Aubrey Mikaela D.

Joson IV-9 BSSE

Prof. Rowena Hibanada
Book review to Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

Oppression is dehumanization. Any act of oppression aims to dehumanize people. Ironic

that oppression is a negative term but it seems that for the oppressed, oppression is abstract. Both
the oppressors and the oppressed do not see that the status quo, system, process and structure are
dehumanizing them. Being unconscious of the reality and being unable to figure out what the
problems are, are the main struggle of oppression. Not knowing allows oppression to continue and
worst to be even stronger. Even so, I admired how Freire formulated solutions to it. He suggested
that it has stages:

(1) the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves
to its transformation, (2) second stage, in which the reality of oppression has already been
transformed, this pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed and becomes a pedagogy of
all people in the process of permanent liberation.

Developers of this pedagogy towards liberation are the one who recognize, or begin to recognize
themselves as oppressed. Once this stages are done, liberation of the oppressed can be attained for
liberation is the only way to be fully human. The premise seemed simple and easy, isn’t it?
However, questions started to popped on my mind such as, how can it start? Where can it start?
Who will start it? Then, turning the next 60 pages told me the answer. Education is the best way
to do it. I realized that this is by far the most meaningful piece I have read that is connected at
my current context and situation as a future teacher. Oppressors are wise, they manipulate, they
deceive, they lie, they fake, they oppress, they owns power, they legitimize violence, they are
influential—but like the oppressed, they are dehumanized, they are trapped, they are boxed to a
false consciousness. Oppressed are scared, they are dependent, they are weak (but they are not
powerless), they are submissive, they are pacified, they are silenced, they are deceived, they are
deprived of being a fully human. Towards the end, it is revealed how dialogue can reconcile
conflicting poles of the oppressors and the oppressed. For many reasons, I do not know but I found
dialogue as a very meaningful word maybe because it represents mutuality.

After reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed I became hopeful for the society, for my country
and for our world. It is too idealistic? For me, yes, but nothing is impossible. I believe that humans
have the capability to change the world as Freire said, humans are not detached from the world
and the former and the latter are not dichotomous rather they are interconnected for humans must
interact with the world. Because of this, we should see reality in the world we live in, not false
reality but true reality that will enable us to the first step of emancipation towards transformation.
Note: Pardon me for using words like oppressed, oppressors, reality, critical, transform, praxis,
education, teachers, students, dialogue and etc repeatedly—for this is the essence of the book and
I do not want to use alternative words to describe what I am trying to convey. I do not want to look
conceited and arrogant just because I am able to write a hifalutin paper but I just wanted to feel
satisfied and fulfilled that I was able to understand its essence and (hopefully) to put it action as
soon as now (after writing this down). Thank you. 

For chapter one, Freire explicated the roots of oppression, the contradicting relationship of
the oppressed and the oppressor, how it is overcome and how to be liberated from it. It is said that
liberation is not only for the oppressed but for the oppressors as well. The bottom-line of chapter
one is, who suffers the effects of oppression? No one more than the oppressed. Liberation through
praxis is the way for the oppressed to recognize the necessity to fight for it. However, for many
reasons, the oppressed was deprived to do it. (1) They suffer from false consciousness that
everything oppressors do are correct and admirable [it is called self-depreciation], (2) they see the
oppressor as a model of manhood and in return they want to be oppressors too, (3) they fear
freedom because their behaviors are prescribed by the oppressors, (4) security of conformity;
therefore limiting themselves to validate their own thought with fellow oppressed or comrades.

“In order for the oppressed to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation, they must
perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed world from which there is no exit, but as
a limiting situation which they can transform” .

Thus, social reality itself is a product of human action we can therefore transform it (when
reality is perceived to be oppressive) through praxis; reflection and action upon the world in order
to transform it. However, the mere perception of the reality is not enough, it should be followed
by critical intervention so that it will lead to transformation. On the other hand, oppressors
definitely do not like this idea, they think that it will not serve their interests so for any cost they
will make moves to continue deceiving, abusing, depriving the oppressed. They will pacify the
oppressed so that the oppressed will continue to be blind and passive. Oppressors love to dominate
because their reality is built by their own egoistic interest that only benefit and comforts their
selves. This is why even Freire rejected the idea that oppressors can join the oppressed and help
them liberate (for the reasons that the oppressors have a different orientation in life, they are mostly
profit driven and insensitive). The liberation must be done by the oppressed by having liberating
and critical dialogue that presupposes action. The oppressed need to have revolutionary leaders
but oppressed must never think that liberation is a gift by the former but it is the result of their
conscientization.1

“A revolutionary leadership must accordingly practice co-intentional education.

