is therefore critical thought that dialogues within a community can be established. Because this means that the use of language is similar to the one that an individual is familiar with. Furthermore, it is important to assimilate oneself into an individual’s life, and therefore to study language, thought pattern and practice. Additionally, through the use of problematising education, these components will accumulate to create knowledge. Here, the topics of learning can be sought in the reality surrounding an individual (Freire, 2005). Freire also stated that in order to look into a generative topic, one has to go to places where people are liberated in order to study their thoughts so as to avoid ‘decontextualising’ their work. Liberation of man and sidestepping oppression cannot be attained by consuming existing knowledge that circulates among individuals. Rather, an individual has to construct own ideas as well as transform them through horizontal and praxis communication (Boyce, n.d.).   Chapter 4 In Chapter 4, Freire explores antidialogical and dialogical theories and their characteristics. The author states that antidialogicity is used by an oppressor in a range of ways. The oppressor conquers the oppressed using a consistently unilateral dialogue. The oppressor also alters the communication process into an act or necrophilia. Oppressors may also use other ideological instruments to attain their conquest such as that of ‘bread and circus” for the conquest to be whole (Freire, 2005). The oppressors attempt to prevent the oppressed from becoming united through dialogue. In their unspoken discourse, they warn that it can be fatal for social people to converse with the oppressed concerning the concept of forming unions (Freire, 2005). One of their chief activities is to make the oppressed by alienating them with idea that dialogue may trigger internal division. Freire notes that in comparison with those who opposed them, the oppressors appear as the only ones capable of creating harmony essential for living. When individuals decide to begin fighting for liberation, an individual may become stigmatised all in an attempt to prevent historically and inevitable attainment of freedom. An additional feature of antidiaologicity is the manner in which it utilises ideology in manipulating people to comply with the goals that it proposes (Freire, 2005; 147). In some instances, the manipulation occurs by getting people to support something that works to the inconvenience of the oppressed. In the same manner, antidialogicity enforces a bourgeois model of life. Freire notes that leaders of the left may seek to expound the ideas of the masses. In any case, most of their time is focused on their personal achievements of power. Once this objective is realised, they forget about the masses that had initially supported them. There, the liberation that had been desired by the oppressed is in actual fact never really achieved. Another feature of antidiaologiciy is cultural invasion, where the oppressed are considered the objects while the oppressors are considered the actors of the process (Freire, 2005; 152). This kind of subliminal tactic is applied to dominate and to lead the ‘inauthenticity’ of individuals. The oppressed lose their values and transform their way of speaking and inevitably support the oppressor. In situations where there is cultural invasion, the relationship between a child and a parent transforms into a scenario that profits the oppressor who suppose that they should educate the community, when in actual sense, the community should educate itself. To the oppressors, it appears impracticable to listen to the unrest of the community, as though they perceive them to be incapable of thought (Freire, 2005).  On the contrary, collaboration is a form of community emancipation as the process does not occur through the presence of a messianic leader. Rather, it occurs through the union that is created when the masses and the leader communicate and interact. It also happens when they share in mutual trust to realize ‘revolutionary praxis’ (Boyce, nd) Aside from collaboration, union is also essential if a common effort has to be achieved toward liberation. This is a kind of cultural action that ensures adherence to a revolutionary cause without having to fall into a ‘revolutionary hyperbole’. Dialogcal action also calls for organization if it has to prevent ideological control from the top. Freire notes that organization is a vital element of revolutionary action (Freire, 2005; 176). It also entails coherence between practice and action, courage to love and radicalizing without sectarianism, which should exist without transforming into naivety. For revolutionary action to be achieved there is a need to complete clear tasks. Further there is a need to be accountable to one’s compatriots. The final feature of dialogical action is cultural synthesis, which attempts to defeat the antagonistic activities initiated by the oppressors (Freire, 2005; 180). Concluding Remarks Freire proposes that individuals should form or recreate themselves rather than be formed or recreated. To realize this, he suggests that pedagogy approaches need to be taken from the daily experiences encountered constantly by individuals. He further suggests that the existing educational pitfalls of opting for artificial experiences have to be avoided. He further suggests that an individual has to problematize his life if the person has to realize that he needs and can attain a different status. Freire acknowledges that the practice he proposes can come across ‘limiting situations’ that are the products of resistance of the oppressors.    References Au, W. (2007). "Epistemology of the Oppressed: The Dialectics of Paulo Freire's Theory of Knowledge." Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 5(2). Retrieved: Boyce, M. (n.d.) Teaching critically as an act of praxis and resistance. Retrieved: Brouse, C., Basch, C. & Wolf, C. (2010). "Using Concepts From Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority Population." Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice 4(1): 77-85 Carrol, J. (2000)."Freire's Message for Social Workers: Looking Back, Looking Ahead." Journal of Community Practice 8(1): 21-29 Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30ed. Translated from the original Portuguese (1968) by Myra Bergman Ramos New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Kahn, R. (2006). "Paulo Freire and Eco-Justice: Updating Pedagogy of the Oppressed for the Age of Ecological Calamity." Paulo Freire Institute Online Journal 1(1): 1-8 Rossi, R. (2013). "The Field Education as the Pedagogy of the Oppressed." American Journal of Rural Development, 2013 1 (4), pp 75-80. Read More