The Student Guide to Freire’s

Pedagogy of the Oppressed

 Also available from Bloomsbury

Education for Critical Consciousness, Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire, Daniel Schugurensky
Paulo Freire’s Intellectual Roots, edited by Robert Lake and Tricia Kress
Paulo Freire’s Philosophy of Education, Jones Irwin
Pedagogy of Hope, Paulo Freire
Pedagogy of the Heart, Paulo Freire
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 50th Anniversary Edition, Paulo Freire
The Student Guide to Freire’s
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Antonia Darder
 BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK

BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2018

© Antonia Darder, 2018

Introduction © Donaldo Macedo, 2018
Interview © Ana Maria Araújo Freire, 2018

Antonia Darder has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

Cover design by Clare Turner

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any
third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in
this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher
regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have
ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-5566-0

PB: 978-1-4742-5562-2
ePDF: 978-1-4742-5564-6
ePub: 978-1-4742-5563-9

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.
 This book is dedicated to the memory of Paulo Freire,
whose work continues to inspire new generations of revolutionaries
committed to a more just and loving world.
 Contents

Figures viii
Preface ix
Foreword, Donaldo Macedo xv
About This Book xxi

1 Lived History 1
2 Intellectual History 23
3 In Dialogue with the Text: Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 93
4 Impact, Influences, and Legacy: An Interview with Ana Maria
Araújo Freire 151

Bibliography 172
Index 185
 Figures

1.1 Paulo Freire at 1 year old and at 3 years old 4

1.2 Paulo Freire’s mother and father 6
1.3 Paulo Freire, circa 1940 10
1.4 Paulo Freire speaking at a SESI meeting 11
1.5 Paulo Freire in Chile, following his exile from Brazil 15
1.6 Paulo Freire upon his return to Brazil, 1980 18
1.7 Paulo and Ana Maria Araújo Freire, circa 1990s 19
1.8 Various photos of Paulo Freire around the world 20
4.1 Ana Maria Araújo and Paulo Freire, circa 1990s 151
 Preface

Paulo Freire: Early Epistemologist of the South

In today’s context, Paulo Freire can be better understood as an early

epistemologist of the South (Santos 2007), in that his epistemological sensibilities
emerge from his contestation of what Quijano (2000) calls the coloniality of
power inherent in Brazilian society of the early twentieth century. Rooted in a
political economy that thrived on the poverty of the majority of people, Freire
witnessed a complete moral disregard for the casualties left behind, despite the
widespread presence of government and church institutions in Latin America
and other parts of the world—which often turned a deaf ear and blind eye to
human suffering. In the 1960s, Brazil, as a nation, was heavily embroiled in a
contentious politics linked to its “damaging legacy of Portuguese colonialism,
and … its own complex internal politics” (Irwin 2012: 2). In response, Freire’s
epistemological interventions can be understood in sync with the anticolonial
preoccupations of Latin American philosophers and revolutionary writers such
as Frantz Fanon, Albert Memmi, Aime Cesaire, Julius Nyerere, Amilcar Cabral,
and others. In an unapologetic acknowledgment of the brutality of human
oppression, Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed sought to intentionally shift the
focus away from a dehumanizing epistemology of knowledge construction
toward a liberating and humanizing one. As such, Freire’s approach was imbued
with an early decolonizing sensibility that directly linked material conditions of
oppression to the brutal impact of cultural invasion imposed on the oppressed.
However, beyond these philosophical concerns, what often is left
unacknowledged is the recognition of Freire’s distinct cultural origins, which
as mentioned above are fully situated within both an early twentieth-century
colonizing context of Latin America and an early Southern epistemological
formation, which defies what Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007) terms an
abyssal divide characteristic of Eurocentric epistemicides and blatant forms
of cognitive injustice (Paraskeva 2011). Of this abyssal divide, Santos (2007)
x Preface

writes, “What most fundamentally characterizes abyssal thinking is thus the

impossibility of the co-presence of the two sides of the line. To the extent that
it prevails, this side of the line only prevails by exhausting the field of relevant
reality. Beyond it, there is only nonexistence, invisibility, non-dialectical
absence” (1). As such, hard analytical boundaries prevail between how “this
or that” is defined and regulated, collapsing the dialectics of human existence.
Within such restrictions, there is often an inability to grasp epistemologically
the paradoxical rationality of the decolonizing mind—an approach that is in
opposition to the narrow Aristotelian logic1 of the West, and that “assumes
that A and non-A do not exclude each other” (Fromm 1956).
Freire has often been critiqued for what might be deemed his Southern
epistemological reading and reinvention of Western revolutionary ideas—
critiques, ironically, issued through narrow Western frameworks of scholars
unable to suspend their belief in the existence of one correct, universal way to
articulate truths; to which they alone are privileged with true clarity and insight.
The challenges that Santos (2014) poses, in order to move beyond the abyssal
divide, entail “two main procedures … ecologies of knowledges and intercultural
translations.”2 About this intercultural translation, Santos (2014) writes,

Because it is a work of mediation and negotiation, the world of translation

requires that the participants in the translation process defamiliarize
themselves to a certain extent vis-à-vis their respective cultural backgrounds.
In the case of North/South translations, which tend to be also Western/non-
Western translation, the task of defamiliarization is particularly difficult
because the imperial North has no memory of itself as other than imperial
and, therefore, as unique and as universal (223).

