Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
was written at the time of de-colonization of countries. It talks of internal de-colonization, that is believing that ‘we are less’. We require healing from internal de-colonization. I can relate to it as an Indian, for it runs in our blood still. There is an approach of ‘west is better’ in everything we do. We are still oppressed. The solution that Freire proposes is "Critical Literacy", interpreted as Critical Pedagogy by educators, that is a way of learning that liberates people from oppression. In education, “Banking education”(Freire, 1970) is oppressive education. Teachers lecturing and students accepting passively without any engagement or contribution or questioning is a part of banking education. There is no openness to dissent and hence it is un-democratic. (Sampson, 2015). If students are not engaged in learning or participating, such an education is 1 way and hence a student’s mind is oppressed in the situation. True education is participative.
“For Freire, the educational process is never neutral.
People can be passive recipients of knowledge — whatever the content — or they can engage in a ‘problem-posing’ approach in which they become active participants” (Paulo Freire, n.d.). This is Critical Pedagogy, the opposite of Banking Education. Put simply, “Critical Pedagogy is the freedom to ask 'why' by the teachers and students. Why am I learning this?" (Freire Project, 2008). The heart of critical pedagogy is “Dialogue” which (Freire, 1972) defines, “Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world”. At the heart of “Dialogue” are several terms such as hope, love, humility and faith. It is the term ‘Humility’ that jumped out to me and hence it is my focus. Humility, freedom from pride or arrogance.
To come to humility, it would be necessary to understand the difference between dialogue and an ordinary discussion.
“A dialogue is very different from what we normally call a
discussion or debate in education. A discussion is usually between people who
have adopted definite points of view and who wish to convince each other or
compare their outlooks…. On the other hand, a dialogue as a mode of religious
inquiry begins with not knowing. The participants know that they do not know
the truth, posit it as the unknown and are eager to investigate together in
order to discover it. In not knowing, not identifying ourselves with any point
of view, not trying to convince each other of anything, we are together and not
pitted against each other. It is as if we are all on the same side of the table
and the truth is on the other side.” (Krishna, n.d.)
If dialogue beings with ‘not knowing’, then that makes the presence of humility imperative.
As (Friere, 1970) says, “Self-sufficiency is incompatible with dialogue.” To come to
humility, I need to accept that I may not know it all! When a teacher
approaches a student or another teacher with an attitude of ‘I may not know it
fully’, there is a possibility of openness to another’s view and hence further
evolution of the curriculum. Then transformation of would be possible as
against oppression of one by the other. “It is as transforming and creative
beings that humans, in their permanent relations with reality, produce not only
material goods— tangible objects—but also social institutions, ideas, and
concepts.” (Friere, 1970).
Hence a true educator would always be someone with humility.
For the vastness of
human mind, so little is actually known to us. More of the personality and mind
is unfolding before us each day and we cannot as educators ever say, I know it
all!
Comments