Since I do not have the experiential or intellectual
knowledge of social change to critique Freire’s seminal work, I will simply
offer some of my reflections on what I read in chapter 1. Like most works of philosophy,
Pedagogy of the Oppressed raises more
questions than it provides solutions to problems. The thinking and critical
reflection challenge is in fact the whole point; actions remain to be seen.
Reflections of Foreword and
Introduction
Freire states many positive aspects for radicalization: it
is always creative and nourishes the critical spirit; it criticizes status quo
thereby liberating society; and it demands increased commitment to a just, or
righteous cause and therefore a greater engagement to change for the betterment
of mankind. It is everyone’s ontological vocation to use the tools of hope,
dialogue love, humility and sympathy to ameliorate oppression. Missing in this discourse
are the realities of the dark side of human nature: greed, individualism,
self-centredness and narcissism so evident in our post-modern 1st
world societies and increasing in the developing world. These ego-driven traits
are foundational for much of what we experience as progress and growth in our
neoliberal, corporate-driven, postmodern cultures. Indeed, many individuals in
developed, and now the developing, nation-states do not have the strength of
character to endure loss of material comforts to which they have become
accustomed. There is an unwillingness to sacrifice for any reason. A strong
sense of entitlement and erosion of community and shared values in lacking in
out fragmented society. There is a strong aversion to the risk in today’s
society leading many not engage in self-reflection therefore debilitating many
to the action required to fight oppression (Kahneman,
2011).
The suffering and struggles of the oppressed in the
third world may point to the means of liberation but it is path seldom taken.
Simply knowing the social, political and economic tools of oppression – conscientizãço
(Freire, p.36), does not give one the means to action against these powerful global
oppressive forces.
Essential to any theory for emancipation by educative
means is the examination of the hierarchical power structures that now
encompasses the globe. The proper tools
to perceive personal and societal reality, in order to achieve a critical
stance towards one’s reality, have been so manipulated as to disallow most
individuals’ political or educational agency (Evans & Giroux, 2016).
Propaganda, and neoliberal ideologies have inundated us with miseducation and
have overwhelmed lower and middle-class alike, thus preventing the global
paradigm shift to democratization in our educational settings as espoused by
Freire. A dialectical unity between subjective and objective knowledge may
inform action in an individual, but the majority of people are reticent,
fearful or inert to action. Freire’s philosophy provides the structural pointers
to social change, but the ascendancy of the oppressors to marginalized and
dehumanize, exacerbated by new ubiquitous always-on media, have gone beyond
what Freire could have envisioned. Our technological advantages, while
supposedly heralding a great democratizing and sharing culture, have compounded
industrial revolution 2.0 power structures (Ruskhoff, 2016) and amplified them
to the point that not even the most influential progressive agents for social
change can effect meaningful structural economic or political change.
From our privileged societies of advantage and plenty,
we are still merely approaching the objectives of integration of the elements
of democracy and social justice into our pedagogy. It seems idealistic to
expect people with less political, social and economic agency, to achieve more
with less.
Reflections of Chapter 1
My attentions critique were misdirected by examining and
expounding upon the Foreword and the Introduction sections of Chapter 1.
Consequently I need to address Freire’s words directly. Again I reiterate that
these are simply insights and questions based on my intellectual capacity and
worldview are at this juncture in my learning journey.
Freire says that one has to first become conscious of
being oppressed and dehumanization before one can act to fight against such
oppression. Humanization is expressed by its negation and the yearning of the
oppressed for freedom and justice. Only the oppressed can free both themselves
and their oppressors. Dehumanization is not a given destiny but arises from an
unjust order and violence. He is essentially saying that the oppressed, in a
perpetual state of injustice derive strength from their despair and poverty.
They are the only agents for social justice and change because they have
reached the point where they can sacrifice all; they have nothing left to lose
and everything to gain (p.44). They will gain liberation for themselves and for
their oppressors, by reflection, activism, praxis or the quest for it, as a
requirement in for a just society (p.65). There is an innate fear of becoming
like those who oppress them if they seek agency or are discontent with their
class or lack of identity. This means that there will be a never-ending
struggle against oppressive forces in perpetuity because there will always be
oppressed people, since he asserts that if someone hinders another’s
self-affirmation they are oppressing them (p, 55). Struggling for liberation
will never reach a solution for all mankind. The struggle causing the pedagogy
to be made and re-made forever (p.48). In order to be free and thus more
completely human, the oppressed must struggle incessantly for the rest of their
lives, while being cognizant that they do not wish to assume the reins of the
oppressors. They must be an ever-diligent, active participant in creation of their
own pedagogy. This lofty ideal to change the world will only be taken up by highly
motivated revolutionary, radical individuals but the sea change for all of
humanity must be worldwide mobilization. Even then Freire’s philosophy will
still demand engagement and struggle; an everlasting ongoing struggle of the
oppressed in a process to become free and more wholly human, only ever
approaching this goal asymptotically. Many people worldwide do not possess the
stamina nor the creativity to be masters of their own fate. Nor do they wish to
take on the weight of all the world’s injustices. They do not possess the
rebellious spirit required to foist off the shackles of their oppression.
The ascendancy of the global methods of fear,
intimidation and dehumanization combined with ideology of materialism and
consumerism perpetuated and amplified by digital media, suggests that we are
fighting a losing battle for humanity and critical pedagogy. If oppressors
cannot exist in our socially constructed reality without the oppressed, are we
not playing out some grand farce? (pp. 51, 58). Does the social dominance
theory demand oppressor and oppressed for a balanced society? Does our preordained
dominance of nature as dictated by our Judeo-Christian and Muslim tenants, mean
that ‘might always makes right’ (Rushkoff, 2009)? Are we destined to play out
the co-depend relationship ad nauseum? The end result remains that same:
regardless of social theory, the oppressors control the oppressed and most of
our natural world, subjecting all to their sadistic tendencies, (p.60) removing
the basic requirements for life on earth for both all concerned. Whether the
oppressed be fatalistic indigenous peoples or rebellious Zapatistas, no
struggle to be more human can triumph if its requisite members do not exist.
Freire’s definition of an oppressors can easily apply to
our privileged nation’s governments and businesses since they inhibit us from
being more fully human and deny large numbers full authentic agency to
reflection, activism, and praxis. The paternalism of government’s leaders and business elites must
be I identified as the biggest and most dangerous oppression of all, since it
systematically strips everyone, not just the impoverished, of social, political
and economic agency and does not include us as fully-reasoned, capable stakeholders
in our own futures. Their tools of propaganda, management and manipulation are
so effective as to stifle all dissent or render mute and inert any call to action
(Freire, p.68). As Evans & Giroux say, a historical and aesthetic pedagogy
is needed to break free of the spectacle of violence and oppression in order to
see a future other than one in which large amounts of humanity are seen as
disposable.
Evans,
B., & Giroux, H. A. (2015). Disposable
Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle. City Lights
Books.
Kahneman,
D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Rushkoff,
D. (2016). Throwing rocks at the Google bus: How growth became the enemy of
prosperity. Penguin Books.
Rushkoff,
D. (2009). Life Inc.: How the world became a corporation and how to take it
back. Random House.
No comments:
Post a Comment