1
In Art of Loving, Fromm (1956) takes up this question of paradoxical thinking. “Aristotle explains
his position very clearly in the following sentence: ‘It is impossible for the same thing at the same
time to belong and not to belong to the same thing and in the same respect; and whatever other
distinctions we might add to meet dialectical objections, let them be added. This, then, is the most
certain of all principles … ’ This axiom of Aristotelian logic has so deeply imbued our habits of
thought that it is felt to be ‘natural’ and self-evident, while on the other hand the statement that X is
A and not A seems to be nonsensical” (73).
2
About intercultural translation, Santos (2014) writes, “Because it is a work of mediation and
negotiation, the world of translation requires that the participants in the translation process
defamiliarize themselves to a certain extent vis-à-vis their respective cultural backgrounds. In the
case of North/South translations, which tend to be also Western/non-Western translation, the task
of defamiliarization is particularly difficult because the imperial North has no memory of itself as
other than imperial and, therefore, as unique and a universal” (223).
 Preface xi

It seems that such difficulties with intercultural translation constitute, at times,

precisely the epistemological challenges inherent in reading Pedagogy of the
Oppressed. Moreover, central to this idea is that “different types of knowledge
are incomplete in different ways and that raising the consciousness of reciprocal
incompleteness (rather than looking for completeness)” is a precondition for
achieving cognitive justice (212).
With Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire seeks to unveil the oppressor/
oppressed contradiction and counter the closed system of Eurocentric
rationality—epistemologies of blindness (Santos 2014)—in education and society.
This is a phenomenon that, unwittingly or unwittingly, blunts the capacity of
the Western mind to grasp decolonizing ideas forged through epistemologies
of the south. As such, hard positivist boundaries prevail between how “this and
that” are defined and regulated as absolute categories, collapsing the dialectics
of human thought to power relations, as well as denying the historicity and,
thus, fragility and impermanence of all theoretical postulations. Within such
restrictions, there is often an inability, generally unacknowledged, to grasp the
paradoxical rationality of decolonizing epistemologies. It is for this reason that
Freire embraces the unfinishedness of knowledge, in ways that openly engage
the reciprocal incompleteness of the knowledge that teachers and students
bring to the process of learning.
Over the years, various critiques of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed have
been made about a variety of questions and contradictions in his work (Ohliger
1995). Many speak to sincere concerns and contradictions; which, as with all
critiques, some are valid, while others not so much. Critiques have bemoaned
the romanticization of Freire’s discourse, the problematics of applying Freire’s
method, concluding that Freire, rather than being revolutionary, “acted as a
liberal member of a Catholic intellectual elite” (Facundo 1984). Others called
out Freire’s use of patriarchal language and his failure to engage questions of
gender (Brady 1984)3; and still others judged Pedagogy of the Oppressed to be
3
On several occasions, Paulo spoke about this issue and, in fact, did change the language in his
later books. However, initially, he refused to make changes to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in that
he believed it was important to maintain the historicity of the text. That is to say, when he wrote
the book, the language reflected his lack of awareness on this issue. In later writings, the change
reflects the evolution of his thought. Freire insisted that we are historical beings and therefore our
writings become a testimony to this reality, by reflecting our changes in consciousness over time.
He considered this a significant pedagogical question and a human characteristic that reinforced
humility and intellectual honesty.
xii Preface

an “illogical and inconsistent” text (Foy 1971); or filled with a contradictory

discourse, lacking of systematic analysis (Leach 1982). While yet others
deemed Freire’s writings as “petite bourgeois revolutionism,” given his
supposed vacillation between the “sectarianism” and “opportunism” derived of
an idealism considered to be in direct conflict with orthodox Marxist readings
of education, society, and social movement (Gibson 1994). At other times,
Freire’s ideas have been considered to be “harmful not just to students but to
the teachers entrusted with their Education” (Stern 2009), which, incidentally,
expresses the political views of the Tucson Unified School District in the state
of Arizona that banned Pedagogy of Oppressed from classroom use for two
years (Cammarota and Romero 2014). While other critics have challenged
Freire’s speciesism (Kahn 2010) or privileging of human life in his articulations
of freedom and empowerment,4 reflected in the manner he articulates the
relationship of humans to animals. In many instances, Freire actually made
intentional efforts to rethink his language and perspective, reflecting some
shifts over the course of his lifetime.
However, antidialogical academic dismissals of Paulo Freire’s pedagogical
praxis are often rendered by way of wholesale denial of his personal self-
vigilance, willingness to enter into self-criticism, and commitment to
open dialogue—characteristics that remained central to his pedagogy and
relationships, throughout his life. About the “blind-spot” of many critics,
hooks (1994) asserts, “in so much of Paulo’s work there is a generous spirit,
a quality of open-mindedness that I feel is often missing from the intellectual
and academic arena in U.S. society, and feminist circles have not been an
exception” (152). As such, to divorce Paulo’s words from their historical
foundation and the profound political tensions inherent in the colonizing
limitations of his era is to, wittingly or unwittingly, reinscribe the Western
epistemological elitist gaze that Freire fought so persistently to derail in
his scholarship, teaching, and everyday relationships. Similarly, another
criticism of Freire, issued from those within and outside Brazil, is that he too

