Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation, 1993.
Thesis: The revolutionary process is dynamic, and it is in this continuing dynamics, in the praxis (reflection and action) of the people with the revolutionary leaders, that the people and the leaders will learn both dialogue and the use of power (dialogical action). Objectification vs subjectification/humanization - tension exists between power elites who view the people as conquered things that internalize the power elite (they lose their word, expressiveness, their culture), and revolutionary leaders who must remain in communion and openness to the people. (pp 133-134) Banking instruction (students are depositories) vs. problem posing learning (where the world is troubled in dialogue with teacher/students). Criticism: Appears to ignore the human condition of revolutionary leaders and that power can corrupt them. He systematizes educating the people - does it work? Transformation is in the hands of the oppressed; they must teach their oppressors. Do oppressors give them an audience? Does it work? Key thoughts: bread and circus to keep the people soft (Romans) - oppressors. "conscientizacao" awareness for transformation.
conscientizacao: through a true praxis, people leave behind the status of ojbects to assume the status of historical subjects. (p. 158)
Oppressed are kept out of history so they have no voice.
Through manipulation, the cominant elites can led the people into an unauthentic type of "organization," and can thus avoid the threatening alternative: the tru organization of the emerged and emerging people. The later have only two possibilities as they enter the historical processs: either they must organize authenticaly for their liberation, or they will be manipulated by the elites. Authentic organization is obviously not going to be stimulated by the dominators; it is the task of the revolutionary leaders. (p. 145)
The antidote to manipulation lies in a critically conscious revolutionary organization, which will pose to the people as problems their position in the historical process, the national reality, and manipulation itself. (p. 146)
...welfare programs as instruments of manipulation ultimately serve the end of conquest. they act as an anesthetic, distracting the oppressed from the true causes of their problems and from the concrete solution of these problems. They splinter the oppressed into groups of individuals hoping to get a few more benefits for themselves. This situation contains, however, a positive element: the individuals who recive some aid always want more; those wh do not receive aid, seeing the example of those who do, grow envious and also want assistance. Since the dominant elites cannot aid everyone, they end by increaing the restiveness of the oppressed. The revolutionary eladers should take advantage of the contradictions of manipulation by posing it as a problem to the oppressed, with the objective of organization them. (p. 149)
people who have been ground down by the concrete siutaion of oppression and domesticated by charity. (p. 155)
active subjects of the historical process (p. 156)
Deprived of their own power of decision, which is located in teh oppressor, they follow the prescriptions of the latter. the oppressed only begin to develop when, surmounting the contradiction in which they are caught, they become "beings for themselves." (p. 160)
And old Halula Paper EDPL 348 Steve Halula April 13, 2004
Man or Animal in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”
Paulo Freire (1921-1997), Brazilian philosopher and educator, in writing his Pedagogy of the Oppressed showed his capability of being insightful and at the same time being “incite-ful.” Freire believed that a philosopher, an educator and a revolutionary were the same. Since such thinking led him to be considered a threat to the rich and military classes of Brazil, he was exiled in 1964 from Brazil. (He later returned as Minister of Education!) This book, based on his experiences, shows Freire’s views and philosophy of modern society.
Freire believed the vocation of man is to ‘be human’ or to find one’s humanity: the process of humanization.[1] Humanization comes to fruition by way of man’s liberation from oppression (and the liberation of the oppressors themselves, an essay topic of its own) that brings about the building of a culture that will allow men to become “beings for themselves” or to be humanized (Freire, p. 74, p. 161)
To reiterate, the means to humanization is the gaining of freedom or being liberated. “Liberation, a human phenomenon, cannot be achieved by semihumans. (Freire, p. 66) In other words, only man can accomplish liberation, and furthermore, if man is not liberated so that he can find his humanity, he is dehumanized. With his humanity being taken away, he lives an existence of a semihuman, an uncompleted being, or an animal (Freire, p.44).
Continuing with the question, ‘what then occurs if man is not allowed to find his humanity or is dehumanized?’ he becomes an Object--something that is known and acted upon, rather than a Subject--someone who knows and acts. (Freire, p. 36) “And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate ‘things’… since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life--freedom.” (Freire, p. 59) The dehumanized become more like animals as they are treated like animals; they are beings living without freedom.
Freire in many places in this book compares and contrasts humans and animals. What differences then did Freire see between oppressed man and animals—both of which he considered to be uncompleted beings? What may be a reason that he made this comparison?
