Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 3

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 3

Chapter three of Freire’s work is essentially two parts: part one begins with a focus on the words that are the foundation of dialogue, leading into how dialogue creates themes in which humans interact with the world.  Part two of this chapter is an example of a collection of guidelines for developing these themes and how to proceed in establishing a viable learning environment for the oppressed.

Part One

            Dialogue is a form of communication.  It is a strategy that employs words to convey and express needs and information between two or more humans.  Words have two components, reflection and action, that create a radical interaction; thus they are considered true words.  Freire asserts, “to speak true words is to transform the world” (p. 87).  If words used in dialogue do not embody reflection and action, they are idle chatter; empty and useless to implement change.  Empty words cannot denounce the world and thus support transformation, and there is no transformation without reflection and action. For people to speak true words and engage in true dialogue is the right of everyone.  For genuine dialogue to occur, it must be authentic and accomplished by someone, not for someone.  According to Freire, “dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person’s ‘depositing’ ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by the discussants” (p. 89).

            Freire continues his case for the importance of dialogue in the transformation of the world and thus the liberation of the oppressed.  His perspective includes humanist qualities of compassion, commitment, and love for others as attributes dialogue must contain in order for it to be meaningful.  ‘Love’ is not sentimental but must generate acts of freedom for all oppressed people in order for it to be a characteristic worthy of transformational dialogue. There also exists humility and faith in human kind contained in dialogue for meaningful transformation to occur. From all these qualities, mutual trust will develop.  In a banking model of education, one where information is deposited in students, the quality of trust is absent. Finally, within education, dialogue must incorporate critical thinking of all participants.  This line of cognition is dynamic.  Communication is important to true education.

            Authentic education is therefore carried on by the teacher with the student when true dialogue is implemented.  Teachers must ask themselves what they will dialogue with the students about. Freire points out that educators cannot go to the laborers with a banking style of education to deposit knowledge or impose upon them the notion of a “good man” based on the conclusions of the oppressors. “Many political and educational plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality…” (p. 94).  Leaders and educators must use the language of the oppressed so that they may dialogue with them to learn from them.

            Freire next offers the concept of themes in education, which can be as tools to liberate the oppressed.  Generative themes are the components of the thematic universe of all peoples and these themes arise from dialogue.  Generative themes are educational, political, or social topics important to the people whom they affect.   These themes are important because, as humans, people have an historical existence and therefore can work to alter their world.  Freire also describes limit situations within these themes.  These limit-situations are identified as obstacles to ones’ liberation. People need to use the resources revealed through dialogue to work to surmount these limits.

These themes and an understanding of them give people a perspective of their reality. Themes exist when people interact with their world with reference to concrete facts, with generative themes intersecting and creating a thematic universe. Freire explains, “To apprehend these themes and to understand them is to understand both the people which embody them and the reality to which they refer” (p. 107). Once the reality is understood and recognized, people can begin to dialogue and work to liberate themselves and thus end oppression.

In problem-posing educational situations, Freire asserts that the students’ view of the world is what organizes the structure and creates the generative themes to be appraised.  Through dialogical methods, teachers must work to “re-present” the universe revealed to the makers of that universe as a problem, not as a lecture to “deposit” information to the students.

Part Two

            In the second half of Freire’s chapter three, he provides an example of how to structure an adult education program.  This model is for a literacy campaign with a post-literacy stage to address the illiteracy rates of a group of adults. It begins with the need to form a generative word that will be the focal point of the generative theme. Detailed and complete descriptions are given for each step in this crusade, and support much of what Freire has presented in his first two chapters.

The first stage is one where the investigators identify the area or group of constituents the campaign will address and the items which need to be explored.  Objectives of the investigators must also be acknowledged, along with any difficulties and risks that may be encountered. Investigators should maintain a position of sympathetic observer while continuing to build understanding of the participants; they must disclose to the members of the group to be taught their intentions. This is done through informal dialogue between all participants. During this initial contact, there must be an establishment of mutual trust and understanding.  Once a positive platform has been created, investigators must seek volunteers among the group participants to become active assistants in the entire endeavor.

