I read Pedagogy Of the Oppressed(POO) by Paulo Freire twice. Once some 3 years ago, while I was working almost 15 hours a day for a broadcasting TV news station and second now as a new graduate student from India in OU for my opted course, Education for Social Change. Both reading experiences were very different considering my own experiences and my situations. But in both cases this book offered tremendous appeal in terms of provoking me to go beyond the words and expressions I was reading and the circumstances I was living in and living with. Clearly the first reading offered me the luxury of just going to the next- page without fully grasping or even trying my best to grasp the words of the author. But with this second reading I did not allow myself this luxury. This reading was more profound and 'tiring', and in many ways it acted like a thread to my own personal experiences of rural India where I have lived, of media where I was employed and several readings on development that have been a part of my regular readings.POO has not been an easy reading. Because it offered multiplicity of expressions and ideas it spoke about. To me it transcended the national boundaries and the concerns of people across the world in general, the third-world' where i come from , in particular. This is true at least to the best of my understating keeping the popularity of the book as well as the career of the author after the publication of the book.
The experience of reading POO took me back, and very often, in fact after reading every 10-12 pages I had to keep the book aside to 'contextualize' what the author is saying in my own work field experiences, my own country's history of colonization and my observations of India immersed in poverty but yet so apparently decorated by ideas of globalization with its most visible manifestations in the glittery malls, multiplexes and its McDonalds and Pizza huts.I must say that in the absence of my own observations and their contextualization, this book would have offered nothing more an "interesting" book with profound language of English expressions and poor-people/nations narrative.
The more I read the POO, the more I contextualized and the more I contextualized the more pages I had to turn back and contextualize yet more.The concepts, people , expressions and words in the book like oppression ,oppressed, oppressor cultural invasion, culture of silence, freedom, peasants, solidarity, choices, intervention, thinking, critical thinking, liberation , education and many more are the words that do not have a literal meaning in the book itself, as I understand and it depends on the reader's past/present/futuristic experiences how one understands these expressions, to not only understand the authors point of view but also to take a stand of one's own on what one reads. And then to move in a particular direction with a sense of conviction in the decision that is taken.Broadly speaking, my understanding is that the POO aims to let the reader understand the environment in which the world is set with its dynamics and rules, both said and unsaid. It also tries to move, (by virtue of this understanding of the environment and inherent intentions of the various players in it), the people from the state of ignorance to higher levels of critical, social and political awareness. In the very gist,this book seems to "educate to enlighten to act". The author does this by explaining the different models, (both pro and anti oppressed) of leadership and its clear working dynamics.The book begins by talking about the oppressors and the oppressed in their set of complexities. Oppressors being the people who exercise authority over others for the sake of their selfish 'good' while oppressed are the ones who remain under such authority. The book explains the dynamics of the two groups in fine details. Fear of freedom is strategically instilled in the minds of the oppressed by the oppressors while oppressed remains under the culture of silence i,e indifference. The effect of this is that the oppressed begin to develop a fear of being free and also the fear of punishment of trying to be 'free', thus in effect remaining silent. In the midst of the mass of oppressed, this phenomena takes the form of a culture- of silence. And therefore the behavior of the oppressed remained completely prescribed. Meaning they remain controlled, sometimes knowingly with the fear and at other times due to their developed 'silent' tendency, to toe the line of the oppressor, following the guidelines set 'for' them 'by' others.The author believes that such a situation can be broken only by a conscious force of realization. For freedom is achieved by conquest and not as gift. As I contextualized it, I went back to the tales I heard from my grandfather ( and also from what I read later in my readings of history of Indian freedom struggle) about the British colonization in India: the communal riots, the differences amongst the freedom fighters vis a via their ideological methods of achieving freedom. Despite many ideologies ( but primarily armed /'violent" by people like Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and that of unarmed/ non-violent by people like Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave) the objective was to achieve freedom, with deliberate interventions ,as the freedom was not going to come as a gift. But this phenomena of differences in the situation of common crisis is not India-specific, this was true probably for all the colonies across the globe that had fought their battle to win over the external force which forcibly took over their freedom. This further collaborates with the author’s saying that it the oppressed who would have to lead the process of humanization (restoring freedom and liberation of humanity from all kind s of tyranny but in this content tyranny by an external enemy- British, for e.g, in case of India)The oppressors would always tend maintain a status quo because it is ‘their' situation which they have created to favor their aims and objectives and aspirations. The oppressed on the contrary have to task to break this cast being created by oppressors to domesticate them. The work of the oppressed leadership is not only to have the strong yearn to have "their own" freedom but also to create such a yearn in their comrades too. But the author also observes the tendency of the oppressed to remain under the fear of freedom and thus unable to rise and meet the demands necessary to achieve freedom and thus remaining secure in their state of unfreedom.I again contextualized it in my own environment both in free and dependent India. During pre-independent India, there were Indians who served the British troops and fought for them on their behalf in the second world war expecting the British to gift them freedom in return to this favor instead of fighting on their fronts and taking away what originally belonged to them; their freedom. In today’s India I see it differently but with similar manifestations. Despite being the oldest and largest democracy in the world, the Indian foreign policy still depends substantially if not fully, on the decisions taken or not taken by the West. The results of it are quite apparent in its several manifestations; in the midst of stinkingly abject poverty of agriculture-based India, its government is busy working and promoting the city-centric westerm icons of develoment; malls, flyovers, huge cinema complexes, metro stations, colorful traffic signals and the list is unending. This is in clear opposition to developing the villages,where over 70% of the Indian population resides and which produces the major chunk of all food supplies consumed within the country and that also that is exported. This I see as the fear to change things and remaining prescribed by what others have dictated (Read the western slogans of industrialization, mass production, liberalization and globalization).The authors almost in the spirit of a revolutio asks the oppressed to choose between the choices; to remain one or divided, solidarity or alienation, prescription or choices, being spectator or actor, speaking out or remaining silent.
