Santos, Ronallene Fae V.

Gr. 12- Piety

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Summary

CHAPTER I

Humanization has always been a problem to the humankind’s central problem where in if
it is recognized, people would know about dehumanization and if people would know about
dehumanization then they would ask themselves if humanization is possible or not.
Humanization and dehumanization are alternatives. Oppressed people yearn for freedom and
right but they struggle because of their lost humanity.
Dehumanization can make people cynic and think that there’s no more hope because of
the oppressors who left marks on those whose humanity has been stolen. It stops a person from
doing something that would make his/her life better by pulling them down and losing what they
worked for just so they (oppressors) could step up above them. Dehumanization makes
humanization, freeing the ones in someone’s power and affirmation of men and women as
persons meaningless.
Because being fully human is distorted by the oppressors, the oppressed struggle against
the ones who oppressed them. The oppressed people should not turn into oppressors of their
oppressors, but should rather just restore theirs and their oppressors’ humanity. That is what an
oppressed person should do; free themselves and their oppressors as well. In order to free both
(oppressor and oppressed) the weakness that springs from the weakness of the oppressor should
be known where in it is in the form of “false generosity” where in false generosity is fostered by
death, despair and poverty. True generosity on the other hand fights against what is nourishing
false generosity. True generosity makes the “rejects of life” open their hands to work together to
transform the world and extend less in supplication.
The oppressed are the ones who understand the significance of an oppressive society,
they are the ones who had/have suffered the oppression and they are the ones who can
understand the necessity of liberation better. And because of that, they will create an act of love
against the lovelessness of the oppressor.
 Hence finding the liberation they want, the oppressed sometimes usually become sub-
oppressors during the early stage of being oppressed. They tend to adapt the attitude of their
oppressor and at this stage, they aren’t aware yet or they don’t classify themselves as oppressed.
To overcome the situation of oppression, people should identify the causes so that they
could make a new situation which could end up with a fuller humanity. The situation of
oppression is dehumanizing where in it affects the oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressor
is also dehumanized because he/she dehumanizes others.
The oppressed discover that they cannot exist authentically without freedom and even
though they are fighting for freedom, they are scared of it. The awful problem of the oppressed is
that their education must take into account. The book pedagogy of the oppressed showed that the
oppressed and oppressors are both manifestations of dehumanization.
The oppressed are the ones who can set themselves and their oppressor free while the
oppressors can never free themselves as well as the person or people who the oppress. The
situation is not settled or solved by the oppressed or the oppressor, but the new man that is
moulded by the situation or feeling of being trapped in the process of finding freedom. If the goal
of the oppressed is to become fully human, they will not achieve their goal by reversing the
terms of the contradiction.
The former oppressors tend to think of themselves as oppressed because they are
conditioned by the experience if oppressing others which any situation other than their former
feels like oppression to them. Any restriction in their way of life appears to the former
oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights even though they had no respect to
the ones who have struggled oppression. Whenever the oppressors hear the word “human
beings” they only think of themselves and think of other people as “things.” The oppressors also
think that only one right exists which is their right to live in peace and they also think that the
existence of the oppressed is necessary in their life.
Sadism is the pleasure in complete domination over another person. Its objective is to
transform a human into a thing which could either be inanimate or animate. Because of the
control, the human that is being dominated on loses the essential quality of life which is freedom.
Sadistic love is a love of death, not of life. It is one of the characteristics of the oppressor
consciousness in its view of the world. The oppressors are using science and technology as
unquestionably powerful instruments for their purpose which is to maintain to make the
oppressed feel like they are objects that have no purpose except to be oppressed.
Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth. Those who undergo it must take on
a new form of existence; they can no longer remain as they were. Only through comradeship
with the oppressed can the converts understand their characteristic ways of living and behaving
which reflects the structure of domination. The oppressed are both themselves and the image
their oppressor has internalized until they discover their oppressor and in turn their own
consciousness.
Self-deprivation is another characteristic of the oppressed which derives from their
internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. The criteria of knowledge imposed
upon them are the conventional ones. As long as ambiguity persists, the oppressed are reluctant
to resist, and lack confidence in themselves. They have a belief in the invulnerability and power
of the oppressor. The oppressed must see examples of the vulnerability of the oppressor in order
to have a contrary conviction to grow within them. Until this occurs, they will continue
disheartened, fearful and beaten. As long as the oppressed remains unaware on their condition,
they fatalistically “accept” their exploitation. However, little by little they try out forms of
rebellious action. In working towards liberation, one must neither lose sight of this passivity nor
overlook the moment of awakening. The oppressed feel like “things” owned by their oppressor
and at a certain point in their experience, to be is not to resemble the oppressor, but to depend on
him and the oppressed are emotionally dependent.
When an oppressed person vents of his sorrow by drinking, complaining and physically
hurt other people, it could lead to what Fromm calls necrophilic behavior which is about
destroying their life. It is only when the oppressed find the oppressor out and become involved in
the organized struggle for their liberation that they begin to believe in themselves and this
discovery involves action.
Critical and liberating dialogue, which presupposes action, must be carried on with the
oppressed at whatever the stage of their struggle for liberation. Attempting to liberate the
oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects
which must be saved from a burning building. At all stages of liberation, the oppressed must see
themselves as women and men becoming more fully human.
 To achieve this praxis, it is necessary to trust the oppressed and their ability to reason.
Whoever lacks this will fail to initiate communication and will fall into using slogans and
instructions. Liberation cannot be achieved by semi-humans.
A revolutionary leadership must accordingly practice co-international education.
Teachers and students are both subjects, not only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby
coming to know it critically but in the task of recreating that knowledge. As they attain this
knowledge of reality through common reflection and action, they discover themselves as its
permanent re-creators. In this way, the presence of the oppressed in the struggle for their
freedom will be what is should be. Not fake participation, but committed involvement.

