Critical Pedagogy

2,952 words

Paulo Freire
Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008

One of the most influential figures in education, though rarely spoken of outside education circles, is the Brazilian writer Paulo Freire. His book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the third most cited work in the field of social sciences and the most cited in education with over seventy-two thousand references. The Open Syllabus Project, an open-source platform that analyzes college syllabi, ranks it among the most frequently consulted books in college courses.[1] Since its initial publication, over one million copies have been sold,[2] and the 50th Anniversary Edition currently sits as the #1 seller in Amazon’s “Educational Philosophy” category.

Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1967 while exiled in Chile after fleeing Brazil. It was published in 1968 in Spanish then translated from Portuguese into English in 1970 by Myra Bergman Ramos. Professor Henry Giroux played a key role in popularizing Freire’s ideas on critical pedagogy and advocating for like-minded scholars to gain tenure in colleges of education.[3] Giroux, who described Freire as occupying “a hallowed position among the founders of critical pedagogy,”[4] worked to popularize Freire’s works in academia. In 2006 Pedagogy of the Oppressed drew public attention in Arizona when a teacher used it for a high school Mexican-American Studies class.[5]

Paulo Freire begins Pedagogy by establishing a dialectic between the oppressor and the oppressed. This divide leads the oppressors to “oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power” (pg. 44). He further argues that anything hindering the “pursuit of self-affirmation … constitutes violence” (pg. 55). The oppressor group view themselves as the only true humans deserving of freedom, and they use that freedom to secure wealth for themselves at the expense of others; they view the oppressed as objects rather than people. Adopting Erich Fromm’s terminology, Freire describes oppressors as “necrophilic,” claiming they sadistically love death more than life by mentally reducing living people to inanimate objects (pgs. 59, 65).

Through these “violent” actions, the oppressed become alienated and demoralized, feeling dehumanized, while the oppressors are dehumanized by their own unjust actions. Freire seeks to promote the humanization of all by breaking down the divide between oppressors and oppressed, ultimately establishing a synthesis—a “new being: no longer oppressor nor longer oppressed, but human in the process of achieving freedom” (pg. 49).

Freire argues that change cannot come from the oppressors because it is against their interests to relinquish power and wealth. Even when they appear to help the oppressed, their generosity does not address the root of inequality—doing so would eliminate the need for their benevolence and the ego boost it provides. Since the oppressors, as a group, cannot bring about dialectical synthesis, only the “power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both” (pg. 44).

The challenge Freire sees to this emancipation of mankind is that, because of the oppressors’ nefarious control of information, the oppressed “have no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class” (pg. 46). Freire’s question then becomes how does one enlighten the minds of the oppressed to see their own downtrodden state—and not only see it, but believe that they have the power to transform the world? First, he calls for them to perceive their oppression, reflect upon it, and finally to take “action upon the world in order to transform it” (pg. 51). This praxis forms an essential part of his philosophy. The consciousness of oppression must be internalized in order to make the people desire freedom and rise up in action rather than accepting injustice as part of the world over which they have no power.

The goal of the pedagogy of the oppressed is to help the oppressed realize that they do not need to rely on those in power to acquire knowledge; in fact, their knowledge and reflection are the only way to end the oppression. Freire argues that the oppressed “must be among the developers of this pedagogy. No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption” (pg. 54). He seeks to show them that they, too, are capable of knowing—and, in fact, already possess—knowledge that the oppressors cannot access. This realization, he contends, must ultimately lead to action.

Freire distrusted those who sought to propagandize the oppressed, including revolutionary leaders, into desiring freedom. He feared that such leaders often aimed to impose transformation for the oppressed rather than achieving it with them. Authentic liberation, he argued, must come from within the oppressed individual through conscientização (consciousness), developed through reflection and action.

Freire’s “humanist and libertarian pedagogy” has two distinct stages. In the first, the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through praxis commit themselves to its transformation. In the second stage, in which the reality of oppression has been transformed, this pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed alone and becomes the pedagogy of all people in the process of permanent liberation. In both stages, deep, intentional action is necessary to challenge the culture of domination. In the first stage, this confrontation occurs as the oppressed change how they perceive the world of oppression; in the second stage, through the “expulsion of the myths created and developed in the old order, which like spectres haunt the new structure emerging from the revolutionary transformation” (pg. 55). Ultimately, Freire calls for a continuous revolution—one that constantly identifies and dismantles new forms of oppression, myths, and beliefs that perpetuate “violence” against marginalized groups. Because his focus is on fostering individual consciousness first, he insists that those “who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly” (pg. 60).