And concludes that these are the dilemma of the oppressed and that education must take this into account. The oppressed have to learn to act as hosts thus taking their decisions based on their own realities rather than merely toeing other’s plan. The author also suggests that the oppressed have to discover that both they and the oppressors are the manifestations of the dehumanization (that I understand as all processes that are against human dignity and which intend to treat humans with anything less than humanity for selfish motives or hidden agendas) because to dehumanize is as much a process of dehumanization as that of being dehumanized.The author also talks about the leadership roles that education has. But more particularly the methodologies of the educational processes, both political and social. If there are flaws or biases in the educational systems or/and its intention then it would only become a tool for more oppression at the hands of oppressors( like elite, governments, corporate, industrialists etc).Under oppressive education, critical intervention by the oppressed( students, persons, factory workers, electoral masses etc) is a threat to the oppressors as the oppressors want the oppressed to be completely submerged in the situation created by the oppressor and not to think of ways to change or replace it. Therefore any education that is liberating in nature has to be an initiative of the oppressed and not the oppressors. For the oppressor, an educational system aims to achieve political power and not liberation. The POO is therefore, the authors says, is the pedagogy in two stages; in first the oppressed unveil the oppression, recognize it and then transform it, thus making it liberating, and in the second phase lets this liberation be enjoyed by all men, Thereby universalizing it by cutting all barriers that may stop the liberation to reach the masses in general without any restrictions, intrinsic or extrinsic.The nature of the oppressed and their behavior is clearly an important aspect which the author touches upon when he says that the oppressed never initiate violence. By this what seems to mean to me, is that the fact that oppressed are ‘oppressed' means they are already the victims of violence, of one kind or the other, and therefore highlighting the pre- existence of violence. And thus the only choice that the oppressed have is to counter this violence. However when they do so in the same terms of functionality, they are instantly termed as violent, barbaric, wicked and ferocious by the oppressors.This observation of the authors helps me to contextualize two situations; the present Muslim identify- crisis and the identity of the Indian freedom fighters who took to arms for their independence. Let me explain the second situation first. British took to all ways to control the Indian freedom revolution including the acts of violence by the armed police inflicting extreme violence on the masses at places as sacred as places of worship and killing innocent civilians including children and women. But when such an act was countered by a group of Indian freedom fighters with their arms and bullet, they were instantly turned into terrorists and extremists. And media was used as a tool for the propagation for this propaganda. Similarly in the first situation; after the 9/11 the identity of the Muslims has changed (has been ‘charged' if I may use the term) drastically. They are now terrorists and the terms like Islamic (Islam being the religion of Muslims) terrorism, or Islamic- radicals have taken standard connotations to refer to the terrorists, anti -nationals, criminals, and so on. The violence like that of 9/11 existed before 9/11 as well , in fact perhaps more severe in my own country with several decades of violence in one state ,Kashmir alone. And then Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, Ireland and the list is unending yet again. It is only when America is attacked that the "global’ war against terrorism started and suddenly we stared to hear on televisions and radio sets and in the editorials about the new (presumably new) threat of 'violence inflicted by one set of "barbaric, wicked and ferocious" individuals and organizations".
(It also connects me to an old saying back home: If an animal eats the man, it becomes a barbaric beast while if the man eats the beast, remains fashionably Non-vegetarian!)
Next, the author explores the situation where oppressed have liberated themselves from all kinds of oppression. In such a situation how would oppressors feel? They would now feel oppressed because their tendency to oppress is no longer satisfied and the situation where they could suppress no longer exists. And they are not used to such a situation where they are not subjects (those who take decisions "for ' others) and where they are unable to reduce others to objects ( for whom the decisions are taken) .
