Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed: liberation through education and political power

Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Questions to Ask

In the opening of the book, Freire urges the oppressed to liberate both themselves and the oppressor. How do you think this can be done? Freire says that it must be done by generosity -- not false charity. What does he mean by this?

On page 48, Freire states that the central problem is that the oppressed must become authentic beings who participate "in developing the pedagogy of their liberation." In other words, the oppressed must view themselves and their oppressors in a radically different paradigm and that this paradigm shift will constitute the means by which liberation, ideation, and self-determination can be achieved. Does this sound feasible to you, or is Freire simply relying on semantics and rhetoric to create the illusion of possibility when in reality the oppressed need a liberator, a savior, a leader, a defender, etc.

On page 54, Freire notes that the implementation of the liberation cannot be undertaken without political power, which the oppressed do not have. Yet he asserts that the oppressed can undertake a course of liberation by way of "educational projects," which do not require systematization but rather a unity of wills among the oppressed and an organized aim, which will lead to political power. Do you find moments in world history when this sort of organizational aim did transpire and momentary liberation did occur? I can think of Germany in the 1930s when the NSDAP took control -- but by the mid-40s they had been crushed by an alliance of world powers. The question is: can liberation against the oppressors today be completed without the balance of power being tipped, globally, from the oppressors to the liberators. In other words, is not the problem of oppression a global one? Can liberation begin on a local scale or must it necessarily be waged on a global scale? Can you think of any country or people today that is ambitiously attempting to do just this? Russia, perhaps?

Chapter 2

Freire criticizes the teacher-student relationship, saying that the process suffers from "narration sickness" (71). Yet, it most cases the teacher must have something to teach, otherwise he/she is not a teacher. The student must be in need of something (be the receiver or listening object) or else there is no reason to be a student. Do you agree that the reality of the narrative (the lesson conveyed by teacher to student) is lifeless, "compartmentalized and predictable" (71) as Freire asserts, or is there something vital within a teacher's narrative that can be of value to the student? I think in particular of the valuable lessons of the ancient Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, whose lessons were so valued by students that they have been preserved for thousands of years and are still cherished today. So do you think that Freire's criticisms are as valid for the classicists as they are, perhaps, for modern academicians -- the sort described by Dickens in Hard Times (the "facts, facts, facts" sort)?

On page 72, Freire states that knowledge "emerges only through invention and re-invention ... hopeful inquiry ... " and that students and teachers must swap places in order to truly reconcile themselves to the endless inquiry that humanizes all of us, "so that both are simultaneously teachers and students." Socrates would often engage his "students" in dialogue by "confessing" himself to be ignorant of a certain subject and asking the other to enlighten him, whereupon Socrates would then point out the contradictions in the other's logic and end up instructing the "student." This was a method that became known as Socratic dialogue -- a way of guiding the student without forcing the student to adopt a set of conclusions drawn out ahead of time. Is this something that Freire appears to be recommending? Or is he recommending something different? If so, what? And how does it compare to the Socratic dialogue?

In this chapter, the author insists on the importance of dealing with reality. Does this mean Freire would assert that there is such a thing as objective reality/truth and that it can be known?

Chapter 4

In this chapter, the author illustrates the difference between humans and animals. Can you explain this difference in another way? Freire explains it in terms of action and praxis -- that animals "are beings of pure activity" while humans are capable of reflection and transcendence (125). What does this mean to you -- transcendence? What is it that humans are able to transcend to? Is it supernatural -- that is, above nature? If so, does that mean there is something supernatural in humans that allow them to partake of this transcendence?

On page 127, Freire notes that the oppressed must be critically aware of their role in the transformative process because if they are ambiguous they will only imagine (subjectively) a transformation whereas objectively they will not have transformed at all. What does this say about Freire's stance on objective versus subjective truth? Does it not imply that one can know reality, in spite of what many modern philosophers (like Kant) suggest?

On page 129, the author asserts that leaders and people must reach a state of solidarity wherein they work together for the common aim in truth. Can you define the aim? What is the liberation that Freire speaks of? In other words, what does the oppressive state consist of? Is this a physical or metaphysical state?