When establishing the criteria for the project, it is imperative that investigators chronicle every aspect of life in the area including the language used by the people: their expressions, vocabulary, syntax, and especially how they construct their thoughts.  This act of recording daily life should be shared by each investigator with others. True dialogue will develop from the shared awareness, and there may even be an opportunity to organize program content at this early stage.

During the second stage, Freire describes the evolution of codification and how it is used for thematic investigation.  These codifications must be familiar to the people whose themes are being examined so they can relate to them and participate in establishing the process of recognition of their own reality.  Codifications should not be too general or too explicit and “should be simple in their complexity and offer various decoding possibilities in order to avoid the brainwashing tendencies of propaganda” (p. 115).  There should also be opportunities for codifications to expand in the direction of other themes.  By employing the true thoughts and language of the participants, engaging them will be less of a struggle. From this process, materials for the campaign can be prepared to be implemented.

Stage three of the undertaking includes investigators returning to the people and conducting taped discussions decoding the prepared material in what Freire calls thematic investigation circles.  These discussions should be recorded for an opportunity for examination by the team, offering them a chance to reflect on the project as a whole and their own view of their own reality.  This process can assist with the investigators remaining objective and not revert to the role of oppressor.  Not only do all participants need an objective perception of the situation, but their actions must assist in the struggle of people against the obstacles to their humanization.

The final stage Freire describes is where the investigators commence a systematic interdisciplinary study of their findings.  He suggests that information gathered be classified into various categories of social sciences.  These classifications should not be seen as the end of the investigation, but as general themes that are interrelated at many levels. These themes are never approached rigidly, in isolation, but considered in the reality of the people.  After all the materials have been explored and discussed, the identified themes which have come from the people are returned to them, not as deposits in a banking education situation but as problems to be solved.  At this point, the post-literacy stage and the education of the group of people can begin. Freire asserts that with libertarian education, the people come to “feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and views of the world explicitly or implicitly” (p. 124).

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 3 Reaction

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 3

Reaction

            Dialogue is a crucial form of communication. The words we choose to convey information or feelings or ideas are just as important as how we get those words to another. As I read Freire, I find that his position makes so much sense.  What his writing makes me think about is the listening or receiving part of communication. These days we seem to get so caught up in the words being spoken or the manner in which they are delivered, and we overlook the receivers’ process of interpreting those exact words. 

Freire states, “If it is in speaking their word that people, by naming the world, transform it, dialogue imposes itself as the way by which they achieve significance as human beings” (p.88), and it makes me think about the reciprocal side of the communication—the person or people for which the message was intended.  It seems as though the receiver of spoken (or written) dialogue is not as prevalent in Freire’s position as it should be.  Perhaps he is assuming that dialogue intrinsically allows for a receiver, yet it seems that the role of receiver is not as responsible for the transformation of the human condition as a speaker’s role might be.

I do agree—always have—with Freire in that we cannot “deposit” information to students.  We (educators) must explore the what and the why of lessons to be taught and how students will access learning.  I have always questioned the seeming rational of “the students need to fit or meet the curriculum”.  My big question has been “why can’t the curriculum be written to fit the needs of the students”?  We work with humans and on any given day, at any given time, they are going to react and process information in ways educators cannot predict.  Curriculum details can and should be dynamic to address the needs of both the students and the teachers.

In reading chapter three, I did appreciate how Freire provided a detailed example of how an educational program could be set up based on his position on oppression.  For my learning and understanding, it helped to have a step-by-step process outlined.  However, reflecting on what he did present, I had a few thoughts:  one thought was that this process would be incredibly difficult to replicate in our country. It would take a major paradigm shift at all levels of education, politics, and society to even accept that there is oppression, let alone a strategy to overcome it.

And the more I read, the more I realize that Freire spirals around his position, restating and reasserting points.  In his position on dialogue and that any generative words or themes need to come from language of the people who are the “learners”, Freire, it seems, does not ascribe to his own argument.  If he truly was trying to inform educators, his language and points need to be presented in a manner assessable by his audience. The writing seems erudite and possibly beyond the reach of the ones who can support his position the most.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 2

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 2

Problem in Education

The main focus of the second chapter of Freire’s work is educational systems and the teacher-student relationship.  This relationship between the Subject (teacher) and the student (object) is one that perpetuates the oppression model.  According to Freire, teachers narrate content to students with no opportunity for students to react or respond other than reiterate and duplicate material.  Even the content presented to students is “detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance” (p. 71).  Students repeat facts or situations given to them without even knowing what the facts mean or represent. As objects, students memorize the narrated content and become receptacles that teachers fill rather than engage.  Thus education becomes the act of depositing information. 