“Of the uncompleted beings, man is the only one to treat not only his actions but his very self as the object of his reflection; this capacity distinguishes him from the animals, which are unable to reflect upon it.” (Freire, p. 97) Reflection was key to Freire as it was part of what he called ‘praxis:’ a combination of action and reflection. Man can reflect upon many things, but animals react to the stimuli around them, they do not reflect upon these stimuli. My father had perfect pitch and could ‘reflect upon’ how a symphony would sound without ever actually (physically) “hearing” a note. Animals are incapable of such reflection; they are incapable of “thinking” about their environment (or configuration as Freire called it) (Freire, p. 99); they react to what is going on around them; they act only in the setting in which they find themselves.
Praxis was the activity by which man could transform the world and humanize it. Freire considered the world and action to be closely related, but for an action to be called human it must be linked to reflection. (Freire, p. 53) Linking liberation and praxis, Freire said “Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.” (Freire, p. 79) “Human beings are because they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it.” (Freire, p. 109)
Therefore, reflection was required for transformation as well since “to deny the importance of subjectivity in the process of transforming the world and history is naïve and simplistic. It is to admit the impossible: a world without people.” (Freire, p. 50)
Hence only man could liberate the oppressed, the oppressor and himself, as only he is capable of reflection, a necessary component of praxis. Animals are not capable of such action.
“I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.” (Freire, p. 125)
Animals are unable to decide for themselves. They react; they respond to stimuli as predisposed by the instinct of their species. They do not take risks. Theirs is a world without meaning. They do not set goals or objectives. They live only in the present. (Freire, p. 98)
“Animals do not ‘animalize’ their configuration in order to animalize themselves—nor do they ‘de-animalize” themselves or others…they are ‘beings-in-themselves’.” (Freire, p. 99) They merely find themselves in situations that stimulate them. Unfortunately, man is fully capable of dehumanizing others.
“ To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it… Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-reflection. (Freire, p. 88) Animals could be considered silent ones (also a term also used by Freire to refer to the oppressed) who cannot transform the world. Animals are not capable of true communication with other animals other than a limited set of audible communication means and various types of semaphore.
“Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings in the process of becoming –as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise unfinished reality. Indeed, in contrast to other animals who are unfinished, but not historical, people know themselves to be unfinished; they are aware of their incompletion. In this incompletion and this awareness lay the very roots of education as an exclusively human manifestation.” (Freire, p. 84)
Animals have no history, as all they have is the activity of the present. Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting that they cannot transcend; they are not beings becoming. Each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves. On the other hand, “people are fulfilled only to the extent that they create their world (which is a human world), and create it with their transforming labor.” (Freire, p. 145) Since animals cannot be liberated, they are never fulfilled; they remain uncompleted.
Human activity consists of action and reflection; it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. As praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human theory is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. “In the same way, the transformation of an animal is not development. The transformation of seeds and animals are determined by the species to which they belong; and they occur in a time, which does not belong to them, for time belongs to humankind.” (Freire, p. 161) Animals do not develop, they survive; they live in the present.
As stated previously, animals can communicate only to a certain extent. Freire believed communication to be critical for man’s success for if he cannot communicate, he is no better than a thing, an animal, or semihuman. (Freire, p. 128)
Why did Freire consider it important to compare humans to animals? One reason could be that he saw examples where the oppressed were not only being treated like animals or semihumans but that these people were starting to think and act like them as well. Were they in a sense becoming animals, creatures that could not be liberated; creatures that would remain unfulfilled and uncompleted?
Freire saw “Latin-American peasants, whose world usually ends at the boundaries of the latifundium, whose gestures to some extent simulate those of the animals and the trees, and who often them consider themselves equal to the latter.” (Freire, p. 174) He believed that “any attempt to treat people as semihumans only dehumanizes them.” (Freire, p.66) He was driven to help the oppressed break free of their bonds: to be liberated, to be humanized, and to not be animals or semihumans.
For these people to be liberated, they would need to cease thinking of themselves as semihumans or animals. They would need to be observant and brave enough to recognize that they are oppressed and dependent upon the oppressor. They would have to change their attitude from where they believed they had no power due to their station in life if they were to be humanized. (Freire, p. 47)
The first step was to recognize that they were oppressed and to realize that only through praxis, reflective action, can they be liberated or humanized. (Freire, p. 52) They had to quit acting like animals—being decisive, taking risks. They would have to speak out—no longer be the silent ones. They must be human reflecting upon their situation and reality, putting meaning in the world. They must be human making decisions, setting goals and objectives and not worrying about appeasing others. “Human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.” (Freire, p. 125)
Freire believed that the oppressed and oppressor could be liberated. It would just require revolutionary things to do it!
[1] (Freire, Paulo 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Co. p44, 85—from this point on will be denoted as “Freire, p. 44, p. 85”).
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation, 1993.
