Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapters 1 and 2
In Chapters 1 and 2, Freire explains how the current education system, which he termed “banking concept of education,” functioned as the major instrument of sustaining the oppressive system and justifies the need for pedagogy of the oppressed for liberation of both the oppressed and the oppressor. I think Freire’s intentional use of “of ” here is important, as he proposes a pedagogy “with” the oppressed, not “for” the oppressed. As he criticizes several times the forms of “false generosity” or “false charity,” I agree with his idea that liberation/independence cannot be given as a gift for the oppressed, but they should be the subjects of the liberating process. However, one aspect that made me curious was his distinction of the educational projects from the systematic education. He states that educational projects “should be carried out with the oppressed in the process of organizing them” while systematic education “can only be changed by political power” (54). I believe most of what Freire proposes are within the boundary of educational projects, but I also wonder if (and how) these educational projects can be the changing forces of the systematic education. In other words, are there always this clear-cut binary between the oppressed and the oppressors and between the educational projects and the systematic education? How central is Freire’s pedagogy in the curricula of most schools in the U.S. or outside the educational system?
I think Freire’s pedagogy has been a good starting point for many educators and academics to think about it in a more specific context (i.e. Feminist pedagogy, etc.). Other way to put it, rather more critically, is that Freire’s critique on the oppressive system can be read as generalizing “the” oppressive system hugely based on Marxist class analysis, without specifying the different layers of oppression or proposing different possibilities of the very experience of oppression. We had a discussion on “intersectionality” and we are not well aware of how social inequality and injustice is sustained by multiple forms of oppression including gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and so on. Drawing from your own theoretical background and/or practical educational experiences, what’s your take on this?
Sometimes Freire seems to be romanticizing the inner values of the oppressed (laborers and peasants), although he understands the double/contradictory consciousness. In part to continue our discussion on pedagogy of the oppressed and “Trump voting masses,” I thought about if we have a clear-cut agreement on who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors under current political and cultural geographies (e.g. white supremacy rallies). How can we use Freire’s pedagogy in the current political context in (seemingly) democratized and societies (especially the U.S. and some countries in Europe)? Can interactive technologies be any useful platform for pedagogy of the oppressed in the twenty-first century?
I would like to end with quoting feminist scholar bell hooks talking on Freire and his sexism (refereing back to the second paragraph of this blog post). In the chapter 4 of her book Teaching to Transgress (1994), which is a playful conversation between herself (Gloria Jean Watkins) and her pen persona bell hooks, she powerfully states that Freire’s work is like water that contains some dirt in it. Do you agree with her statement? Can you let me know other scholars or practitioners against this position? More importantly, how can we think about Freire’s work in a more global context?
“In talking with academic feminists (usually white women) who feel they must either dismiss or devalue the work of Freire because of sexism, I see clearly how our different responses are shaped by the standpoint that we bring to the work. I came to Freire thirsty, dying of thirst (in that way that the colonized, marginalized subject who is still unsure of how to break the hold of the status quo, who longs for change, is needy, is thirsty), and I found in his work (and the work of Malcom X, Fanon, etc.) a way to quench that thirst. To have work that promotes one’s liberation is such a powerful gift that it does not matter so much if the gift is flawed. Think of the work as water that contains some dirt. Because you are thirsty you are not too proud to extract the dirt and be nourished by the water. For me this is an experience that corresponds very much to the way individuals of privilege respond to the use of water in the First World context. When you are privileged, living in one of the richest countries in the world, you can waste resources. And you can especially justify your disposal of something that you consider impure. […] If we approach the drinking of water that comes from the tap from a global perspective we would have to talk about it differently. We would have to consider what the vast majority of the people in the world also are thirsty must do to obtain water. Paulo’s work has been living water for me.” (Teaching to Transgress, 50)
As a theatre-major student, I previously commented on Zhang’s post about Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal‘s Theatre of the Oppressed. I write it here again just in case you are interested in reading more about the application of Freire’s pedagogy in theatre. Boal was hugely influenced by Freire and emphasized interaction and communication between the performers and the audience (he coined the term, “spect-actor”). As a form of activism and theatre, the methodologies of Theatre of the Oppressed have been performed around the world and you can check out “Theatre of the Oppressed NYC” too.
added on October 23 Monday after reading some comments:
Here is description of what Boal termed as Forum Theatre: (From Theatre of the Oppressed NYC Website)
“a troupe performs their original play, in which each scene depicts a specific obstacle based on actors’ real-life experiences; this is followed by a “forum” in which a facilitator asks audience members to come on stage and step into the role of the protagonist to try out an alternative response to the problem(s) depicted onstage. Throughout the forum a trained TO ‘joker’ facilitates dialogue about the potential of each alternative, and what social, legal, legislative, and/or institutional changes could make various alternatives viable. These interactive forums have proven to be an effective, inspiring way to engage audiences in a laboratory to ‘rehearse’ practical, creative actions that we can individually and collectively take to challenge systems of oppression.”
Based on our previous discussions regarding the role of “facilitator” it is interesting to note Boal called this as a “joker” in reference to the neutrality of the Joker card.
Kyueun, thank you for this provocation and the notion of a clear cut agreement of who the “oppressed” and the “oppressors” are. I fear the answer would vary wildly among a random sample of “the people”. So clear cut agreement would seem essential in order to reform or revolt. And thank you also for bringing “Theatre of the Oppressed” in to the Freire discussion. I did see your reply to Zhang and appreciate your posting this alongside your provocation. I find the application of Freire to theatre quite intriguing in both the pedagogical and dramatic contexts/perspectives.