Freire maintains that there are distinctions regarding the process with which students are educated.  The teacher does; the student is done to.  The teacher is the possessor of knowledge; the student has no knowledge to contribute. The teacher thinks; the student is thought about.  The teacher is the Subject of learning; the students are only objects of learning.  Teachers and others in powerful positions project ignorance onto others, a quality of oppression, and negate education and the process of inquiry as a means of demonstrating knowledge.  Freire labels this approach as the banking model of education.  He asserts that this model is oppressive in that it annuls students’ creative powers, thus relegating students to being objects of oppression.  The more students memorize, the less they develop critical consciousness and do not intercede to transform their world.  On the part of the oppressed, thinking is stopped and there is no questioning of the processes of learning.

Within the banking method of education, there are two stages.  The first involves teachers and their consideration of what to teach.  Many times, this content is given to the teacher by other oppressors. The only thinking about the content as lessons are prepared, is done by the teacher on his or her own.  The second stage occurs when the teacher presents the content to students, deficient of thought or input from the students on the matter or even what material is important to demonstrate.  Freire maintains that “in the name of the ‘preservation of culture and knowledge’ we have a system which achieves neither true knowledge nor true culture” (p. 80).  When people and their own thoughts and intelligence are not considered in educational processes, they are alienated as human beings, void of decision-making and transformed them into objects.

Throughout chapter two, Freire reiterates the assertion that the actions of the oppressors, no matter their intentions, continue to oppress others.  He states that the oppressed are seen as a pathology of healthy society and that one strategy to manage this pathology is to use the banking concept of education so that the oppressed are integrated and incorporated into a suitable social order.

Solution for Education

According to Freire, the solution is not to integrate the oppressed into the structure of society but to encourage them to transform the structure “so that they become beings for themselves” (p. 74). In a problem-posing educational method, material for consideration is presented to students who reexamine it and present their own considerations. Teachers also engage or are invited to participate in the consideration of the material and to consider their own position.  Once the participants understand and acknowledge their reality and see that reality is a process undergoing constant transformation, for them humanization will occur.  They will not merely be in the world, but with the world and others. The transformation cannot be through oppressive measures such as violence, but must be conducted utilizing dialogue between the oppressed and those who support them in solidarity. In an educational setting, the teacher cannot think for the students nor impose thoughts on them.  The teacher must encourage and support students by thinking with them. Education must become an act of inquiry on the part of both the Subject and the object.  To begin this process, there must be a solution of the teacher-student contradiction by repositioning participants to work on inventing and reinventing knowledge.  Students and teachers must learn about the world with each other and the world.  Teachers must reject the role of the person who teaches and become a learner and engage in dialogue with students, allowing themselves to continue to be taught.

To achieve this transformation, Freire states that those truly committed to the liberation of the oppressed must replace the educational system of banking concept with a system that creates and maintains problem-posing educational practices that involve a constant unveiling of reality. He reinforces this point by delineating the conflict of these two educational concepts.  Banking education considers students objects in need of intervention whereas problem-posing makes students critical thinkers. Banking education conceals certain facts that may describe how humans are in the world, while problem-posing education illuminates the realities of humanity.  Banking education is a one-sided discussion imparted to students whereas problem-posting utilizes dialogue to encourage thinking on the part of all participants.  In totality, “banking theory and practice…fail to acknowledge men and women as historical beings; problem-posing theory and practice take the people’s historicity as their starting point” (p.84). Through problem-posing educational practices, the world of the oppressed becomes the point of transforming action by the oppressed that results in their humanization.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 2 Reaction

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 2

Reaction

            When I read Paulo Freire’s work, I am struck by how relevant it is to our current educational system, 40 years after its publication.  Chapter 2 was much easier for me to process than chapter one in that it addresses much of what I have experienced in the field of education.  There are many instances where students are expected to incorporate someone else’s idea of what is important to learning.  My experience is marked by what I have to teach and what my students bring to the classroom that they are interested in learning.