4
Speciesism refers to a human-centric belief system, which views other living species on the planet
as intrinsically inferior to human life. See: Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, and Planetary Crisis by
R. Kahn (2010) for an better understanding of this critique and some ways he proposes to extend
Freire’s work toward addressing the question of speciesism in our perspectives of education and its
relationship to the well-being of all living beings.
 Preface xiii

easily conflates questions of education and politics. However, Irwin (2012)

argues, “This accusation underestimates the complex and specific analysis
which Freire gives of education and the pedagogical process” (46).
As one would expect, Freire was well aware of the critiques and tensions
that surrounded his theoretical ideas and pedagogical praxis; but as an
emancipatory intellectual in the decolonizing tradition, he also firmly
believed in the pragmatic necessity of engaging conflicting dimensions
across ontological and epistemological differences, as well as to grapple with
tensions rooted in the oppressor/oppressed contradiction. Thus, he persisted
in speaking across a variety of philosophical perspectives within the totality of
the intellectual field, conceiving this level of openness to ideas as a democratic
imperative for scholars from oppressed populations who sought to unravel the
impact of the coloniality of power on their thinking, politics, pedagogy, and
way of life. This, unfortunately, is not necessarily appreciated or recognized
among those decisively steeped in the compartmentalizing and blinding ethos
of a reductionist philosophical tradition, where Freire’s so-called “eclectic”
advances are deemed an anathema.
Hence, in an examination of his intellectual journey, what stands out most
clearly is that Freire was not a rigid or dogmatic thinker; in that his early
lived history of surviving and maneuvering extremely difficult conditions of
social and economic oppression, perhaps prepared him to see the folly in such
sectarian pretenses—intolerant pretenses generally associated with academic
battles for dominance in the field. Freire, therefore, recognized such critiques,
devoid of opportunities for dialogue, as anti-dialogical cultural manifestations
rooted in the authoritarian tradition of the colonizer, which still plagues
university scholarship. This points to scholarship that seldom emerges from
the concrete social and material conditions of the people or from a spirit of
solidarity, necessary for comprehending the significance of Pedagogy of the
Oppressed to a politics of liberation. Further, Freire’s epistemology cannot be
understood through straight-line trajectories, detached of concrete historical
events, economic conditions, personal relationships, pedagogical practices,
or philosophical traditions from which he consistently grappled to make
sense of human oppression and the role of education as either a force for
domination or emancipation. As such, Freire must be understood as a post-
xiv Preface

disciplinary5 thinker, who took up and engaged concepts multidimensionally

from a variety of authors and disciplines, systematically mining their salience
to revolutionary struggle. And, in so doing, it was “he who gave them [an]
international resonance” (Martínez Gómez 2015: 57)—, so much so, that
twenty years after his death Friere’s contribution continues to spark the
revolutionary imagination of educators around the globe.

Antonia Darder
Los Angeles, California

5
Post-disciplinary here draws on the writing of such scholars as Andrew Sayer (1999) and Bob
Jessop and Ngai-Ling Sum (2001), who refer to an approach to teaching and research that extends
knowledge construction beyond disciplinary boundaries, by following a coherent group of “ideas
and connections wherever they lead instead of following them only as far as the border of [the]
discipline” (Sayer 1999: 5). Traditionally, the process of knowledge construction has been held
hostage by the arbitrary boundaries of disciplines (i.e., philosophy, history, political economy,
anthropology, sociology, psychology), which result in the unfortunate compartmentalization and
fracturing of knowledge, which often, wittingly or unwittingly, conceals the extent of power and
control held by the dominant class and culture. As such, we can think of decolonizing epistemologies
as a systematic foray outside the abyssal divide (Santos 2007) of disciplinary approaches within the
Western inspired university tradition.
 Foreword
Donaldo Macedo
University of Massachusetts, Boston

False love, false humility, and feeble faith in others cannot create trust… to
say one thing and do another—to take one’s words lightly—cannot inspire
trust. To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse
on humanism and to negate people is a lie.
—Paulo Freire
Pedagogy of the Oppressed

I could not think of a more suited scholar than Antonia Darder to write The
Student Guide to Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Darder truly embodies
the meaning of solidarity and the value of gratitude for mutual support in the
collective cocreation of a political project that dares to imagine a world where
people are less narcissistic, more just, less dehumanizing and more humane. She
is well aware of the lies that undergird meritocracy as she is painfully cognizant
that, while many educators critique neoliberalism’s heightened individualism
and its theology of the market, their actions, nevertheless, always take a detour
through cost analysis measures which often sabotage the collective political
project of becoming more fully human. That is, “the pursuit of full humanity,
however, cannot be carried out in isolation or [individualistically], but only
in the fellowship and solidarity,”1—a solidarity that should always be shaped
and guided by generosity of the heart, collective responsibility, and gratitude—
values that are almost always trumped by the current crass careerism predicated
in having more instead of being more human.2
Hence, Darder along with Henry Giroux, bell hooks, Linda Brodkey, Stanley
Aronowitz, Lilia Bartolomé, and Peter McLaren are but a handful of activist-
intellectuals who truly understand the “daunting task” of living the Pedagogy of