It is an interesting thought to consider the “oppressed” and “oppressors” of today’s society. This is what I try to elicit from students when I teach them in my high school English course. The majority of my students identify as black/Carribean and see obvious occurrences of being oppressed in their society by the media. We also discuss sensitive topics such as “Black Lives Matter” and what the function of these protests are in the democratic society. What is their purpose? How is this Frerian? I would argue that the student population feels more oppressed now in 2017 than they did in 2013 when we held these same discussions.
Your post about “The Theater of the Oppressed” reminded me of a play I saw recently when I went to conferences in St. Louis evaluating themes of social justice in pedagogy. “Antigone in Furguson” is a depiction of Sophocles’ “Antigone,” with undertones of the sensitive issues of recent police shootings and current political climate. For example, Kreon depicts Trump mannerisms and the protagonist, Antigone, is a strong black woman. It begs the question of “justice” in our society, and how these Ancient Greek themes are actually timeless. The show is currently touring and felt it was a relevant addition to this blog post. Read more about it here:”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/antigone-in-ferguson-a-modern-tragedy-is-now-a-greek-tragedy
Christina, thanks for sharing this contemporary performance of Antigone! This Greek myth proves atemporal because it questions individuals’ possible responses and means of resistance to the enacting of unfair laws – unfortunately, a predicament that keeps on occurring. A French version of Antigone was created and first played in the years 1941-1944, at the time the Nazis occupied France…
Thanks Carolyn, Christina, Angelique for your great comments. I didn’t know that there was a performance of “Antigone in Furguson.” It reminds me of my first year experience of having an Antigone-week in intertextual-contextual theatre class here at the GC. Here are two more radical Antigone adaptations from different cultural contexts, just in case you are interested in:
Griselda Gambaro (Argentina), Antigona Furiosa (1986) &
Sylvain Bemba (Congo), Black Wedding Candles for Blessed Antigone (1988)
Social justice is an important topic for Theatre of the Oppressed too, but the difference might be the form/format of theatrical experience itself. As Freire emphasized changes not only in contents but also in forms of education, Boal also practiced more interactive ways of making theatre in order to investigate the problems and alternative responses to situations.
Here is description of what Boal termed as Forum Theatre: (added this part into the original post too)
“This is the format of a TONYC performance: a troupe performs their original play, in which each scene depicts a specific obstacle based on actors’ real-life experiences; this is followed by a “forum” in which a facilitator asks audience members to come on stage and step into the role of the protagonist to try out an alternative response to the problem(s) depicted onstage. Throughout the forum a trained TO ‘joker’ facilitates dialogue about the potential of each alternative, and what social, legal, legislative, and/or institutional changes could make various alternatives viable. These interactive forums have proven to be an effective, inspiring way to engage audiences in a laboratory to ‘rehearse’ practical, creative actions that we can individually and collectively take to challenge systems of oppression.” (From Theatre of the Oppressed NYC Website)
Based on our previous discussions regarding the role of “facilitator” it is interesting to note Boal called this as a “joker” in reference to the neutrality of the Joker card.
Thank you for this superb provocation, Kyueun. I have long been a fan of bell hooks, and it was through her writings that I first discovered Freire. I am also in agreement with her assessment of Freire as water with a bit of dirt in it. The metaphor is spot on for me. If we are in a position to refuse potable water, this is a place of privilege. Intersectionality is vitally important to keep ourselves in check. We all occupy different spaces according to varying degrees of privilege. No one is perfect, and no theory is all encompassing. White feminists who reject Freire for sexism are in turn rejected for their racism…Liberatory pedagogy must allow for honest assessment and critique of everyone. No one should be able to wear the crown of “Ms. or Mr. Radical” because they are beyond reproach. If that it is the case, then I argue that we are doing it right. As an adolescent, I was acutely aware of my double-consciousness as a Black girl in predominantly White schools, and I was also aware of my privilege as a U.S. citizen in a community of immigrants from the Caribbean. Having a 360′ assessment of my privilege was an asset that allowed me to learn humility alongside courage—it created an internal dialectic of sorts that made me more empathetic and thirsty for inclusive community.
From my perspective, liberatory pedagogy is radically inclusive and critical. As a professor of Developmental English and Composition, I seek ways to generate multiple access points to the lesson using technology, visual cues, gestures, kinesthetic activities, etc. I look for opportunities to center oppressed voices in the dominant narrative ( ie. Haitian culture and the Vodou religion) while also critiquing the hegemony and oppressive tendencies within these same groups (ie. Haiti colonizing the Dominican Republic after winning its independence from France). Shared responsibility is a precursor to shared liberation. We must be careful about essentializing the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” so that neither group internalizes the label as something fixed and inherent.
Thanks Kahdeidra for your great comment. I cannot agree with you more and this is exactly what I’ve been thinking about. Thank you for clarifying ideas and sharing personal stories with great expressions. bell hooks quenched my thirst not only for my reading of Freire but also for every moments when I face too simplistic feminist critique. I love this expression a lot: “liberatory pedagogy is radically inclusive and critical”– I think the same applies to theories (and it gives me reasons to read theories too).