            One concept that settled in my mind was that of the semantics and pragmatics of what is taught and what is learned.  It seems as though Freire addresses the periphery of the origin of oppression of students as well as what should be done to rectify, in general, the oppression. However, he seems to only touch on how to attend to the meaning of what is taught and what, specifically, should be presented to students. 

I am processing this from my perspective as an elementary school teacher who has worked in mostly middle-class schools.  The issue of oppression, in the broadest sense, has not been forefront on my mind, but I have had students that have made me consider the why and what I teach where they are concerned.  For me, the reading of Freire’s work has caused me to reflect on my own position of the semantics and pragmatics of the structure of my classroom. What space do I create to allow students’ input to their education?  How do I encourage them to explore beyond the set curriculum?  How do I support them in “considering possibilities not thought of by their parents”, as Elliot Eisner once stated? Do I feel I am in this position to rescue or liberate?  I don’t have answers to these questions, but I need to keep them in mind.

As I began processing the information from this chapter, a scene from a story I read to my students came to mind.  It is from the book The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster. In it, the protagonist laments that there is so much information to learn. Another character states that it isn’t the learning that is important but learning what to do with what you learn and why is what makes a difference.

Not focusing on what to do with information and why it is needed is what is lacking in our current educational system.  There is rhetoric from those in education who insist that students are taught and held accountable for understanding and applying what is learned in the classroom.  True understanding and application of information are difficult to measure and are not “tested”, and testing is the current gauge of success in most classrooms and schools. There is no dialogue with students as to whether or not the information is pertinent to them and their needs. I suppose that is oppression, and where some are oppressed, there is little freedom or liberation for all.

Forty years after Freire’s work, it seems as though the means to initiate change in our educational system is still in the control of the oppressors.  Many teachers as well as students could be labeled oppressed in that they lack the freedom to choose and construct a new framework for teaching students. There are few people who will begin a dialogue in order to enact change, and it seems that not only educational structures but societal and political venues are lacking in seeing oppression in any given classroom.  The need for change is critical, yet the educational climate is controlled by the oppressors with little chance of them renouncing any control or power.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter One Reaction

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 1

Reaction

NOTE:  I have begun to read a more recent publication of Pedagogy of the Oppressed partially due to adjustments by the translator to the text.  The translator is the same, yet the text seems more manageable to me.

Oppression.  Being a middle-class, educated, White woman, it is something I have only explored on the periphery of my own experience. Knowing that there are people in society who are dehumanized and oppressed is not new information to me.  However, I realize the need to more deeply examine oppression due to my frustration with situations that impact society and education specifically.

In reading Freire, there are issues he addresses with which I completely agree.  I recognize that the cycle of oppression continues because of a lack of change in the framework of how societal situations function.  Dehumanization of all people is the main focus of Freire’s theory. Oppressors have lost their humanity because they have lost their compassion, understanding, and empathy. It seems those in control do not want to alter the functions of society, possibly because they may lose their oppressive position. There is comfort of all people impacted in relying on the status quo. This consolation of participants has been very evident in education.  It seems as though the students are to continue to rely on what the teachers impart to them, and the teachers seem to rely on what the “experts” pronounce to be appropriate instruction for students.  The issue for exploration would be to examine at what point students are given the power to lead instruction. 

Freire doesn’t seem to specifically mention human nature, but his work has led me to consider three different types of human interactions in our world.  There are those who take advantage—the oppressors; those of whom are taken advantage—the oppressed; and those who are in a position to advocate for the oppressed.  This last group of people is a small minority of people.  In our history, we can list the names of influential advocates and even build monuments to them. But I stop to think about all those who are not recognized because of the oppressive environment of our global community.  In education specifically, reformers seem to want to impose changes to the system rather than work with people directly impacted by the structure.  What needs to occur is those advocates need to begin and continue dialogues with one another and the oppressed.

