Oppressed or Oppressor?

Last week along with this upcoming week, the focus of the class discussions are Paulo Freire’s novel Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Looking through critiques before reading the book I found a commonality among complaints that said that the book was inaccessible. This of course made me nervous. After reading the book, I found this to be true to some extent. It took re-reading several sections to obtain some understanding of Freire’s key points. However, I did find it quite interesting.

Paulo Freire believes individuals should form themselves rather than be formed by others. Though, he simultaneously recognizes that there are limiting situations that can hold individuals back. These situations block people because of an overall resistance coming from the oppressing classes. These oppressive classes want to protect their power. Freire discusses freedom from oppression as something that “is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (47). Individuals are not meant to live in a naïve consciousness where they are aware of their oppression, yet do nothing about it. Rather, Freire strives for a method of learning where people think and reflect. One of the issues we face as a society is our tendency to simply reproduce or repeat information. We don’t internalize and truly learn it. I agree with this, but want to turn the attention to our education system. I find that, from personal experience, and witnessing the actions of others, much of our education simply requires us to memorize and relay the facts. Often, there is excessive lecturing. Even in today’s colleges, our own humanities program, and such, the class revolves around a lecture. One of the things I value and enjoy about the Honors program and typically UNCA more so than other schools is that there is analysis of the importance of what is taught. Connections need to be made to our present day lives. Many of the historical events that we have learned about have continue to affect our day to day lives.  A good teacher, in my opinion, is one who encourages you to truly learn material. However, this is not generally the case. Typically, as we have learned from other readings thus far this semester, standardized testing determines the course curriculum. Some teachers’ jobs depend on how well their students perform on these exams and consequently, they teach to the tests rather than allow creativity in the classroom. Personally, I agree with Freire that people need to reach a reflective state, including in the classroom learning.

Freire believes that the bank concept is pervasive in our education system and is an instrument of oppression. When he describes the “bank” he is likening students to containers. They are receptacles or empty bank accounts. The teacher is the one making deposits (of knowledge). Freire disagrees with this notion simply on principle that it is dehumanizing. I agree with this. Education, in a sense, is structured in a way that allows the persistence of oppressive attitudes and practices in society. We are taught to think in a black and white manner. Certain actions are right. Others are wrong. We are taught to adapt “better” to actual situations, rather than overcome them. To Freire, this would be a perfect example of the pervasiveness of a dominant / passive or oppressor / oppressed mindset. It has become a norm.

Freire believes learning occurs from the inside out. He presents the idea that there are two distinct moments of the new pedagogy. The first is when you become conscious of reality. This is simply when you realize that as the oppressed, your life is being determined by decisions of those higher up in the hierarchy (the oppressors). The second part of this is when the oppressed act on initiative to stand up against their oppression. Friere explains that a common problem is that people will recognize their oppression, but rather than fighting against it, they adapt to it. He makes the point that the oppressor “can only cease to be the oppressor by understanding that the oppressed are not just an abstract concept”. Freire seems to have a distinction between the oppressed and oppressors. He argues that these members of upper classes, also known as oppressors, strive to maintain the oppressive situation simply because it works to their advantage. I am not sure if I agree with this stance. I agree that the structure of society seems to push the oppressor / oppressed relationships. However, I feel like he sees the issue as one that is too black and white. The situation is more complicated than that. In hypothetical scenarios and some extreme cases I feel like there can be one person who is oppressed and another interacting with them that can be considered the oppressor. In reality, though, the issue can be more in the gray area. It is very easy to fall into a situation where you do “what’s right” because it feels right. In most cases, what’s “right” has been determined by those around you. Those people include your teachers, family, and friends. So, although I feel as though it can be difficult to say one is being oppressed or oppressing and that their actions are clearly right or wrong, I agree that mutual understanding is necessary. Friere introduces the concept of dialogicity. This is the essence of education as freedom in practice. As human beings, we become who we are through our words, actions, and furthermore, our reflection on these. The goal is to try to learn from another, and as the famous saying says “walk in their shoes”. Learning should not be mechanistic. Rather, people should integrate into the lives of others and try to understand their language, thought process, and actions. Freire’s dialogical theory includes collaboration, union, organization, and cultural synthesis. I agree with him that we need to overlook and unite to work past the framework for society. In today’s society people will work towards a particular cause, but then abandon those supporters later. We see this frequently in politics. Often, people simply will temporarily relate to others because it benefits them in their quest to seek their own goals and interests. I think it is interesting to look at society in this context and I further appreciate that Friere, just like other authors we’ve read (Nussbaum, Appiah, Tatum, etc…) has recommended meaningful conversation and truly stepping in another person’s shoes and uniting with them to make a change.

I didn’t get to go to I Have a Dream to volunteer this week; however, this week’s readings along with last weeks were enough to open my eyes even further to our dysfunctional educational structure and the oppressor / oppressed relationships it is creating and keeping in place.