Thesis: The revolutionary process is dynamic, and it is in this continuing dynamics, in the praxis (reflection and action) of the people with the revolutionary leaders, that the people and the leaders will learn both dialogue and the use of power (dialogical action). Objectification vs subjectification/humanization - tension exists between power elites who view the people as conquered things that internalize the power elite (they lose their word, expressiveness, their culture), and revolutionary leaders who must remain in communion and openness to the people. (pp 133-134) Banking instruction (students are depositories) vs. problem posing learning (where the world is troubled in dialogue with teacher/students).
Criticism: Appears to ignore the human condition of revolutionary leaders and that power can corrupt them. He systematizes educating the people - does it work? Transformation is in the hands of the oppressed; they must teach their oppressors. Do oppressors give them an audience? Does it work?
Key thoughts: bread and circus to keep the people soft (Romans) - oppressors. "conscientizacao" awareness for transformation.
conscientizacao: through a true praxis, people leave behind the status of ojbects to assume the status of historical subjects. (p. 158)
Oppressed are kept out of history so they have no voice.
Through manipulation, the cominant elites can led the people into an unauthentic type of "organization," and can thus avoid the threatening alternative: the tru organization of the emerged and emerging people. The later have only two possibilities as they enter the historical processs: either they must organize authenticaly for their liberation, or they will be manipulated by the elites. Authentic organization is obviously not going to be stimulated by the dominators; it is the task of the revolutionary leaders. (p. 145)
The antidote to manipulation lies in a critically conscious revolutionary organization, which will pose to the people as problems their position in the historical process, the national reality, and manipulation itself. (p. 146)
...welfare programs as instruments of manipulation ultimately serve the end of conquest. they act as an anesthetic, distracting the oppressed from the true causes of their problems and from the concrete solution of these problems. They splinter the oppressed into groups of individuals hoping to get a few more benefits for themselves. This situation contains, however, a positive element: the individuals who recive some aid always want more; those wh do not receive aid, seeing the example of those who do, grow envious and also want assistance. Since the dominant elites cannot aid everyone, they end by increaing the restiveness of the oppressed. The revolutionary eladers should take advantage of the contradictions of manipulation by posing it as a problem to the oppressed, with the objective of organization them. (p. 149)
people who have been ground down by the concrete siutaion of oppression and domesticated by charity. (p. 155)
active subjects of the historical process (p. 156)
Deprived of their own power of decision, which is located in teh oppressor, they follow the prescriptions of the latter. the oppressed only begin to develop when, surmounting the contradiction in which they are caught, they become "beings for themselves." (p. 160)
And old Halula Paper
EDPL 348
Steve Halula
April 13, 2004
Man or Animal in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”
Paulo Freire (1921-1997), Brazilian philosopher and educator, in writing his Pedagogy of the Oppressed showed his capability of being insightful and at the same time being “incite-ful.” Freire believed that a philosopher, an educator and a revolutionary were the same. Since such thinking led him to be considered a threat to the rich and military classes of Brazil, he was exiled in 1964 from Brazil. (He later returned as Minister of Education!) This book, based on his experiences, shows Freire’s views and philosophy of modern society.
Freire believed the vocation of man is to ‘be human’ or to find one’s humanity: the process of humanization.[1] Humanization comes to fruition by way of man’s liberation from oppression (and the liberation of the oppressors themselves, an essay topic of its own) that brings about the building of a culture that will allow men to become “beings for themselves” or to be humanized (Freire, p. 74, p. 161)
To reiterate, the means to humanization is the gaining of freedom or being liberated. “Liberation, a human phenomenon, cannot be achieved by semihumans. (Freire, p. 66) In other words, only man can accomplish liberation, and furthermore, if man is not liberated so that he can find his humanity, he is dehumanized. With his humanity being taken away, he lives an existence of a semihuman, an uncompleted being, or an animal (Freire, p.44).
Continuing with the question, ‘what then occurs if man is not allowed to find his humanity or is dehumanized?’ he becomes an Object--something that is known and acted upon, rather than a Subject--someone who knows and acts. (Freire, p. 36) “And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate ‘things’… since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life--freedom.” (Freire, p. 59) The dehumanized become more like animals as they are treated like animals; they are beings living without freedom.
Freire in many places in this book compares and contrasts humans and animals. What differences then did Freire see between oppressed man and animals—both of which he considered to be uncompleted beings? What may be a reason that he made this comparison?