CHAPTER II

An analysis of the teacher-student relationship inside or outside the school reveals its
fundamentally narrative character. The teacher is the narrating Subject and the student is the
patient living objects. The contents, whether values or empirical decisions of reality, tend in the
process of being narrated to become lifeless and petrified. Education is suffering from narration
sickness.
The teacher talks about reality as if it is predictable and he expounds on a topic that is
completely alien to the experience of the students. His task is to fill the students with the contents
if his narrations which are contents that are detached from reality that endangered them and
could give significance. Words are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow and
alienating verbosity.
The outstanding characteristic of this narrative education is the sonority of words, not
their transforming power. The student records and repeats phrases without knowing what it really
means. The narration of the teacher makes the students memorize mechanically the narrated
content. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be filled by the teachers.
The more the teacher refills the receptacles, the better the teacher is and the meekly the
receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.
The banking concept of education regards men as adaptable, manageable beings. The
more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical
consciousness which results from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world.
The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to
adapt to the world as it is.
The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power
and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors. The oppressors use their
humanitarianism to preserve a profitable situation. They react almost instinctively against any
experiment in education which stimulates the critical faculties and is not content with a partial
view of reality but always seeks out the ties which link one point to another and one problem to
another.
The oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy society, which must therefore
adjust these “incompetent and lazy” folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality.
However the oppressed are not “marginals.” They don’t live outside society but inside which
made them “beings for others.” The solution is not to “integrate” them into the structure of
oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become “beings for themselves” and
such transformation would undermine the oppressor’s purposes.
The ‘humanism’ of the banking approach masks the effort to turn women and men into
automatons which are the very negation of their ontological vocation to be more fully human.
Those who use banking approach, knowingly or unknowingly fail to perceive that the deposits
themselves contain contradictions about reality. But sooner or later these contradictions may lead
formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and the attempt to domesticate
reality. They may discover through existential experience that their present way of life is
irreconcilable with their vocation to become more fully human. If men and women are searchers
and their ontological vocation is humanization, sooner or later they may perceive the
contradiction in which banking education seeks to maintain them, and engage themselves in the
struggle for their liberation.
The banking concept does not admit to such partnership. To resolve the teacher-student
contradiction, to exchange the role of depositor for the role of student among students would be
to undermine the power of oppression and serve the cause of liberation. The educated individual
is the adapted person because he/she is better “fit” for the world. Translated into practice, this
concept is well suited to the purpose of the oppressors, whose tranquillity rests on how well
people fit the world the oppressors have created, and how little they question it.
 Since the banking education begins with false understanding of men and women as
objects, it can’t promote the development of what Fromm calls “biophily,” but instead produces
its opposite which is “necrophily.” Oppression-overwhelming-control- is necrophilic as well as
the banking concept of education.
Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students, with
ideological intent of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression. This accusation is
not made in the naïve hope that the dominant elites will thereby simply abandon the practice. Its
objective is to call the attention of the humanists to the fact that they cannot use banking
educational methods in the pursuit of liberation, for they would only negate that very pursuit.
Authentic liberation is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is a praxis.
Those who are truly committed to the cause of liberation can accept neither the mechanistic
concept of consciousness as an empty vessel to be filled, nor the use of banking methods of
domination in the name of liberation. The people who truly commit to liberation must abandon
the educational goal of human beings in their relations with the world. Liberating education
consists in acts of cognition, not transferrals of information. It is a learning situation in which the
cognizable object intermediates the cognitive actors-teacher on one hand and student on the
other. Accordingly, the practice of problem-posing education entails at the outset that the
teacher-student contradiction to be resolved.
Problem-posing education can fulfil its function as the practice of freedom only if it can
overcome the above contradiction. Through dialogue, the teacher is no longer merely the one
who teacher but the one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students who in turn while
being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this
process, arguments based on authority are no longer valid because in order for it to function,
authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it.
This movement of inquiry must be directed towards humanization. The pursuit of full
humanity cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism but in fellowship and solidarity
which cannot unfold the antagonistic relations between the oppressed and the oppressor. No one
can be authentically a human while he prevents others to be human.
 CHAPTER III

Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world in order to name the
world but even though dialogue can’t occur between those who want to name the world and
those who do not wish this naming. It cannot exist without humility. People who have their
primordial right to speak their word denied must reclaim first this right and prevent the
continuation of this dehumanizing aggression. Dialogue is an existential necessity and since
dialogue is the encounter in which united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to
the world which is transformed and humanized, this dialogue can’t be reduced to the act of one
person’s “depositing” ideas in another. Without dialogue there is no communication, and without
communication there can be no true education.
Finally, true dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking.
Critical thinking contrasts with naïve thinking which sees “historical tome as a weight a
stratification of the acquisitions and experiences of the past.” From which the present should
emerge normalized and “well behaved.”
The human world which is historical, serves as a mere prop for the “being itself.”
Animals are not challenged by the configuration which confronts them. Their life is not one of
risk-taking, for they are not aware of taking risks. Risks are not challenges perceived upon
reflection, but merely “noted” by the signs which indicate them. The people unlike animals, not
only live but exist. Animals live out their lives on an atemporal, flat, uniform “prop” while
humans exist in a world which they are constantly re-creating and transforming.
Since humans are aware of themselves, as they separate themselves from the world,
which they objectify, people overcome the situations which limit them. Once perceived by
individuals as fetters, as obstacles to their liberation, these situations stand out in relief from the
background, revealing their true nature as concrete historical dimensions of a given reality.
Thus, it is not the limit-situations in and of themselves which create a climate of
hopelessness, but rather how they are perceived by women and men at a given historical
moment.
The products which result from the activity of a being but do not belong to its physical
body, can give a dimension of meaning to the context which becomes a world. A being capable
of such production could no longer be if she or he were not in the process of being in the world
with which he or she relates.
The difference between animals and humankind is that only the latter are beings of the
praxis. Only human beings are praxis-the praxis in which, as the reflection and action which
truly transform reality is the source of knowledge and creation. Animal activity, which occurs
without a praxis, is not creative.
Through their continuing praxis, men and women simultaneously create history and
become historical-social beings. Because people can tri-dimensionalize time into the past, the
present and the future, their history, in function of their own creations develops a constant
process of transformation within which epochal units materialize and are not closed periods of
time.
A dominated consciousness which has not yet perceived a limit-situation in its totality
apprehends only its epiphenomena and transfers to the latter the inhibiting force which is the
property of the limit-situation. This fact is of great importance for the investigation of generative
themes. When people lack a critical understanding of their reality, apprehending it in fragments
which they do not perceive as interacting constituent elements of the whole, they cannot truly
know that reality. To truly know it, they would have to reverse their starting point.
In all the stages of decoding, people exteriorize their view of the world. And in
the way they think about and face the world their generative themes may be found.
To investigate the generative theme is to investigate people’s thinking about reality and
people’s action upon reality, which is their praxis. The methodology proposed requires that the
investigators and the people should act as co-investigators. The more active an attitude men and
women take in regard to the exploration of their thematics, the more they deepen their critical
awareness of reality and in spelling out those thematics, take possession of that reality.
Themes exist in people in their relations with the world, with reference to concrete facts.
There is, therefore, a relation between given objective fact, the perception women and men have
of this fact, and the generative themes.
A meaningful thematics is expressed by people, and a given moment of expression will
differ from an earlier moment, if they have changed their perception of the objective facts to
which the themes refer. Thematic investigation becomes a common striving towards awareness
of reality and toward self-awareness, which makes this investigation a starting point for the
educational process or of cultural action of a liberating character. It occurs in the realm of the
human, cannot be reduced to a mechanical act.
The investigation will be most educational when it is most critical when it avoids the
narrow outlines of partial or “focalized” views of reality, and sticks to the comprehension of total
reality. Investigation of thematics involves the investigation of the people’s thinking. Even if the
people’s thinking is superstitious or naïve, it is only as they rethink their assumptions in action
that they can change. Producing and acting upon their own ideas must constitute that process.
An equally fundamental requirement for the preparation of the codification is that their
thematic nucleus be neither overly explicit nor over enigmatic. The former may degenerate into
mere propaganda, with no real decoding to be done beyond stating the obviously predetermined
content. The latter runs the risk of appearing to be a puzzle or a guessing game. The codifications
should be simple in their complexity and offer various decoding possibilities in order to avoid
the brainwashing tendencies of propaganda.
By stimulating “perception of the previous perception” and “knowledge of the previous
knowledge,” decoding stimulates the appearance of a new perception and the development of
new knowledge. The new perception and knowledge are systematically continued with the
inauguration of the educational plan, which transforms the untested feasibility into testing action,
as potential consciousness supersedes real consciousness.
The anthropological concept of culture clarifies the role of people in the world and with
the world as transforming rather than adaptive beings.
The first rule of the basic-education teachers is to present the general program of the
educational campaign. The educators will also explain the presence in the program of the hinged
themes, and their significance. If the educators lack sufficient funds to carry out the preliminary
thematic investigation as described above, they can select some basic themes to serve as
“codifications to be investigated.”
One of these basic themes is the anthropological concept of culture. Whether men and
women are peasants or urban workers, learning to read or enrolled in a post-literacy program is
the debate of the concept. Their discussion touches upon other aspects of reality which comes to
be perceived in an increasingly critical manner. These aspects in turn involve many other themes.
The important thing, from the point of view of libertarian education, is for the people to
come to feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and views of the world
explicitly or implicitly manifest their own suggestions and those of their comrades. Because this
view of education starts with the conviction that it cannot present its own program but must
search for this program dialogically with people, serves to introduce the pedagogy of the
oppressed, in the elaboration of which the oppressed must participate.

