What Is the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Ideas to Think About

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 3

In chapter 3, Freire highlights the importance of the "word." This makes me think of the Bible, in which it states, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). How do you think this relates to what Freire is saying about the "word" having two parts, reflection and action? Is there a transcendent element to the "word," which could also have religious connotations and/or ramifications? Does the sheer existence of human language and the "word" say something about the essence of human beings, of knowledge, of who we are, where we come from, and where we are going? If so, what?

On page 90, Freire states that "if I do not love the world -- if I do not love life -- if I do not love people -- I cannot enter into dialogue ... [and that] dialogue cannot exist without humility." If true love is true charity and charity is truth, then love is truth. Essentially, the author is asserting a transcendent philosophy that appears to be founded in humility and love. What do these terms mean to you and is it possible that through humility and love, we can transform the world into a truly better place? What else is needed?

On page 92-93, the author states that only dialogue can pave the way to actual critical thinking. It would seem then that he is recommending a dialogue method -- but is it Socratic or does Freire believe that the teacher is less important than the praxis? After all, Freire does assert that the student must become the teacher and the teacher must become the student.