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.
No comments:
Post a Comment