Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition

by Paulo Freire

the “fear of freedom”

conscientização does not lead people to “destructive fanaticism.” On the contrary, by making it possible for people to enter the historical process as responsible Subjects,2 conscientização enrolls them in the search for self-affirmation and thus avoids fa-naticism.

they 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 itself.

Sectarianism, fed by fanaticism, is always castrating. Radicalization, nourished by a critical spirit, is always creative. Sectarianism mythicizes and thereby alienates; radicalization criticizes and thereby liberates.

Radicalization involves increased commitment to the position one has chosen, and thus ever greater engagement in the effort to transform concrete, objective reality. Conversely, sectarianism, because it is mythicizing and irrational, turns reality into a false (and therefore unchangeable) “reality.”

Sectarianism in any quarter is an obstacle to the emanci...

the radical is never a subjectivist.

Subjectivity and objectivity thus join in a dialectical unity producing knowledge in solidarity with action, and vice versa.

The leftist-turned-sectarian goes totally astray when he or she attempts to interpret reality and history dialectically, and falls into essentially fatalistic positions.

The rightist sectarian differs from his or her leftist counterpart in that the former attempts to domesticate the present so that (he or she hopes) the future will reproduce this domesticated present, while the latter considers the future pre-established—a kind of in-evitable fate, fortune, or destiny.

This rightist and this leftist are both reactionary because, starting from their respectively false views of history, both develop forms of action that negate freedom.

these individuals “make” their own truth. It is not the truth of men and women who struggle to build the future, running the risks involved in this very construction. Nor is it the truth of men and women who fight side by side and learn together how to build this future—which is not something given to be re-ceived by people, but is rather something to be created by them. Both types of sectarian, treating history in an equally proprietary fashion, end up without the people—which is another way of being against them.

“They both suffer from an absence of doubt.”

The pedagogy of the oppressed,

is a task for radicals; it cannot be carried out by sectarians.

I will be satisfied if among the readers of this work there are those sufficiently critical to correct mistakes and misunderstandings, to deepen affirmations an...

Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality.

both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion.

the first is the people’s vocation.

Vocation is something that is not forced onto you; it's something we naturally aspire to; therefore, humanization is the natrual state of being human (aspiring to be fully realized humans).

This vocation is constantly negated, yet it is affirmed by that very negation.

Dehumanization presupppose the human or the humanity, acknowledges that humanization exists. In other words, for something to thwart another thing's existence that other thing must exist in the world. So by constantly thwarting the humanization of people, humanization is something that can be achieved. (This wording is confusing, but I'm sure I'll understand. I'm sure.)

the oppre...

Those who thwart humanization.

the opp...

Those who yearn for humanization.

their struggle to recover their lo...

Both the oppressed and the oppressors are agonistic forces; however, both year for humanization (self actualization). It is the oppressed, however, twart others from obtaining that self actualization.

Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human.

Dehumanization doesn't just mark the oppressed whose humanity has been overwritten, but in the process itself the oppressors have become dehumanized. Those who have stolen (prevented) others humanity have also lost their own humanities.

it is not an historical vocation.

Dehumanization is historical, but it is not a historical vocation. It is imposed on us.

The struggle for humanization,

If we accept that dehumanization is a historical vocation, then the act of trying to humanize ourselves would be meaningless (an unreachable goal, pointless because someone will always be there to dehumanize us).

is possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.

And because dehumanization has no destiny (no endgame), therefore it is not something that is eternal or something that cannot be overcome through rebellion/uprising.

being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so.

the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.

The goal is to create humanization (self actualization) without losing their own humanity and become oppressors. Hate to go this route, but think of the ending of Mockingjay when it is clear that part of the goal is to treat the elite the same way the others districts were treated as a form of revenge. In doing so, the oppressed were not gaining humanity but beginning to dehumanizing themselves as the new oppressors. So for the humanity to matter, both the former oppressed and their former oppressors must be allowed humanization (self actualization). Humanity should be restored for all, not just the oppressed as the oppressors had dehumanized themselves by thwarting others' humanity.

This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the op-pressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.

Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.

false generosity;

In order to have the continued opportunity to express their “generosity,” the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this “generosity,” which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty.

In order for the Oppressors to be seen as "good people" they must continue the cycle of oppression to give the oppressed a form of "false generosity." Sorta like Stockholm syndrome: "We're not allowing you to be self-acutalized, but at least we're not killing you."

True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity.

True generosity allows all people to help transform the world. Whereas, false charity must keep the oppressed fearful and subdued only to extend their hands for supplication.

They will not gain this liberation by chance but through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it. And this fight, be-cause of the purpose given it by the oppressed, will actually constitute an act of love opposing the lovelessness which lies at the heart of the oppressors’ violence, lovelessness even when clothed in false generosity.

But almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to be-come oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.”

This reminds me of Gloria Anzaldúa's description for Machismo in Borderlands/La Frontera. Especially the next highlighted section of this paragraph.

Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors.

adopt an attitude of “adhesion” to the oppressor.

their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression.

the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identification with its opposite pole.

Their vision of the new man or woman is individualistic; because of their identification with the oppressor, they have no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class.

It is a rare peasant who, once “promoted” to overseer, does not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the owner himself.

In this example, the overseer, in order to make sure of his job, must be as tough as the owner—and more so.

So because the oppressed are tied to the oppressors, they are given a skewed idea of what it is to be a "man" (or in this case, what it takes to have complete autonomy). Because they risk of returning to be seen as the oppressed in the eyes of the oppressors, they will work hard to remain on a balance field (or what they mistakenly think is a balancing playing field) with their "masters."

The shadow of their former oppressor is still cast over them.

The “fear of freedom” which afflicts the oppressed,3 a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppressed, should be examined.

A fear of freedom from the oppressed means a fear of embracing it; for the oppressor it means the fear of losing the power to oppress. (as per footnote)

Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the pre-scriber’s consciousness.

Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.

To surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation.

However, the oppressed, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they feel incapable of running the risks it requires.

When they discover within themselves the yearning to be free, they perceive that this yearning can be transformed into reality only when the same yearning is aroused in their comrades. But while dominated by the fear of freedom they refuse to appeal to others, or to listen to the appeals of others, or even to the appeals of their own conscience.