1
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 85.
2
Ibid., 85–86.
xvi Foreword

the Oppressed to the extent that “[it] requires one to step into a vulnerable
place and embrace a politically and culturally charged sensibility that can
move beyond traditional conceptualizations of scholarship. This [humbling
coherence which is predicated on an unyielding integrity] also demands that
one dares to embody the spirit, passion, and commitment of Paulo Freire
to make a world where it is possible to be more human, a world where it is
possible to love,”3 which is a sine qua non for the existence of dialogue that,
in turn, requires “a profound love for the world and for people.”4 Thus, a
pseudo-Freirean who remains shackled to a blind zeal for power and uses an
anti-establishment critical discourse to disguise his or her need to dominate,
“reveals the pathology of love: sadism in the dominator and masochism in the
dominated.”5
The challenge for the intellectual-activist is to have the courage to refuse
“to dichotomize cognition from the emotion”6—a task that requires courage,
coherence, and integrity—values that are evermore in short supply in a world
where, according to President Trump, what matters is “to make a deal,”
irrespective of the human costs and the probable violation of ethics. Hence,
many educators, including those who claim to be Freirean, sacrifice their
integrity and coherence as they are spellbound by the careerist zeal of another
promotion to a position of power even if it means emptying out the “authentic
word … [which] … is deprived of its dimension of action, [and in which]
reflection automatically suffers … and the word is changed into idle chatter,
into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah.’”7
The fossilization of action by many pseudo-critical educators is usually
contextually situated in textual critiques when the self-proclaimed Freireans
hollow out their critical anti-establishment discourse by paralyzing action
so as to maintain their colonizing desires of reaping privileges from the very
establishment that they denounce. Consequently, they reject any dialogue
that includes theory, reducing their denouncement of the establishment to a
fossilized dialogical method while chest-pounding to be a “man [or women]

3
Ibid., 89.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Freire (1998), xviii.
7
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 87.
 Foreword xvii

of action, one who draws his [her] lessons from experience.”8 This false
dichotomy between theory and action not only reveals the distortion of the
wanna-be-Freireans but, it simultaneously points to their failure to understand
that all actions are informed by theory and authentic activists must know how
to theorize their action. To do otherwise is to fall prey to an elitist academicism
where theory and a discourse of critique are often disarticulated from action,
rendering the denouncement of the unjust world to pure academic blah, blah,
blah, “for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform,
and there is no transformation without action.”9 In many respects, the pseudo-
critical educator who rejects theory, acts like the “colonist [who] likes neither
theory nor theorists. He who knows that he is in a bad ideological position
boasts of being a man of action, one who draws his lessons from experience,”10
one whose energy is razor focused on the community disarticulated from the
very ideological and cultural factors that gave rise to the human misery that
festers in that community in the first place and where subjugated people are
relegated to sub-humanity.
As a profoundly organic intellectual, Antonia Darder keenly understands
that “the act of love is a commitment to the [oppressed’s] cause—the cause of
liberation. And this commitment, because it is loving, is dialogical.”11 To the
extent that it is dialogical, Darder’s illuminating insights on Freire’s ideals and
philosophy of life make clear the unviability of a critical discourse that only
denounces the social injustices at the level of text without a communion with
the people who need to struggle and announce their freedom. Necessarily, an
act of freedom invariably requires dialogue with the people on whose behalf
the critical educator proclaims to fight as an anti-establishment expert against
the oppressive establishment. To do otherwise is to use a language of critique
that denounces oppression at the level of text “as a pretext for manipulation.”12
That is, educators whose political project is always sacrificed at the altar of
crass careerism and who speak for the people but are not with the people, are
educators who fear the people and who visit the community as anthropological

8
Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), 26.
9
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 87.
10
Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, 26.
11
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 91.
12
Ibid., 90.
xviii Foreword

tourists to collect research data to support their critique of oppression. As

anthropological tourists, they “might treat [the community] under study as
though [they] are not participants in it. In [their] celebrated impartiality,
[they] might approach this real world as if [they] were wearing ‘gloves’ and
‘masks’ in order to not contaminate or be contaminated by it.”13
Like Freire, Darder never positions herself in the community as an
anthropological tourist or as a savior who paternalistically sloganizes against
oppression from the comfort and safety of the academy. Like Freire, Darder has
never been seduced by the stifling middle-class smugness of the academy, which
almost always coerces the working-class intellectual into forgetting dangerous
childhood memories of economic hardship, violence, and dehumanization.
Like Freire, Darder adheres to the necessary intellectual coherence in order to
understand the critical difference between studying and writing about hunger
and actually experiencing it. As Freire painfully recounts, “I didn’t understand
anything [in school] because of my hunger. I wasn’t dumb. It wasn’t lack of
interest. My social condition didn’t allow me to have an education.”
Unlike domesticated educators and policy makers who hide hunger behind
an abstract test score, Freire and Darder dare to name the violence implicated
in the societal dismissal of the cruel and generalized poverty as “bad luck”
or “lazy people attempting to mooch from taxpayers hard-earned money.”
According to Darder, Freire’s “early experiences of poverty led him to discover
the ‘culture of silence’ of the oppressed—whose response to the world, he
would argue in Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” I would go a step further and
argue that Pedagogy of the Oppressed would not have been written had Freire
not experienced the dehumanizing and humiliating experience of hunger in
Morro da Saúde, a poor neighborhood in Jaboatão in the periphery of Recife,
where I had the pleasure and honor of visiting Freire’s humble house in June
2016, in the company of Darder and Freire’s widow, Nita Freire. I agree with
Darder that Freire’s “early life experiences among impoverished rural and
working people and in poor schools … [instilled] … in him a profound sense
of love and compassion and an understanding for how difficult conditions
of poverty subjected children from subaltern communities to a colonizing
13
Paulo Freire, The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation (South Hadley, MA: Bergin
and Garvey, 1987), 132.
 Foreword xix