CHAPTER IV

This chapter analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical
and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous
chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.
Humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure
activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. Human activity consists of
action and reflection. It is transformation of the world. And as a praxis, it requires theory to
illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice. It cannot be reduced to either verbalism or
activism.
Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are
by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the
praxis of the people is merely that of following the leader’s decisions. It is a unity, and the
leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
The earlier dialogue begins, the more truly revolutionary will the movements and it
corresponds to another radical need. The praxis implies no dichotomy by which this praxis could
be divided into a prior stage of occur simultaneously. Critical reflection is also an action.
The oppressed and the leaders are equally the subject of revolutionary action, and reality
serves as the medium for the transforming action of both groups. In this theory of action one
cannot speak of an actor, nor simply of actors, but rather of actors in intercommunication.
We can legitimately say that in the process of oppression someone oppresses someone
else. Every approach to the oppressed by the elites, as a class, is couched in terms of the false
generosity described in chapter 1. But the revolutionary leaders cannot be falsely generous, nor
can they manipulate. Whereas the oppressor elites, flourish by trampling the people underfoot,
the revolutionary leaders can flourish only in communion with people. Thus it is that the activity
of the oppressor cannot be humanist, while that of the revolutionary is necessarily so.
The characteristics of dialogical action:

Conquest
The first characteristic of antidialogical action is the necessity for conquest. The
antidialogical individual, in his relations with others, aims at conquering them. It implies a
conqueror and someone or something which is conquered. The act of conquest which reduces
persons to the status of things, is necrophilic. The desire for conquest is at all times present in the
antidialogical action. In sum, there is no oppressive reality which is not at the same time
necessarily antidialogical, just as there is no antidialogue in which the oppressors do not
untiringly dedicate themselves to the constant conquest of the oppressed. The content and
methods of conquest vary historically; what does not vary is the necrophilic passion to oppress.

