Why Teachers Should Read Paulo Freire as A Teacher: A Reading Guide for Freire
I have heard (or read) somewhere that you know
you are reading a good Philosophical work when you get yourself disturbed and when
your perception of reality is shaken. This exactly happened to me. The book is
rather short as it is only composed of 4 Chapters. The first chapter justifies the
“pedagogy of the oppressed.” Here, he highlights the relationship
between the oppressor and the oppressed and argues that the liberation of the
oppressed is not achieved through the (1) sheer kindness and mercy of the
oppressors nor by means of (2) self-achievement of the oppressed, but rather it
was achieved mutually through the efforts of the oppression and the oppressed.
The second chapter discusses how the “banking”
concept of education has become an instrument of oppression. It was argued here
that the relationship between the teacher and the student is akin to the
relationship between the oppressor and the Oppressed. In this “banking” concept
of education, the main role of the learners is to become passive receivers of
information, wherein the teachers take on the active role of learning. The teacher
is seen to be “knowledgeable,” while the learners are seen as empty containers
to be filled with knowledge. In this I am seeing similar pattern from the idea expressed by the British
Philosopher John Locke that the learners are like blank slates (Tabula Rasa).
On the contrary, it aligns with the idea of the constructivist schools of
thought, where learners are seen to be knowledgeable individuals who need the
guidance and stimulation of adults to achieve their full potential. This idea
is simplified as “education is lighting a candle,” wherein the children
(learners in general) are the candles and the learners, and the teachers are maybe
the matchstick or the cigarette lighter that was used to light the candle.
The reason why Freire believes that the “banking”
concept of education reinforces oppression is that, in this system, the teacher
is seen as the authority while the learner is seen to be ignorant; thus, they
do not have the right to speak. The learners have no authority in knowledge production.
It reinforces existing power structures between the oppressor and the
oppressed. In a kind of system where the student has no power, the student accepts the fact that they know nothing
and that their duty is to accept facts. Here, pedagogy becomes more dogmatic
and, worse, removes creativity from the curriculum. Such a system removes the capability
of the learners to think critically. This is the perfect condition for an
endless cycle of oppression.
One interesting point is that Freire does not
paint the oppressors as evil individuals, nor do the oppressed as marginalized
individuals who need help. In his belief, the oppressor is as clueless as the
oppressed and that the oppressed are just as clueless as their oppressor concerning
their oppression. In his terms, they are both “dehumanized” and “alienated.” Both
of them are victims; they are living in a bubble, and both of them (not just
the oppressed) need liberation. Thus, education should be transformative. It
should be humanistic; it should liberate both the oppressor and the oppressed. As
Freire said, “Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the
interest of the oppressor[1].”
The vehicle for this is nothing more than a true dialogue between the
oppressor and the oppressed and the teacher and the student.
Humanity is a thing, and they possess it as an exclusive right.
ReplyDeleteBut the oppressed internalize the image of the oppressor and adopt his guideline and become fearful of freedom.
As Hugh Masekela's "What people don't know about oppression is that the oppressor works much harder. You always grew up being told you were not smart enough or not fast enough, but we all lived from the time we were children to beat the system."
~Spica