education, which further [increased] their disempowerment, domestication,

and alienation.”
Whereas Freire used his experiences of poverty to develop greater empathy
with the people suffering from class oppression and all forms of social
injustices, most educators and researchers go to great lengths to deny the
existence of class in the United States, reproducing a pedagogy of lies which
is normalized by “fake research” and legitimized by number crunching. That
is, let us take the ideological trap in the field of reading and literacy that range
from the reactionary call for scientifically based approaches to reading to the
militaristic lock step marching orders of the dominant curriculum. While
many educators courageously denounce the dehumanizing deskilling of both
students and teachers who are coerced into rigid instructional methodologies,
many liberal educators engage in an eternal dance of hypocrisy where, instead
of denouncing the vicious attacks on poor children under the guise of science,
they take refuge in a type of academic literacy research which is, at best, folk
theory and, at worse, the reproduction of the very class warfare that is largely
responsible for the inequalities that many well-intentioned liberals denounce
at the level of discourse and from which they refuse to divest their privilege.
Hence, one of Freire’s major goals was the development of an emancipatory
pedagogical process that is designed to teach students, through critical
literacies, how to negotiate the world in thoughtful and just ways that expose
and engage the relations between the oppressor and the oppressed.
For Freire, literacy as an act of conscientization has as its central educational
objective to awaken in the oppressed the knowledge, creativity, and constant
critical reflexive capacities necessary to demystify and understand the power
relations responsible for their marginalization and, through this recognition, begin
a project of liberation. Its commitment to critical reflection and transformative
action makes conscientization central to critical literacy which requires, in turn,
that the teacher perform the critical questioning inherent to conscientization in
order to ensure that due consideration is given to important social, economic,
and cultural contributors to social justice in teaching and learning.
Like Freire, Darder’s insistence on integrity and intellectual coherence
unmasks educators who study violence but fail to comprehend the difference
between deploring violence and surviving it. Furthermore, integrity and
xx Foreword

intellectual coherence must also denounce academics’ false benevolence

of giving voice to the voiceless while simultaneously having their “tongue
yanked”14 by the academic discourse vigilantes who use high stakes testing and
a banking model of “common core” to exclude non-middle-class (and often
non-White students) from accessing quality education as an act of freedom.
In The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Darder
insightfully demonstrates that conviviality with economic deprivation
teaches that poverty is not a disease but a social construction that uncritical
and unreflexive teachers help construct. Darder challenges all educators to
comprehend that poverty and human misery are not contagious but part of
the architecture of class structure that most academics deny or denounce at
the level of discourse but refuse to renounce through a pedagogy of lies as
they continue to reap class privileges. In other words, most academics are, at
various levels, engaged in the construction of human misery and poverty they
correctly denounce in their critical discourse and wrongly reproduce through
their burning colonial desires.
Darder brilliantly captures the essence of what it means to educate in Freire’s
denouncement of “the antidialogics of the banking method of education,”15
which has gained ample terrain in the school reform movement that, while
reforming, deforms. The overemphasis on methods has become a North
American educational trade mark as argued by Lilia Bartolomé in her classic
article, “Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a Humanizing Pedagogy”16—a
humanizing pedagogy that electrifies Freire’s perennial hope,

rooted in men’s [and women’s] incompletion, from which they move out in
constant search—a search which can be carried out only in communion with
others. Hopelessness is a form of silence, of denying the world and fleeing
from it. The dehumanization resulting from an unjust order is not a cause
for despair but for hope, leading to the incessant pursuit of the humanity
denied by injustice … As long as I fight, I am moved by hope; and if I fight
with hope, then I can wait.17

14
Anzaldúa (1989).
15
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 91.
16
Lilia I. Bartolomé, “Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a Humanizing Pedagogy.” Harvard
Educational Review 64(2), Summer, 1994, 173–194.
17
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 91–92.
 About This Book

To write a student guide for a book like Pedagogy of the Oppressed by the late
world-renowned Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire is, indeed, a daunting
task. It requires one to step into a vulnerable place and to embrace a politically
and culturally charged sensibility, which can move one beyond traditional
philosophical conceptualizations. This also demands that one dare to embody
the spirit, passion, and commitment of this educational philosopher, whose
thought came to represent “the response of a creative mind and sensitive
conscience to the extraordinary misery and suffering of the oppressed around
him” (Shaull 1970: 10).
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in Spanish in 1968 and then in
English1 in 1970, has transformed and deepened social justice educational
discourses worldwide, by highlighting the significant role of education in the
formation of citizens and the perpetuation of oppressive conditions within
schools and societies. Over the past five decades, the powerful message of
Pedagogy of the Oppressed has been embraced by progressive educators and
activists everywhere, while simultaneously shunned, maligned, and banned
by those whose perspectives support the hegemonic order of their times.
Nevertheless, Freire’s imaginative capacity to capture and articulate what
might be understood as the universalism of oppression, particularly as enacted
within the context of educational practice, spoke directly to the hearts and
minds of oppressed people and their allies everywhere, whether they labored
as teachers or social workers or nurses or ministers or community activists.
Hence, this effort to create a student guide for the novice reader of Pedagogy
of the Oppressed has caused me to loose sleep and to rub my hands raw, seeking
to find the way to speak to the complexities of Freire’s political project, in
language that is accessible and meaningful to students who now and in the
coming decades will be assigned the book or simply pick it up serendipitously.