            As I continue to read Freire, I find myself looking to current global examples of oppression and society’s response.  In the 40+ years that Pedagogy of the Oppressed has been in circulation, there has been little change in the methods of or the response to oppression. Being participants in the world in general, and education specifically, individuals need to recognize that if change is going to make a difference for the liberation of all, there must be a shift in the current frameworks.  Exploration of how to enact these shifts is crucial to conquering the oppressed’s fear of freedom. 

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter One Summary

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Paulo Freire

© 2011

Translation by Myra Bergman Ramos

Chapter 1

Humanization and Dehumanization

Freire weaves the concept of humanization throughout the majority of chapter 1.  Humanity includes qualities that make us human such as understanding, freedom, and integrity.  Freire stresses the point that not only do people need to demonstrate those qualities toward others, but also toward themselves. He mentions that in order to recognize humanization, we must also acknowledge dehumanization.  With dehumanization, a person’s humanity has been stolen; thus that person has become oppressed. For oppressors, to be is to have and constant control over the oppressed is what they need to have. People who oppress others see these oppressed people as things or objects, not humans to be treated with integrity. Oppressors also feel the oppressed are in their situation because they are “lazy” and ungrateful to the generous overtures offered by the elitist class.

However, Freire also recognizes that those who steal the humanity of others are themselves dehumanized through “an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors” (p. 44).  As the oppressors engage in oppression, they violate the rights of others and they themselves also become dehumanized. To restore the humanity of both, the oppressed must struggle to change their situation but must not become oppressors in the process.

Oppressed become Oppressors?

Why don’t the oppressed do anything to change their situation?  Freire mentions the feeling of the “fear of freedom” (p. 46) that many of the oppressed possess.  This fear prohibits the oppressed from being proactive regarding their situation partially because they have adopted the guidelines of their oppressor.  Freire goes on to state that “Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly” (p. 47).  The oppressed have become accustomed to the structure of domination of the oppressors and have become resigned to it. In order to overcome the oppression, the oppressed must work together. Freire points out that the oppressed “prefer the security of conformity” (p. 48) over the action needed to pursue liberation.  That is where the need for pedagogy—learning a new strategy to overcome the injustices frequented upon them and others like them—is necessary. 

However, the caution of the oppressed of becoming oppressors is emphasized by Freire in that oppression is what has been modeled for them as a structural situation. Identifying with those who keep them subjugated, the oppressed risk not changing the structure of the situation for all oppressed but working to liberate only themselves.  This individualistic focus will do nothing to change the cycle of oppression.

Where to begin to liberate the oppressed

            Freire’s text offers some aspects of what should occur in order to free the oppressed.  He stresses that a pedagogy must be forged with the oppressed and not for them.  According to Freire, the central problem is that the oppressed must participate in the development of the pedagogy of their own liberation.  As long as the oppressed view the process of liberation through the structure of how their situation is currently organized, they cannot contribute to the pedagogy of change.

There are two stages to this humanist and libertarian pedagogy in which the oppressed must participate. The first is to recognize the structure and its components of oppression and to commit to the transformation of the structure.  So as not to maintain the model for which the structure has been originally created by oppressors, the oppressed must confront their perception of their world.  They must surmount their fear of freedom and begin to be proactive about changing the components of oppression for all, not just individuals. The second stage, once the reality of oppression has been transformed, involves relinquishing the pedagogy so that it becomes a pedagogy for all people in the process of permanent liberation. Once the “expulsion of the myths created and developed in the old order” (p. 55) has been enacted, the oppressed can begin to embrace freedom. These two stages are essential to Freire’s theory because “as long as the oppressed remain unaware of the cause of their condition, they fatalistically ‘accept’ their exploitation” (p. 64).

            Freire details how the development of pedagogy should progress.  He states that reflection is essential to action.  One must first reflect upon and ponder the circumstances in which one finds him or her self.  The action taken must be carefully considered for all people who will be impacted by this pedagogy.  The progress should involve dialogue and avoid violence in any fashion. Action and dialogue must come from the oppressed with consideration of oppressors who may recognize and align themselves with the pedagogy.  Again, there must be proceedings in which liberation is the focus and not the possibility of the oppressed becoming the oppressors.