Divide and Rule

A psychoanalysis of oppressive action might reveal “false generosity” of the oppressor as
a dimension of the latter’s sense of guilt. With this false generosity, he attempts not only to
preserve an unjust and necrophilic order, but to “buy” peace for himself. But it happens that
peace cannot be bought. It is men who in their own time sought unity for liberation who are the
heroes-not those who used their power to divide and rule.

Manipulation
In this historical phase, manipulation becomes a fundamental instrument for the
preservation of domination. In the antidialogical theory of action, manipulation is the response of
the oppressor to the new concrete conditions of the historical process. The antidote to
manipulation lies in a critically conscious revolutionary organization, which will pose to the
people as problems their position in their historical process, the national reality and manipulation
itself.

Cultural Invasion
In cultural invasion, the invaders are the authors and actors in the process and those they
invade are moulded. The only way out is to project onto the coordinator their own usual
practices: steering, conquering and invading. Cultural invasion which serves as the ends of
conquest and the preservation of oppression, always involves a parochial view of reality, a static
perception of the world and the imposition of one world view upon another. It further signifies
that the ultimate seat of decision regarding the action of those who are invaded lies not with them
but with the invaders. While all development is transformation, not all transformation is
development. Women and men, among the uncompleted beings are the only ones which develop.

Cooperation
Cooperation as a characteristic of dialogical action can only be achieved through
communication. Dialogue, as essential communication, must underlie any cooperation. In
dialogical theory, at no stage can revolutionary action forgo communion with the people.
Communion in turn elicits cooperation, which brings leaders and people to fusion. This fusion
can exist only if revolutionary action is really human, empathetic, loving, communicative and
humble in order to be liberating.

Unity for Liberation

This category of dialogical action cannot occur apart from the praxis. The praxis of
oppression is easy for the dominant elite but it is not easy for the revolutionary leaders to carry
out a liberating praxis. The unity of the elite derives from its antagonism with the people. The
unity of the oppressed occurs as human level. In order for the oppressed to unite, they must first
cut the umbilical cord of magic and myth which binds them to the world of oppression. To
achieve this indispensable unity the revolutionary process must be, from the beginning, cultural
action.

Organization
The leader’s pursuit of unity is necessarily also an attempt to organize the people,
requiring witness to the fact that the struggle for liberation is a common task. For the dominant
elites, organization means organizing themselves. For the revolutionary leaders, organization
means organizing themselves with the people. In the theory of dialogical action, organization
requires authority, so it cannot be authoritarian. Organization is a highly educational process in
which leaders and people together experience true authority and freedom, which they then seek
to establish in society by transforming the reality which mediates them.
Cultural Synthesis
Cultural synthesis is a mode of action for confronting culture itself, as the preserver of the
very structures by which it was formed. As historical action, it is an instrument for superseding
the dominant alienated and alienating culture. It is possible to resolve the contradiction between
the world view of the leaders and that of people, to the enrichment of both and they do not deny
the differences between the two views.
Reflection:

1.) Why is it that oppressed people have a fear of freedom as asserts by Freire?
- Oppressed people have a fear of freedom because their oppressors might do something to them
if they found freedom and since they are fighting for it. As stated on page 46, this type of fear
may lead them to desire the role of the oppressor.

2.) What does Freire mean by dehumanizing?

- Dehumanizing, as defined by Freire, is when the oppressor takes away the liberation or
freedom of the oppressed and prevents the oppressed to take his/her freedom back.

3.) Explain false generosity?

- On the first chapter, I read that false generosity is the type of generosity that the oppressors
have and it is fostered by death, despair and poverty.

4.) Liberation as a “praxis.” What does this mean?

- Liberation is a praxis means that the people in this world make actions and reflect in order to
transform the world.

5.) What is the relationship of the book to education and self-development?

- This book is related to education and self-development because it shows and teaches a person
on how to deal with oppression and how to get out of it. There were also parts in chapter 2 and 3
where in Freire used the terms “teacher” and “student” where in he used those as illustration of
how subject and object works and teacher and students are related to education.

6.) Oppressed becomes oppressor. Why?

- The oppressed becomes an oppressor because in some time in the stage of being oppressed,
whatever their oppressors do to them they try to do it to their oppressors for payback. I think this
can be illustrated by a fight between a sibling and me. For example, my sister pinched my arm so
I pinch her arm in return.