BE AS I AM, OR NOT

Revolutions can be thought of as vast movements that engulf millions of people either directly or as a result of their effects.  There are great studies, mostly historical, that describe and explain such events.  But if one is a practitioner, someone on the ground, dealing not with millions, but that person in front of him/her, then the focus varies widely.  The question is not how to get millions to revolt, but how does one encourage that one person to strive for change.

          It is at that more modest level that this writer sees the efforts of Paolo Freire[1] having its most meaningful effect.  In his classic work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he writes of the humanism of the oppressed.  In short, he writes of how the oppressed need to find their humanity.  This is akin to the federalist concern for the integrity and respect of all within the notion of a partnership.  So, from a federalist point of view, Freire’s contribution has value.

          This reflects the overall judgement that liberated federalism can be considered as a compromise between the ideas that compose the natural rights view and those that compose critical theory.  Freire’s writings and public action – he was, during his life, a public official in Brazil – was well ensconced within the leftist/critical theory school of thought.  He was a critical theorist and his writings are considered venerably within that body of work of educational scholarship. 

He is also thought of highly by other scholars.  In this posting the focus is on his accounting of the humanism of those slotted in the lower income groups, especially in lesser-developed nations.  The particularly useful insight Freire shares can be summarized with a quote:  “The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom.  Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.”[2]

This, in order to establish a more just, socioeconomic arrangement, needs to be heeded.  That is, at the center of an exploitive arrangements are the constructed views of those who are being oppressed.  They have taken on, to a great degree subconsciously, the expressed values of the oppressors – they think they want what the oppressors have.  But it is not their true natures to want these things because they entail a dehumanizing reality.

And this leads one to ask:  What does it mean to say one has a clear sense of his/her humanity?  Part of the problem is that not only do the oppressed adopt the oppressors’ views over this fundamental concern, they are, by so doing, hampered in being able to question these views, much less to change them.

 Further, in Freire’s view, the oppressors are equally dehumanized – his/her views are equally at odds with a reasonable estimation of what constitutes humanity.  As such, they are equally victimized by this inability to find and sustain their humanity.

And to add to the challenge, it is among the oppressors, Freire claims, that the challenge is beyond possible remedy.  To attempt changing their views, at least as an initial step in seeking socioeconomic change, is a waste of time.  That is, change can only be accomplished, albeit with difficulty, among the oppressed. 

This leads to the above concern:  in dealing with the oppressed person, how does one find a way for the oppressed to begin viewing the nature of the problem?  The aim is to have that person reject the notion that he/she should desire to become an oppressor for success is usually seen in those terms.  Instead, that person needs to be about learning who he/she really is. 

          This situation betrays a divided person, a person who harbors an internal tension between what is his/her internal nature and what has been artificially instilled, that takes on a consciously held view of what or who he/she is supposed to be.  Freire’s language can be surmised by this short quote:  “As long as they [the oppressed] live in the duality in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor, this contribution [change] is impossible.”[3]

So, to right the dehumanized perspective calls for introspection.  That includes determining his/her internal desires, talents, interests that are not socialized by externally imposed desires and interests in the form of flashy materialism.  Instead, it entails an understanding of how he/she could function and contribute to the genuine richness of their lives and the lives of those around them.

But the language Freire uses goes on; he, in his account, begins to refer to solidarity.  Such a term is grating to a federalist.   Perhaps this can serve as a boundary between the two constructed views.  Solidarity is associated with collectivism.[4]  The whole – the system wide reality – under this perspective overtakes the understanding of justice and undermines a concern for the individual person – at least that is a concern of this writer.  A future posting will address this difference.

Yes, these are matters of degree, but can be important when one shifts from lofty thinking to actual policy decisions.  Another language distinction this writer finds useful is the difference between two images:  that of a comrade and that of a partner.  Solidarity is linked to the former; community is linked to the latter.  But in either case, Freire is a useful source.  He sheds light on this essential element of change:  for the person, who actually lives the change, to find his/her humanity.

---

[1] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY:  Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 29.

