Molly
McDermott
Maria
Kelly
First
Year
Writing
Pedagogy
of
the
Oppressed
A
Critical
Analysis
of
Pedagogy
of
the
Oppressed
In
his
book,
Pedagogy
of
the
Oppressed,
Paulo
Freire
argues
that
the
world
is
currently
dehumanized
and
humans
as
a
whole
need
to
establish
universal
humanization.
Early
in
his
book
Freire
discusses
humanization
and
its
counterpart
dehumanization.
According
to
Freire,
neither
can
exist
without
the
other.
An
acknowledgement
of
humanization
must
come
with
a
realization
of
what
we
would
be
without
humanity:
dehumanized.
Because
humanization
is
the
vocation
for
all
humans,
Freire
believes
that
universal
humanity
is
a
definite
possibility
for
the
world
unlike
dehumanization,
which
“is
not
a
given
destiny”
(44)
for
any
man
or
woman.
Freire
claims
that
the
only
ones
who
can
change
the
state
of
humanity
in
the
world
are
the
oppressed
since
only
the
“power
that
springs
from
the
weakness
of
the
oppressed
will
be
sufficiently
strong
to
free
both”
(44).
Helping
the
oppressed
cannot
come
from
“false
generosity”
(44);
that
is,
the
oppressors
cannot
solve
the
problem
of
dehumanization
by
“[softening]”
(44)
their
oppressive
powers
on
the
oppressed.
The
problem
can
only
be
solved
with
a
complete
elimination
of
oppression.
In
writing
his
preface
to
Pedagogy
of
the
Oppresed
Paulo
Freire
establishes
a
trust
with
his
audience
by
establishing
the
type
of
people
who
will
be
most
effected
by
his
book
and
using
truth
to
explain
why
they
are
against
his
ideas.
Conscientização,
as
defined
by
Freire,
“refers
to
learning
to
perceive
social,
political,
and
economic
contradictions,
and
to
take
action
against
the
oppressive
elements
of
reality”
(36).
Freire
uses
this
term
to
explain
who
is
afraid
of
freedom:
the
people
who
doubt
conscientização.
He
explains
that
these
freedom
fearers
are
afraid
of
fanatic
behavior
from
the
oppressed
if
the
oppressed
develop
a
critical
consciousness
to
evaluate
their
social
status.
The
doubters
would
rather
that
the
oppressed
never
realize
their
state
of
injustice
so
that
they
do
not
disrupt
the
delicate
social
order
that
places
the
doubters
(oppressors)
on
top.
After
detailing
the
freedom
fearer’s
argument,
Freire
argues
against
their
rationalization
using
a
quote
from
Francisco
Weffort.
Weffort
explains
that,
“The
awakening
of
critical
consciousness
leads
the
way
to
the
expression
of
social
discontent
precisely
because
discontents
are
real
components
of
an
oppressive
situation”
(36).
Freire
agrees
with
Weffort
and
explains
that
in
actuality,
the
oppressed
will
proceed
as
“responsible
Subjects”
(36)
instead
of
disruptive
fanatics.
The
oppressed
will
evaluate
their
role
in
society
and
realize
their
purpose
is
to
spread
a
revolution
of
humanity
to
the
whole
world.
Although
these
doubters
of
conscientização
are
unfairly
critical
of
a
world
with
universal
humanization,
Freire
points
out
that
they
are
not
always
aware
of
their
fear.
Freire
quotes
Georg
Hegel
who
explains,
“It
is
solely
by
risking
life
that
freedom
is
obtained;
…”
(36).
Therefore,
freedom
fearers
are
avoiding
freedom,
sometimes
subconsciously,
as
a
means
to
maintain
their
personal
security.
Seldom
do
humans
acknowledge
their
fear
of
freedom
to
others,
let
alone
themselves.
Instead,
they
display
themselves
as
defenders
of
freedom.