1
The book was translated into English by Myra Ramos.
xxii About This Book

No matter how one comes to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, from its inception,
this book is meant for those who sincerely seek a better world. Never could
Paulo Freire have imagined that his powerful insights into educational and
societal oppression would so deeply resonate with the struggles of so many,
over the past five decades. How can one do justice to such an incredible feat?
How can one tell simply the story of a book that was to become one of the most
internationally read texts in education, making Freire one of the greatest and
most cited educational philosophers of the twentieth century.
That said, it is important that seasoned readers of Pedagogy of the Oppressed
also understand the purpose of this volume. It is to illuminate, as much as
possible, the central thesis and critical concepts that Freire introduced in his
memorable volume. In order to be true to this purpose, the focus of this book
is only on Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire, however, went on to write many
more books; and many Freirean scholars have labored persistently over the
past forty years to elucidate and reveal further the strength and influence of
Paulo’s ideas and pedagogical insights.
Hence, for those new to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I hope this book
will provide emerging readers with ample philosophical support and
encouragement to not only navigate more effectively the underlying intent and
major themes, but also engage more substantively the wisdom and challenge
of this classical educational treatise. For educators who are using Pedagogy of
the Oppressed as a text in their classrooms, this volume is meant to potentiate
and enhance philosophical and pedagogical engagement with the themes, as
well as to more effectively navigate the critical dialogues the book is sure to
generate in classrooms and communities where questions of oppression are
central to teaching and learning.
However, it is important to note that The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy
of the Oppressed is not meant to substitute or supplant the reading of Pedagogy
of the Oppressed as primary text, but rather to serve as a faithful and loyal
companion to readers who strive to overcome the many injustices that persist
in education and society today. Underlying this volume is a radical hope
that its use will sustain the intellectual and political formation of students,
enhancing their sensibility to the political and pedagogical possibilities for
 About This Book xxiii

building democratic voice, participation, and solidarity in the struggle for our
humanity.
More importantly, my approach to writing this book constitutes, as
theologian Richard Shaull (1970) suggests, a form of personal witness to the
power of Freire’s praxis, as much as an exciting adventure into critical dialogue
with and across Paulo’s ideas—a process that has persisted, since I first read
Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1978. Since my first reading, I have engaged the
book as a colonized subject of the United States, a working-class Puerto Rican
women who grew up in dire poverty. As such, my relationship with these ideas
is intimate and embodied. The reader will note that at times my language
in Chapter 3 reflects this inclusivity and identification with the oppressed.
Hence, through both a critical and intimate dialogue with the richness,
depth, and complexity of Paulo’s thought, I hope this book will further your
commitment to the humanizing historical task that awaits us today, igniting
deeper recognition of our significance as historical subjects, empowered
political beings, and cultural citizens—particularly as we labor individually
and collectively to end human suffering wherever encountered. In this way,
we together can ensure that Paulo Freire’s (1970) great hope will endure: “the
creation of a world in which it will be easier to love” (24) and where a new sense
of dignity and self-determination can fuel our revolutionary dreams.
 1

Lived History

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: they would need to have a total vision of
the context in order subsequently to separate and isolate its constituent elements
and by means of this analysis achieve a clearer perception of the whole.
—Paulo Freire (1970)

As one of the most influential educational philosophers of the twentieth

century, Paulo Freire has been associated with literacy campaigns and popular
education movements in Latin America.1 In the United States, he is seen as one
of the major intellectual inspirations for the foundation of critical pedagogy
(Darder, Torres, and Baltodano 2017). And, although he is considered to
be one of the most distinguished intellectual figures to emerge from Latin
America, Freire’s influence has spread far and wide and has continued to do so
even after his untimely death in 1997. In the preface of the book, Paulo asserts,
“Thought and study alone did not produce Pedagogy of the Oppressed; it is
rooted in concrete situations.” This epistemological proclamation provides us

1
The term “popular culture” is a translation of educação popular. Both Portuguese and English
versions are similar because of their Latin root. However, the meaning of popular is very different
in Latin America. In this context, popular means something that is for and from the poor and
dispossessed. In the Brazilian context, the popular educator is one who teaches the poor, especially
those who are illiterate and unschooled. In addition, popular education, as conceived by Freire and
others of his time, provides a pedagogical approach in which people not only become literate but
also develop critical consciousness about their world and their particular place in that world. Hence,
popular education is understood as community education that seeks the empowerment and well-
being of the oppressed.
2 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