[3] Ibid., 30. (emphases in the original)

[4] This in no way is a negative comment on the Solidarity movement that served to help overthrow the communist rule in Poland.

THE OL’ ONE-TWO

As this blog notes the new year – hoping all are having a happy one – its writer observes certain things don’t change.  One is how people choose emotion over reason all the time.  More specifically, how emotions determine valuing.  Values can be based on reasons, but emotions are inescapable.  At some point, unless a person can be a Spock from Star Trek, his/her emotions play a role in forming values – what one wants.  For most, that role is either central or exclusive.

As a matter of fact, people take emotional appeals as reasoned argument, if not all the time, most of the time.  To point, a philosopher from the 1700s made quite a name for himself by just pointing out a distinction.  The “is” is not the “ought.”  Sentiments are not observations of reality.  Thank you, David Hume for pointing out what should have been obvious; yet it took that long in human history to nail that point down. 

And yet, most humans continue to think and act as if the point has not been made.  And one prominent area of concern, that one witnesses this convolution, is the area of politics.  A more recent writer, Drew Westen, argues, quite convincingly, that political rhetoric, to be successful, needs to appeal to emotions.  He offers this example:  when talking to a religious audience, one should say something like:  “… no one is suggesting we give special rights to anyone, only treat all Americans as equal under the law – that we treat all Americans as God’s children.”[1]

In this example, by adding “as God’s children,” the speaker provides the context that is emotionally meaningful to a religious person.  The only thing this writer would suggest is the speaker should start with that phrase for that audience.  So, the target is someone or something close to the listeners:  themselves (usually relating to an economic factor), their family, or some entity that has emotional attachment (a hometown, a favored sports team, a historical linkage or heritage like religion).

At the time of his book being written, Westen claims the Republican Party and its candidates were better at this type of messaging than the Democrats.  Hence, at that time, the GOP was meeting with greater success at least at the national level.  He further claims that the Democrats exercised an irrational commitment to rationality.  This might still be the case.  They indulge in reasoned arguments while Republicans aim for the gut.

But such an irrationality leads one to think in rational terms.  This extends to how one views the voter.  The pol, who adopts such an approach, tends to project this approach.  He/she tends to see the voter as a calculating agent.  And when trying to see where that voter stands, where the voters’ calculations leave them on policies and issues, a pol determines this by looking at the polls.  The pol will use rational arguments in their rhetoric to meet where the voters are.

But there is the rub, as the polling shifts, the pol comes across as shifting, waffling, pandering, and lacking principled conviction.  This tends to be highly unattractive to the voter.  While, if the pol first determines the emotional positions of large blocks of voters and then determines a message(s) that is appealing to those positions (“… all of God’s children”), he/she is much less likely to shift, waffle, or be seen as pandering.  It is, therefore, more appealing.

Is it more honest?  This general strategy is not, necessarily, more or less truthful.  It is, though, more effective.  It is one of several strategic elements comprising effective messaging.  These parties hire professionals who should know how to message and, really, one side should not be so much better than the other.

In addition to aiming for some emotional target there are other “rule-of-thumb” practices a pol should do.  It is also important to either establish what becomes the consensus opinion during a given news cycle – get out fast with a response to an emotionally charged event – or, if failing that, be able to issue an equally emotional response to mitigate the damage the initial message has inflicted. 

In addition, a contextual aspect of these strategic elements is one that pols should keep in mind:  office holders are opinion-makers.  As such, they have a potential advantage.  Unless the issue is big enough, strident enough, important enough, voters will give the elected leader, who issues messages effectively, the benefit of the doubt. 

Unfortunately, the typical voter does not give the day-to-day conflicts, news headlines, or punditry much attention.  So, the pol, who can capture the overall message – its emotional punch or, more likely, its emotional jab – wins the day.  An elected official, who gets the sufficient number of jabs and punches in, wins the match and gets re-elected.

---

[1] Drew Westen, The Political Brain:  The Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of the Nation (New York, NY:  PublicAffairs, 2007), 15.  (emphasis in the original)