Further the author’s terming of teacher- student educational set up as banking system is interesting .He explains that the e banking concept of education is where teachers like depositors deposit their learning to the students and students like depository accept that learning-deposits. In such a system students are the takers and teachers are the givers. Teachers only teach. And students only get taught.It is assumed that teachers are meant to teach and have all the material while students are meant to learn as they are devoid of any material whatsoever. Students are encouraged not to question and accept their learning as mere receiving objects. In such a system the students are restricted to ask , explore, invent and/or use their creative powers to create anything new and thus maintaining the educational status quo. This , the author observes, enhances and strengthens the agenda; an agenda set by the people who want to oppress the systems by building a society on ‘their’ terms promoting their selfish motives as opposed to the terms which can potentially lead to a “better’ world with new avenues for all. This system of education anaesthetizes its ‘learners’ with pre-conceived notions and presets value- system. The author parallel juxtaposes such a system with another kind of educational system which he calls problem- solving system where students and teachers learn from each other and the process remains two ways.
A true communication takes place between students and teachers and they exchange places; students learning from teachers, their experiences and teachers learning from students their experiences, thus both remaining teacher and student at the same time. In this system students are encouraged to think and critically analyze what they read or hear and thus becoming critical thinkers contributing towards new knowledge and fresh pursuits.
This leads the author to emphasize on dialogue, which is a way to achieve the true sense of investigation and inquiry and not just the flow of information from one source to another. This sense of investigation should be free from all kinds of fear or pressure to reach any pre-destined destination or conclusions. The practice of reading several newspapers reporting on the same issue to students and asking them to think and analyze why the same issue is being reported differently by different journalist can be one of the ways of problem- solving system as it would allow the students to think out-of-box and explore the new dimensions of the same issue and try to get into the minds of different people and thus enhancing their insights and understanding of the human mind. This process is participatory and not exclusive to any category of people and it therefore frees and takes the human mind to new paradigms.
Explaining this new way of education, the author talks about the new leadership- models as well. These models probably are the result of such a kind of educational system. Reflection and action are the two important aspects of this leadership-model which will not only promote problem- solving education but will itself emerge from such a system.
The emphasis is on the fact that “leaders’ alone must not remain ‘thinkers’ and masses as ‘doers' but instead both should participate in the broader areas of decision making and issues explorations and together should they think and do. Leaders however have to be responsible and act as coordinators and directors of the educational content in participation with people. This will be a revolutionary process. And in such a process even those who were oppressed or are oppressed should get the participation and in their participation as subjects they must realize that they themselves are the subjects of transformation and they have to play an active role to change or transform the present realities which are also theirs. In other words, they have to know that they are working for themselves.
A dialogue as way of communication works at the very core of the systems. It is different from a military coup, as the author explains, where a set of leaders as ‘representatives decides for the masses what is good and bad for them assuming that they know what is to be done for the people without actually allowing them to participate in the process of state-policy building.
In the revolutionary educational system the relations are cordial between the leaders and the people. Leaders speak with their people as equals, discussing their thoughts, frankly, their achievements, mistakes, miscalculations and difficulties. In others word s leaders of this system think “with” people for people as opposed to thinking only for people without being with them (this is the practice of the dominant elites, who act as “masters” with a purpose to enclave). Revolutionary process builds solidarity in camaraderie to liberate. In such a system we cannot say that some people liberate some else but rather the men in communion liberate each other. In the process of oppression however it is possible that some one oppresses some else.
The author also speaks about the tools, both at the hands of those who intend to promote problem-solving methods and those with oppressive mentality. One of the tools being identified by the author is science and technology which is used by oppressors to reduce others to mere objects while revolutionaries use it towards the process of humanization.
Speaking in a particular context I see the use of science and technology for making nuclear warfare for external aggression by one country on another as oppressive whereas the use of same nuclear resources to create alternative ways of energy to create better and healthy environment as revolutionary.
The use of dialogue results in dialogical ways whereas restricting dialogue results in anti dialogical ways. The former uses all its recourses and tools at its command to liberate and coperate whereas the latter uses tools like conquest, manipulation, media, government bureaucracy, cultural invasion and policy of divide and rule to dehumanize and arrest true liberation. This is particularly visible in countries like East Timor, Nepal, Pakistan, and India where political establishments are fully or at least partially anti-dialogical vis-a-vis its people's aspirations. In these countries and of course many others it is the dominant elites being supported by power houses like government and industries who organize themselves for ruling the people instead of organizing themselves with people to build a nation-state.
POO is clearly a work which differentiates between what is empowering and what is enslaving and in unveiling the intentions behind the apparent generosity that can be a mere eye washer. As a reader I felt convinced and enjoyed the author’s ideas which I found conceptually strong and deeply people-rooted. However as a practitioner of media, research and academics I felt a sense of irony/dichotomy in the given text. The text is seemingly written for the welfare of the oppressed but it seems to have been written in a language which would most likely be understood by the people in the positions of oppressors..Would they understand that they are dehumanized by virtue of being an oppressor? The answer probably lies in the words of the author himself where he says that 'oppressors to join solidarity with oppressed.. “ For that they have to reborn..”