a hint into the significance of context to Freire’s philosophy and the political
sensibility that informs the book.
In the larger historical context, Freire’s life must be understood within
the sorted history of a massive country that occupies over half of the South
American continent. From the inception of European colonization, the
majority of Brazilians—indigenous people and Africans brought by force to
work the lands—were violently subjected to the ravages of colonial subjugation
and slavery. It is therefore impossible to fully comprehend Freire’s Pedagogy of
the Oppressed outside “the backdrop of the Brazilian history of exploitation
and extermination, hunger and malnutrition” Bhattacharya (2011:173). These
were obstinate conditions of oppression that persisted from the 1500s into the
twentieth century. Freire experienced such conditions in his own life and would
constantly reencounter them, through his literacy work in the northeastern
region of Brazil—one of the poorest regions of the nation, where the violence
of racism and poverty fully comingle.
The issue of context, moreover, is also understood here through a Freirean
lens, which recognizes that it is impossible to understand human beings,
including their philosophy and praxis, outside of the concrete historical,
economic, and cultural conditions that shape their intellectual, emotional,
physical, and spiritual sensibilities and, thus, their ongoing evolution as cultural
citizen of the world. Hence, to more precisely grasp the fundamental ideas of
Pedagogy of the Oppressed requires an understanding of the lived history from
whence Freire’s pedagogy emerged. This is also significant to understanding the
man from Recife, himself, whose philosophical and political labor generated
ideas intimately anchored to his everyday praxis in the rural countryside of his
native Brazil, as well as his numerous international experiences. So, it is by way
of understanding Paulo’s lived history that we can achieve a clearer perception
of the whole.
In keeping with this spirit, this chapter examines the manner in which
Freire’s lived history, first and foremost, informed his intellectual sensibilities
and his political commitment to the emancipation of oppressed peasants in
Brazil—a liberatory vision that extended beyond his native country. Paulo,
indeed, encompassed a sincere and genuine concern for the suffering and
oppression of subaltern populations worldwide. His persistent indignation for
 Lived History 3

the unmerciful manner in which governments and the wealthy elite thwart
the dignity of human beings is distinguishably palpable in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed and the writings that would follow this groundbreaking testament
to the oppressor’s manufactured suffering of the poor.
An important dimension of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy is found precisely in
his recognition of how the power of lived histories in each individual impacts
our reading of the world and influences the construction of knowledge, within
and beyond the classroom (Darder 2015). Moreover, returning to one’s lived
history is also a vital means by which to continuing learning about one’s place
in the world. In Letters to Cristina, Freire (1996) notes:

The more I return to my distant childhood, the more I realize there is

always more worth knowing. I continue to learn from my childhood
and difficult adolescence. I do not return to my early years as someone
who is sentimentally moved by a ridiculous nostalgia or as someone who
presents his not-so-easy childhood and adolescence as revolutionary
credentials. (13)

Given the key role lived history plays in Freire’s writing of Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, beginning this book with a succinct examination of Paulo’s life
seems a useful place for students to commence their engagement of the book.
By so doing, readers may gain insight into the evolution of Freire’s philosophical
sensibilities, his pedagogical practice, and the expression of his political voice,
which for the last five decades has been a clarion call for liberation.

Early years

Paulo Relus Neves Freire, the youngest of four children, was born on September
19, 1921, to an economically comfortable working-class Catholic family in the
port city of Recife, the capital of the state of Pernambuco. This northeastern
region of Brazil was and continues to be one of the most impoverished in the
country. When Paulo was only three years old, his father, an officer of the
Pernambuco military police, was forced to retire prematurely due to a serious
heart condition. This destabilized the family’s economic condition, forcing
them to move to Jaboatão dos Guararapes, a modest town outside of Recife.
4 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Figure 1.1 Paulo at the age of one year and three years with his three siblings; Freire’s
siblings were Temístocles, Stela, and Armando.
 Lived History 5

Freire was a child during an extremely tumultuous political period in

Brazil, where the rule of President Epitácio Lindolfo da Silva Pessoa, a man
known for his blatant racism against Black Brazilians, was also marked by
military revolts. This crisis generated by armed resistance through the 1920s
eventually culminated in the Revolution of 1930, which resulted in a political
coup that brought an end to the Old Republic. After a transitional period in
which centralizing elements struggled with the old oligarchies for control,
another coup in 1937 established the New State (Estado Novo) dictatorship,
which ruled from 1937 to 1945. Hence, throughout his early life, Freire’s family
experienced political anxieties over the instability of the economy and politics
of dictatorship within the Brazilian government.
The economy in Brazil suffered from a severe decline in world demand for
coffee caused by the Great Depression and an excess capacity of production
stemming from the 1920s. As a result, the price of coffee fell sharply and the
country’s trade deteriorated significantly. The world economic crisis of the time
negatively affected the economic conditions of Freire’s family, who fell into
deeper poverty. The economic decline experienced by the family caused Freire
to experience hunger and poverty at a young age. On October 31, 1934, his father
died from a heart attack, leaving his mother with meager economic means.
About his father, Joaquim Temístocles Freire, Paulo recalled that he was
always willing to talk with his family and that he treated his children with
the sense of authority of the times. Nevertheless, he also exhibited human
understanding for his children and the needs of others (Freire 1978). For
example, “by taking a piece of wood and drawing words in the sand from
the child’s cultural universe, his father taught Paulo the alphabet even before
the boy went to school. He then broke these words down into syllables and
reunited them into new words” (Gerhardt 1993). Freire described his father as
both “a spiritualist” and “a living example of the human qualities of generosity,
solidarity, and humility, without any sacrifice to his dignity” (Freire 1994: 208).
However, it was Paulo’s mother, Edeltrudis Veves Freire, who he described as
“Catholic, sweet, good, just,” that he considered his primary spiritual influence.
Freire (1996) remembered his parents as “a harmonious couple whose union
did not lose them their individuality … they respected each other’s religious
6 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