Teachers and students (leadership and people), co-intent on reality, are both Subjects, not

1 The process of developing a critical awareness of one’s social reality through reflection and
action. Action is fundamental because it is the process of changing the reality. Paulo Freire says that we
all acquire social myths which have a dominant tendency, and so learning is a critical process which
depends upon uncovering real problems and actual needs.
http://www.freire.org/component/easytagcloud/118-module/conscientization/ (Accessed August 23,2017)
 only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby coming to know it critically, but in
the task of re-creating that knowledge. As they attain this knowledge of reality through
common reflection and action, they discover themselves as it£ permanent re-creators. In
this way, the presence of the oppressed in the struggle for their liberation will be what it
should be: not pseudo-participation, but committed involvement”.

Chapter two is my favorite chapter among the four chapters. Revolutionary leadership of
the oppressed can be explained further by a careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship.
Freire’s explication on this matter amplified teacher-student relationship, how they can have a
fruitful learning experience and how can they be liberated. The Banking Concept of education as
Freire refer is the

“Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories
and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques
and makes de-posits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat… in which
the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and
storing the deposit”

Banking Concept of Education blocks critical thinking because teachers only become the
depositors and students become containers waiting to be filled up. When it is a teacher-centered
education, students become alienated because learning is disconnected in their existential life thus
they are detach in reality. For me, this is very dangerous, in the end, students will never see the
necessity to transform reality and will never see the need to be liberated (because obviously this
kind of education does not teach them the roots of oppression and its effects to them). Students
become passive recipient of knowledge in which they do not see any significance in their lives,
they do not construct their own knowledge and learning. In short, banking concept is spoon-
feeding and is far from being constructive. “The solution is not to "integrate" them into the
structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for
themselves”, however the oppressed will not know this for the reason that oppressors use banking
concept to avoid conscientization of the oppressed. Oppressors do not want the oppressed to be
conscious of their reality. I hope teachers are not ally of the oppressors, once they become
oppressor, the very purpose of education becomes useless—practice of freedom. Also, a humanist
revolutionary educator encourage his/her students to engage in critical thinking and be partners
instead of treating them as subordinates (education is not about domination, ito ay dapat na
mapagpalaya). Freire suggested that Problem-Posing Education will help both the teachers and
students through liberation.

They must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it with the posing
of the problems of human beings in their relations with the world. "Problem-posing"
education, responding to the essence of consciousness—intentionality—rejects
communiques and embodies communication.
 Problem-posing encourage dialogue between teacher and students so that both will have a
constructive learning experience going to humanization. Both are responsible for all the process
in which they both grow—in this, education does not support oppression. Teachers authority must
be on the side of freedom and should never be against it. How enlightening, teachers must not use
their authority to oppress their students but instead they must be on the side of it. Unfortunately,
only few educators (few that I can count them on the fingers of one hand) embody this, most of
them were quite oppressive. I hope that I will not be like them. I will try my best to reach out for
dialogues and as much as possible be just, democratic and constructive. I hope my future students
will understand our struggle (like the quotation below) for we are all oppressed.

“…people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with
which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality,
but as a reality in process, in transformation”

Chapter three and four are the further discussion of chapter two. Dialogues and the essence
of education (and its content) as the practice of freedom. While chapter four explains, antidialogics
and dialogics as matrices of opposing theories of cultural action in which antidialogics is an
instrument of oppression and dialogics as an instrument of liberation. Freire suggested, to have a
true liberation, each should have dialogue because according to him,
"Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking.
Without dialogue there is no communication and without communication there can be no true
education”. Thus, one of the important factor to make all this happen is, communication.
Communication with others with the same or common reality, self awareness and educational
practices. Understanding this so called generative themes will allow people to investigate and
communicate to solve problem and transform on what we see as oppressive in the society.
Going back, we already know that the ultimate goal of the oppressors is to dominate. They
undermine the ability of the oppressed to critically think because they know that once the
oppressed is enlightened, they think that they will just evaporate from the face of the earth. As
Freire put it in words, "In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but the deny true praxis
to the people, deny the right to say their own words and think their own thoughts”. This theory is
called the antidialogical action which has the characteristics of (a) conquest, (b) divide and rule,
(c) manipulation, and (d) cultural invasion in order to execute oppression and to maintain their
domination. On the other hand, the theory of dialogical action has the characteristics of (a)
cooperation, (b) unity, (c) organization, and (d) cultural synthesis in order for the oppressed to be
liberated. Freire then emphasized, “just as the oppressor, in order to oppress, needs a theory of
oppressive action, so the oppressed, in order to become free, also need a theory of action”.

As a conclusion, I remember, Prof Hibanada would always tell us, “Ang tunay na laban ay
nasa klasrum”, to be free from oppression and to be able to transform the reality, we do not
necessarily need to be planning for revolt (literally like arm struggle) we do not necessarily be
shouting outdoors and clamoring for freedom because before all of that, we, educators, our true
fight is in the premise of our classroom. We need to help our students be free of oppression caused
by a lot of factors. We need to help ourselves and our students to be fully human.
Only in the encounter of the people with the revolutionary leaders—in their communion, in their
praxis—can this theory be built -Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed
End