“Of the uncompleted beings, man is the only one to treat not only his actions but his very self as the object of his reflection; this capacity distinguishes him from the animals, which are unable to reflect upon it.” (Freire, p. 97) Reflection was key to Freire as it was part of what he called ‘praxis:’ a combination of action and reflection. Man can reflect upon many things, but animals react to the stimuli around them, they do not reflect upon these stimuli. My father had perfect pitch and could ‘reflect upon’ how a symphony would sound without ever actually (physically) “hearing” a note. Animals are incapable of such reflection; they are incapable of “thinking” about their environment (or configuration as Freire called it) (Freire, p. 99); they react to what is going on around them; they act only in the setting in which they find themselves.
Praxis was the activity by which man could transform the world and humanize it. Freire considered the world and action to be closely related, but for an action to be called human it must be linked to reflection. (Freire, p. 53) Linking liberation and praxis, Freire said “Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.” (Freire, p. 79) “Human beings are because they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it.” (Freire, p. 109)
Therefore, reflection was required for transformation as well since “to deny the importance of subjectivity in the process of transforming the world and history is naïve and simplistic. It is to admit the impossible: a world without people.” (Freire, p. 50)
Hence only man could liberate the oppressed, the oppressor and himself, as only he is capable of reflection, a necessary component of praxis. Animals are not capable of such action.
“I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.” (Freire, p. 125)
Animals are unable to decide for themselves. They react; they respond to stimuli as predisposed by the instinct of their species. They do not take risks. Theirs is a world without meaning. They do not set goals or objectives. They live only in the present. (Freire, p. 98)
“Animals do not ‘animalize’ their configuration in order to animalize themselves—nor do they ‘de-animalize” themselves or others…they are ‘beings-in-themselves’.” (Freire, p. 99) They merely find themselves in situations that stimulate them. Unfortunately, man is fully capable of dehumanizing others.
“ To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it… Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-reflection. (Freire, p. 88) Animals could be considered silent ones (also a term also used by Freire to refer to the oppressed) who cannot transform the world. Animals are not capable of true communication with other animals other than a limited set of audible communication means and various types of semaphore.
“Problem-posing education affirms men and women as beings in the process of becoming –as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise unfinished reality. Indeed, in contrast to other animals who are unfinished, but not historical, people know themselves to be unfinished; they are aware of their incompletion. In this incompletion and this awareness lay the very roots of education as an exclusively human manifestation.” (Freire, p. 84)
Animals have no history, as all they have is the activity of the present. Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting that they cannot transcend; they are not beings becoming. Each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves. On the other hand, “people are fulfilled only to the extent that they create their world (which is a human world), and create it with their transforming labor.” (Freire, p. 145) Since animals cannot be liberated, they are never fulfilled; they remain uncompleted.
Human activity consists of action and reflection; it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. As praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human theory is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. “In the same way, the transformation of an animal is not development. The transformation of seeds and animals are determined by the species to which they belong; and they occur in a time, which does not belong to them, for time belongs to humankind.” (Freire, p. 161) Animals do not develop, they survive; they live in the present.
As stated previously, animals can communicate only to a certain extent. Freire believed communication to be critical for man’s success for if he cannot communicate, he is no better than a thing, an animal, or semihuman. (Freire, p. 128)
Why did Freire consider it important to compare humans to animals? One reason could be that he saw examples where the oppressed were not only being treated like animals or semihumans but that these people were starting to think and act like them as well. Were they in a sense becoming animals, creatures that could not be liberated; creatures that would remain unfulfilled and uncompleted?
Freire saw “Latin-American peasants, whose world usually ends at the boundaries of the latifundium, whose gestures to some extent simulate those of the animals and the trees, and who often them consider themselves equal to the latter.” (Freire, p. 174) He believed that “any attempt to treat people as semihumans only dehumanizes them.” (Freire, p.66) He was driven to help the oppressed break free of their bonds: to be liberated, to be humanized, and to not be animals or semihumans.
For these people to be liberated, they would need to cease thinking of themselves as semihumans or animals. They would need to be observant and brave enough to recognize that they are oppressed and dependent upon the oppressor. They would have to change their attitude from where they believed they had no power due to their station in life if they were to be humanized. (Freire, p. 47)
The first step was to recognize that they were oppressed and to realize that only through praxis, reflective action, can they be liberated or humanized. (Freire, p. 52) They had to quit acting like animals—being decisive, taking risks. They would have to speak out—no longer be the silent ones. They must be human reflecting upon their situation and reality, putting meaning in the world. They must be human making decisions, setting goals and objectives and not worrying about appeasing others. “Human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.” (Freire, p. 125)
Freire believed that the oppressed and oppressor could be liberated. It would just require revolutionary things to do it!
[1] (Freire, Paulo 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Co. p44, 85—from this point on will be denoted as “Freire, p. 44, p. 85”).