Only once this framework is established does Freire move into the topic of education itself. Freire projects the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy onto the teacher-student relationship. Teachers, as “knowers,” assume that students are ignorant and must be filled with knowledge. By viewing students as empty vessels to be filled, rather than living, breathing humans with their own personal history, Freire argues, the educator unwittingly dehumanizes the student and continues the necrophylic tendencies of society. To avoid this, the teacher must learn how to learn from his students and establish a relationship where “both are simultaneously teachers and students” (pg. 72). Walter Omar Kohan, a scholar of Freire’s life and doctrines, further elaborates on this idea, explaining that while the teacher knows more than the students academically, the unequal relationship can be dissolved when the teacher values the knowledge that students possess—knowledge that the teacher does not know.[6]

Teachers who fail to establish an egalitarian relationship with their students rely on what Freire calls the “banking” concept of education. In this model, the teacher, as the possessor of knowledge, deposits information—through lectures and reading lists—into the empty minds of students, who serve as passive depositories. Freire argues that this method, which expects students to retain only the knowledge curated by their teachers, stifles creativity and critical thinking skills (pgs. 72-73).

While Freire (and thinkers like John Dewey and Rousseau before him) argues that memorization inhibits creativity, education writer and proponent of neo-traditional pedagogy Daniel Buck counters that “throughout history, literary and artistic greats have employed memorization as part of their creative development.”[7] Poets and writers memorize and copy quotes from other great writers who came before them; musicians memorize and practice sections of music from other artists, along with the basic chords and scales; and to refine his oratory skills, Cicero studied and memorized speeches from the Greek orators. And, while the call to teach critical thinking over rote facts may sound appealing, Freire attempts to make “children think, to the detriment of providing them something to think about.”[8] Without a foundational knowledge of facts—dates, names, stories, theories—stored in the larder of their minds, students will have nothing concrete to think about.[9] Even those who seek to challenge traditional ideas must first understand the traditions, myths, and histories of a people before they can effectively rebel against them.

Freire’s second complaint about the banking method is that it reinforces existing power structures and encourages “marginal” people to integrate into the system rather than developing consciousness and taking action to transform it (pgs. 74, 76). This banking education serves to mentally conquer the oppressed, manipulate them, and invade their cultures. oppressors instill a “mythos” in students, teaching them that the only culture worth knowing is that of the oppressors. By embracing this culture and adopting the oppressors’ worldview, students are led to believe they can succeed within the system. Such an education, Freire argues, is an “exercise in domination,” indoctrinating students “to adapt to the world of oppression” (pg. 78).

“The notion of a neutral, objective education is an oxymoron,” writes Giroux. “Education and pedagogy do not exist outside relations of power, values, and politics.”[10] I agree with Freire and Giroux that education cannot be politically neutral; the selection of sources, the interpretation of events (shaped by which information is presented), the works of literature assigned, and the methods of instruction all carry cultural and political implications. However, rather than accepting this unavoidable fact of reality and focusing on what curriculum best assists student growth, Freire, in a fit of egalitarian fury, demands that all curricula be questioned and dismantled to eradicate any trace of hierarchy.

Even the act of teaching students grammar comes into question. Freire argued that “to accept and respect what is different” is essential to truly listening to others. In his view, those who insist that “standard” grammar is the only acceptable way to speak or write are not listening; rather, they are disdaining and mistreating others.[11] Teaching someone to read and write according to the accepted standards of grammar merely integrates them into the corrupt system, instills bourgeoisie values, and reinforces the existing inequalities between the literate and illiterate. Instead, students should question the value of literacy itself.

Rather than trying to teach students specific knowledge (reading, writing, arithmetic), they should “replace it with the posing of the problems of human beings in their relations with the world” because “liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not in transferals of information” (pg. 79). In this “problem-posing” method of teaching, the teacher only presents material to the students for their “consideration” and then must listen to their perspectives and “re-consider her own considerations” (pg. 81). Giroux, in his work Critical Pedagogy, provides an example of this: students are taught about the Civil Rights Movement, but then guided to a discussion about the sufferings of non-White people today and what actions they can take in response.[12] This problem-posing strives for praxis: reflection and action by the students.

Because of Freire’s emphasis on praxis, this challenging of ideas is designed to result in action; as the students engage with problems deemed relevant to their lives, they will feel “obliged to respond to that challenge” (pg. 81). The goal is to create activists rather than to ensure a specific level of education—after all, of what concern is it whether these students can read and write? They must tear down the oppressive system through action! The belief that literacy is better than illiteracy is violence! Believing that teachers should deposit such knowledge in their pupils perpetuates this violent and oppressive regime!

Freire’s “problem-posing” education, designed to promote “critical thinking,” echoes Trotsky’s call for “permanent revolution”—as one oppressive idea is deconstructed, the next is attacked. This creates a nihilistic spiral of destruction with no end goal besides continually tearing down whatever remains. “The struggle over creating an inclusive and just democracy can take many forms … [and is] an ongoing process of democratization that never ends,” writes Giroux. “Such a project is based on the realization that a democracy that is open to exchange, question, and self-criticism never reaches the limits of justice [emphasis added].”[13] For the critical pedagogue, democracy is not a destination but a perpetual process—one of constant “progress” toward an ever-evolving notion of justice, which itself is continuously redefined through problematization. In The Marxification of Education, James Lindsay describes Freire’s pedagogical ideas as based upon ruthlessly and relentlessly criticizing all that exists. In the faith bearing that hope, Freire calls repeatedly, dozens, upon dozens of times, for an outright and perpetual cultural revolution by which all ‘dehumanizing structures’ will be thrown down in a perpetual cycle of destruction. This society will be cast down, as well as society that replaces it, and the society that replaces that, and so on and so forth… until Utopia.[14]

 With an understanding of Freire’s philosophy under our belts, we must now consider its impact on the school system. Lindsay and his conservative, classical-liberal allies would have their readers believe that Freire’s writings played a significant role in the collapse of the American public school system. However, Lindsay largely overlooks two major factors in education—one might even suspect he does so deliberately. First, he places near-exclusive responsibility for children’s education on schools, ignoring the influence of parents and media. Second, he disregards the demographic factors contributing to the national decline in academic performance.

