Pedagogy of the Oppressed-2

Okay, I'll just write a new post, instead of augmenting the first one. I finished the essay yesterday, and I think it came out quite good! I will even go as far as to say that I like it, which is something I rarely say about my papers. I think one of the reasons is that I was taking some copious notes, and they ended up really helping me to focus my thoughts. Also, the essay guidelines were very helpful, especially the part with the three structural approaches. I find it rather difficult to come up with a good structure for my papers so having the three options broken down helped a lot.

Freire really did come up with a revolutionary perspective on learning. He hit the nail on the head with the concept of "banking" education, and I wonder if this kind of education is still perpetuated in contemporary schools. It's true, the students are encouraged to "think critically" but from what I heard during our class discussions, there are students who enter college lacking some basic writing skills, not to mention critical thinking. Why is this happening? Is there REALLY a secret plot aimed at dumbing the humanity down so it would be easier to control and manipulate it? This is just too depressing to think about. In chapter 1 Freire talks about dehumanization which he claims both the oppressor and the oppressed suffer from. He defines it as "a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human" (26), and earlier he says that we all as human beings strive to become more human, that this should be our ultimate goal in life. I keep wondering how this could be achieved... education seems to be the most logical path, as long as it is not a "banking" education. I almost feel that the non-Western concepts that I discussed earlier, are better suited for that purpose of the "betterment" of oneself because learning there is not motivated by drive to succeed or other materialistic desires. It's almost as if knowledge is obtained for the sake of knowing. I wonder if Freire would agree with this perspective... his model of education is definitely more proactive, the goal of learning being social emancipation through praxis, reflection combined with action.

Before I forget, I wanted to mention something that threw me off a little while I was reading the first few chapters. Freire's concept is most definitely political. It is aimed at redefining the existing social order, where the oppressed are aided in their struggle for freedom by the revolutionary educators. I could not help but to draw parallels with the Russian Revolution of 1917. The premise was somewhat similar: there was an oppressed working class along with the peasants, and there was the "revolutionary vanguard" who was tired of the existing regime. They also exercised the notion of praxis, and where did it lead them? The existing regime was overthrown, and the country was plunged into a bloody Civil War, along with a horrific famine. Then collectivization followed, forcing the peasants to part with parts of their possessions in favor of the collective. I can go on and on about this but I'd rather go back to Freire and his ideas. Somewhere in chapter 3, I got it. The Russian revolutionaries were exercising the "banking" system of education! If they had taken their time to REALLY educate the peasants and the working class, like the educators in Brazil did, things could have turned out way differently. Maybe the Civil War and the famine could have been prevented. The "revolutionary vanguard", however class-conscious and progressive it was, still regarded the peasants and the working class as objects, as tools that were to be used to achieve their goal. Oh well.... you reap what you sow, as they say.

Now that I got this out of my system, I can make some conclusions. It seems that Freire's philosophy could work only if the educators are willing to, first, take their time in educating the oppressed, and second, to see the world with their eyes. I almost want to say that this would constitute an act of love (and it probably will, in some sense) but I think Freire had something else in mind when he was talking about love. In one instance, he is talking about an individual oppressor taking the side of the oppressed and fighting with them. The individual oppressor stops "making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love. True solidarity is found only in the plentitude of this act of love, in its existentiality, in its praxis. To affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce" (32).  An act of love can also be found in the struggle of the oppressed to restore their humanity, as during this fight they not only restore their own humanity, but that of their oppressors as well, since by dehumanizing the oppressed, the oppressors dehumanize themselves as well. Pretty cool, huh?