Paulo Freire (1921 - 1997) was a Brazilian, Marxist theologian who wrote a famous book entitled Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in 1968. (It can be downloaded for free here.)
I have not read the book. The first two lines (not counting prefatory material) are
While the problem of humanization has always, from an axiological point of view, been humankind's central problem, it now takes on the character of an inescapable concern. Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality.
To me this is pretentious gibberish. I have no idea what it means--perhaps I'm just not intellectual enough. Whatever--I have no intention of reading the rest of the book.
So I'm grateful to a fellow named Kendall Gregory who writes an article for Left Voice entitled A Critique of ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ . Mr. Gregory writes clearly and cogently, so we'll use his piece as a guide to Mr. Freire. The lede paragraphs of his article set the context.
In the past few weeks a debate has been taking place inside the recently formed Revolutionary Socialist Organizing Project (RSOP). The debate centers around revolutionary organization, what the orientation of revolutionaries should be, how we engage with the broader Left, and what methods are needed to politically develop the revolutionary vanguard and the broader working-class and oppressed masses.
A faction within the RSOP raised Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a model that revolutionaries can use to answer some of the issues raised in the debate. What follows is a critique of Freire’s work, one that points out the flaws of using his work as a model for revolutionary organizing.
Mr. Freire (per Mr. Gregory) compares two models of education, which he calls the banking method and the problem-posing method. The former casts
the teacher is the sole arbiter of truth. The students know nothing and must learn by receiving “deposits” of knowledge. According to Freire, those who approach education with the banking method view it as an exercise in rote memorization and blind acceptance of a list of facts, procured by the teacher. Freire criticizes this system as dehumanizing.
Today this might be referred to as the sage on the stage model, where the teacher stands behind a podium and feeds the students knowledge through power point slides.
This contrasts with the problem-posing method
wherein the teacher and the student both learn as co-investigators of the subject. Rather than “depositing” knowledge, the teacher poses problems to the students and works with them to find solutions. Though the teacher may know a solution, they do not directly state it, instead probing and guiding the students until they come up with a solution themselves.
Today this is called active learning. In previous eras it was known as the Socratic method, a term that suggests there is nothing particularly novel about Mr. Freire's insight. Active learning has earned a fanatical following whose adherents sometimes claim it should replace the traditional lecture altogether.
As a retired college professor and long-time teacher of introductory college chemistry classes, I'm convinced that the truth lies in the middle, and that both lecture and active learning are essential to success in a chemistry class. I guess that reveals my petty bourgeois class origins, because Mr. Freire puts it in political, class-consciousness terms.
He argues the banking model serves the interests of the oppressors, and he promotes problem-posing education as a liberatory alternative. He argues that the banking method cannot be used for liberatory purposes.
Mr. Freire apparently believes that full "liberation" is acquired only if the students arrive at the conclusion on their own, ideally without any perfidious influence from their professors. Mr. Gregory is right to condemn this as unrealistic. In a chemistry class, for example, it is surely impossible for students to regenerate 250 years of scientific progress without any reference to a textbook and/or a professor's power point slides. At the same time, it is the poor professor who doesn't insist that the students do their homework and so internalize the "knowledge" and make it their own. There has to be an active learning component.
But teaching students to be revolutionary socialists is apparently different than teaching them chemistry. To become revolutionaries, according to Mr. Freire, the students need to study the depths of their oppression. They do this by reflecting on their everyday life--how it's really hard, how in Brazil they sometimes go hungry, how the wages are too low to live well, and of course about the (imaginary?) danger of "climate apocalypse," etc. In other words, students should learn to feel deeply sorry for themselves (which is easy to do if you just try).
The problem with teachers is that they always come up with solutions less draconian than revolution. Thus chemistry profs inform students about how new materials and modern medicines are produced. Or how environmental problems can be mitigated. We present a ray of hope--leading one to become a chemist or a doctor or an engineer, etc.
A mentor can teach you a trade, or instruct you how to open a bank account, or reveal to you the miracle of compound interest--suggesting a path to a more secure retirement. In Mr. Freire's world, all this does is reinforce oppression. The rays of hope are all false, and your teachers are agents of the bourgeoisie. To be a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the oppressed, you must see yourself as a worthless, helpless human being, armed only with a bottomless reservoir of self-pity.
Even Mr. Gregory proposes a solution: Marxism-Leninism. He writes
To really win a revolution, or even reform struggles, firm, tested ideas are required. The role of Marxists is to furnish these firm, tested ideas to the working class in the course of struggle. As Lenin said, revolutionary socialists must “patiently explain” and win over workers to their viewpoint. There is no substitute for democratic political debate. There is no substitute for revolutionary leadership. This is not the same thing as imposing a political regime from above; in fact, to win a real revolution, workers must be completely convinced of the superiority and necessity of socialism.
The job of the RSOP, in his view, is to educate us masses in "tested ideas" as the opportunities to do so arise. Simply feeling sorry for yourself is not enough--you need a teacher armed with power point slides to help you out.
Mr. Gregory perceptively points out another flaw in the Freirean world view, and that is a false dichotomy between the oppressor and the oppressed. He puts it simply and clearly:
[Freire's overly simplified idealism] leads him to ascribe every reactionary tendency of the oppressed merely to internalizing the image of their oppressor, while the actions of the oppressor are completely intentional and malicious. There is no discussion of the economic interests of either “class” in the book, no discussion whatsoever of how the objective circumstances shape the people in question. The oppressed are merely confused saints waiting to take their rightful place as humanity’s savior, while the oppressors are irredeemable demons.
A modern term for this effect is moral dyadism, which briefly states that The Oppressed have feelings, but no agency; The Oppressors have agency, but no feelings. You can apply this to all the intersectional divides in our society: Black people have feelings and no agency, and thus were right to react in riotous, impotent rage during BLM's summer, while white people have agency but no feelings, as evidenced by the supposedly passionless actions of the police. Similarly, women are passive victims of violence and discrimination, which they feel deeply but can't do anything about. Conversely, men are without fail sexist psychopaths who want only harm to befall their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Etc.
Anyway, I appreciate Mr. Gregory's clear and concise exposition of Paulo Freire's work.
Further Reading:
- Althusser in America
- The Fourth International--Trotskyist Faction Tried to Ruin my Breakfast
- Book Review: Kim Jong-Un