The curriculum standards established in each state, along with the mandatory evaluations of teachers by their principals, prevent any ideologue from fully implementing Freire’s ideas to their extreme. While right-wing pundits may attempt to paint every teacher as a frothing radical bent on turning children into transgender communist activists, the reality is that most teachers simply want to teach their subject and fall within the mainstream of cultural values. It’s easy to create the impression (for the sake of views and engagement) that all teachers are extremists by focusing on the fringe cases, but one must remember there are over four million teachers in the United States.[15] Let’s assume (these are purely hypothetical numbers) that each year, one thousand teachers are reported in the media for a scandal related to critical race theory or gender ideology. If these represent only one percent of the cases, that would mean there are roughly one hundred thousand teachers actively promoting critical pedagogy—just 2.5% of all teachers, a small minority who nonetheless receive the bulk of media attention.

While Freire’s ideas are not implemented in their entirety, they have influenced the flow of American education, but to what extent is difficult to tell. Daniel Buck lists several effects of Freire’s ideas on the educational establishment:[16]

• Freire provided the starting point for many sub-categories of critical pedagogy: feminists, post-colonial, Marxist, and deconstructionist pedagogies to list a few. It also overlaps significantly with the doctrines of critical race theory.
• The deconstruction of the teacher-student hierarchy has become mainstream within pedagogical theory. This sabotages the idea of the teacher as a dispenser of knowledge and devalues the instruction he provides.
• As a combination of the two above: when an English teacher assigns a book to the class, they look at it through a variety of “lenses” such as looking at the work from a feminist perspective to find hidden sexism, or a Marxist perspective to look for classism and inequality.[17] History teachers will often work with students to analyze the past through similar methods.
• Freire’s ideas encourage the radical teachers and administrators to antics such as “math ethnic studies,” ethnic studies programs, and the College Board to add Advanced Placement African American         studies while de-emphasizing Europe in the AP World History course.

While Freire’s ideas have not been implemented in their entirety, they synthesized easily with the progressive education ideas of John Dewey, which have become the standard since the 1930s (and merit an article of their own). Freire’s ideas are detrimental to the academic, cultural, and economic success of students because they actively work against those goals, fearing that true education would only propagate an unjust system of oppression. Countering these doctrines will first require an understanding of, and the ability to recognize, their influence. Second, they must be critiqued both pedagogically and as repackaged Marxism, as they are purely destructive of society in the name of equality. Third, the Right must establish a strong educational doctrine to counter that of the Left, rather than merely reacting and complaining about their long march through the institutions.

Notes

[1] Walter Omar Kohan, Paulo Freire: A Philosophical Biography, trans. Jason Wozniak and Samuel D. Rocha (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2021), 2.

[2] Daniel Buck, What’s Wrong With Our Schools? (Clearwater, FL: John Catt Educational Ltd, 2022), 44.

[3] James Lindsay, The Marxification of Education: Paulo Freire’s Critical Marxism and the Theft of Education (Orlando, FL: New Discourses, 2022), 7-8.

[4] Henry A. Giroux, On Critical Pedagogy (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), 175.

[5] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2023), 69.

[6] Kohan, 51.

[7] Buck, 212.

[8] Henry T. Edmondson III, John Dewey & The Decline of American Education: How the Patron Saint of Schools Has Corrupted Teaching and Learning (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006), 50.

[9] Buck, 65.

[10] Giroux, 210.

[11] Kohan, 44.

[12] Giroux, 179.

[13] Ibid., 167.

[14] Lindsay, 13-14.

[15] National Center for Education Statistics. 2023. Characteristics of Traditional Public, Public Charter, and Private School Teachers; and Characteristics of Public School Teachers. The Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Accessed May 24, 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/sld and https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr.

[16] Buck, 43-49.

[17] Professor of Educational Studies Deborah Appleman argues against the censorship of works people find offensive or problematic, but she then advocates for teaching “literary texts through theoretical perspectives such as gender criticism, postcolonial theory, Marxist literary theory, deconstruction, formalism, and structuralism, and reader response, for example, can become a center of literary inquiry. We can lay bare inequalities and issues of racism and sexism not by refusing to teach the offending texts, but by doing the opposite: actually teaching them.” –Deborah Appleman, Literature and the New Culture Wars: Triggers, Cancel Culture, and the Teacher’s Dilemma (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2022), 88.