Freire
explains
that
the
freedom
fearers
“confuse
freedom
with
the
maintenance
of
the
status
quo;
so
that
if
conscientização
threatens
to
place
that
status
quo
in
question,
it
thereby
seems
to
constitute
a
threat
to
freedom”
(36).
Freedom
fearers
are
afraid
to
sacrifice
their
social
status
and
therefore
their
life,
for
freedom.
Because
of
the
sacrifice
and
commitment
it
requires
for
someone
to
join
the
revolution
for
universal
humanization,
Freire
states
that
the
ideas
of
his
book
are
for
radicals.
Before
even
explaining
his
master
plan
for
humanizing
the
world,
Paulo
Freire
warns
the
audience
that
not
all
of
his
ideas
will
be
positively
received.
Freire
honestly
explains
that
he
has
different
methods
of
helping
the
world
than
others,
such
as
the
Christians
or
Marxists,
do.
He
concludes
then,
that
his
“admittedly
tentative
work
is
for
radicals”
(37).
According
to
Freire,
radicalism
is
a
good
thing
because
it
is
both
critical
and
creative.
Since
radicals
can
choose
a
certain
position
to
support,
they
become
more
attached
to
defending
their
choice
since
they
are
defending
it
willingly
and
not
by
force.
In
that
way,
radicals
tend
to
be
more
passionate
about
what
they
are
fighting
for
and
more
engaged
in
the
struggle.
Freire
explains
why
sectarianism,
opposed
to
radicalism,
would
be
a
bad
thing.
Sectarianism
is
confining
and
deprives
you
of
having
individual,
creative
thoughts.
In
addition,
sectarians
“[mythicize]”
(37)
and
therefore
isolate
themselves
from
any
ideas
or
people
that
are
different
from
them.
Freire
explains
how
neither
the
rightist
nor
leftist
sectarian
can
achieve
freedom.
The
rightist
will
believe
that
the
present
situation
will
continue
to
play
out
into
the
future.
The
leftist
believes
that
the
future
is
already
predetermined
and
cannot
be
changed.
Despite
these
seemingly
distant
ways
of
viewing
the
world,
Freire
says
that
neither
the
rightist
nor
leftist
will
become
“spectators”
(38)
of
history.
Instead,
both
parties
lock
themselves
into
their
decided
ideas
and
force
their
own
truth
to
come
true;
they
regard
anything
contrary
to
their
truth
a
lie.
The
radical,
Freire
explains,
is
more
able
to
“transform”
(39)
reality
since
they
can
see
the
whole
situation
and
not
just
one
part
like
the
sectarians
do.
Just
as
a
radical
can
view
the
entire
situation
before
choosing
which
position
to
support,
Paulo
Freire
can
see
the
view
point
of
those
he
opposes
and
yet
still
explain
why
he
disagrees
with
their
point
of
view.
In
his
preface
to
Pedagogy
of
the
Oppressed,
Freire
combines
his
knowledge
of
human
physiology,
first
hand
experience
with
the
oppressed
and
the
knowledge
of
other
scholars
to
prove
the
validity
of
his
arguments.
He
believes
that
in
order
to
spread
humanity
to
all
men
and
women,
radicals
need
to
embrace
his
plan
to
eliminate
oppression.
Freire
admits
that
he
is
still
a
learner,
but
he
plans
on
continuing
to
observe
the
lower
classes
and
modify
or
expand
on
his
doctrine.
Freire
encourages
those
who
will
read
his
book
and
find
the
flaws
with
his
arguments.
He
also
hopes
that
his
book
will
inspire
dialogue
among
the
ones
who
read
it
even
if
the
dialogue
is
to
criticize
his
arguments.
By
admitting
to
his
weaknesses,
Freire
does
not
sound
less
believable;
on
the
contrary,
his
honesty
works
in
his
favor
to
prove
that
the
accounts
he
has
presented
are
accurate
of
an
oppressed
society.