opinions. From them … I learned early on the value of dialogue” (25), which
would become the cornerstone of his pedagogical approach.
In the years that followed his father’s death, Freire, who was considered
a mediocre student, struggled with school, preferring to spend most of his
time playing with childhood friends from his neighborhood in Jaboatão dos
Guararapes. With his mother left to fend for the family alone, Paulo’s life was
marked by poverty and hunger—conditions he firmly believed diminish a
student’s ability to learn. Drawing inspiration from the anticolonial theorist
Frantz Fanon, Freire often referred to his childhood as one of “sharing the plight
of the ‘wretched of the earth’ ” (30). Undoubtedly, Freire’s lived experience as
a boy deeply influenced his life’s work. About this time in his life, he wrote,
“I didn’t understand anything because of my hunger. I wasn’t dumb. It wasn’t
lack of interest. My social condition didn’t allow me to have an education.
Experience showed me once again the relationship between social class and
knowledge” (Gadotti 1994: 5). His early experiences of poverty, moreover, led
him to discover the “culture of silence” of the oppressed—whose responses

Figure 1.2 Paulo’s mother, Edeltrudis Veves Freire, and father, Joaquin Temístocles
Freire.
 Lived History 7

to the world, he would argue in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, are products of

economic, social, and political domination.
Freire credited his early experiences of living among very poor people
and attending disadvantaged rural schools with instilling in him a profound
sense of love, empathy, and compassion, as well as an understanding for how
disabling conditions of poverty, reinforced by a colonizing system of education,
subject subaltern students to debilitating conditions of disempowerment,
domestication, and alienation. From this grounded sensibility, Freire was to
construct an educational philosophy that fundamentally challenged oppression
rooted in a colonizing model of schooling and class inequalities. Moreover,
it was this sensibility that fueled Freire’s ongoing commitment to struggle at
the side of the oppressed, in order to transform the recalcitrant conditions of
economic, pedagogical, and cultural injustice.
Despite the family’s financial difficulties, Paulo’s mother was determined
her youngest child would be well educated. Toward this end, she convinced
Aluizio Pessoa de Araujo, the principal of the Colégio Oswaldo Cruz (an elite
private high school) to accept Paulo as a scholarship student. And so Freire
returned to Recife for high school. He recalled that although it felt awkward
attending this traditional, upper-class boys’ high school and difficult to
adapt to the new conditions, Paulo was considered “fairly intelligent” for an
adolescent who had come from the impoverished outskirts of the city. In fact,
while still attending high school, he became a grammar teacher at the school.
And, although still a very young man, his humanistic sensibilities already
steered him toward an emancipatory pedagogical approach centered on
dialogue and a desire to understand his students’ lives and their pedagogical
needs.

Freire’s work in Northeastern Brazil

At the age of twenty, Freire enrolled in law school at the University of Recife.
However, the path was not easy and, on several occasions, his studies were
interrupted, having to earn a living and contribute to the family’s finances.
While at the University of Recife, he majored in philosophy, focusing his
8 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

studies on phenomenology and the psychology of language. It was also

during this time that Freire commenced what would become more than
two decades of intense literacy work in the northeastern region of Brazil—
an experience that served as the lived foundation for his early writings. For
a short time, he worked with the Serviço Social da Indústria (SESI) at the
Regional Department of Education and Culture in the state of Pernambuco,
a government agency created to utilize funds from a national coalition of
factory owners to create social service programs to benefit the conditions
of workers. It was also during this time that he began to conceptualize the
practice of cultural circles.2
In 1944, Freire married fellow teacher Elza Maia Costa de Oliveira. The
two worked together within the school and were briefly involved with the
Catholic Action Movement, which they eventually left over differences with
the church’s conservative view, energy later redirected to their involvement
in Christian base communities3 (Roberts 2000). The couple had five
children, Maria Madalena, Maria Cristina, Maria de Fátima, Joaquim, and
Lutgardes—three who would become educators, in their own right. In his
writings, Freire (1994) shared how Elza encouraged him in his systematic
discussions of pedagogical questions, and until her death in 1986, Freire
affirmed Elza’s influence on his early vocational decisions, the elaboration
of his literacy approach, and the pedagogical direction of his philosophical
ideas. In many respects, this feature of his marital relationship bears
witness to Paulo’s astonishing warmth and capacity for engaging women
horizontally, as equal collaborators and cocreators of knowledge. Later, this
same magnanimous spirit would again be manifested, but in an even more
mature and pronounced manner, in his relationship with Ana Maria Araújo
Freire, his second wife.

2
Cultural circles refer to a pedagogical process that provides the conditions for learners within
classroom or communities to participate freely in naming their world and developing their voices,
within a meaningful context of cultural respect and affirmation for their lived histories and everyday
experiences. Freire would further develop the concept amid his work in Chile. More discussion will
follow in Chapter 3.
3
Christian Base communities are autonomous religious groups often associated with liberation
theology. The meeting of Latin American Council of Bishops in 1968 in Medellin, Colombia, played
a major role in popularizing them.
 Lived History 9

Upon graduation from law school in 1947, Freire completed all requirements
and was admitted to the bar but decided against pursuing law after an epiphany
he experienced with his first client. The young dentist had defaulted on a loan
he had taken to purchase equipment and materials necessary to open his
practice. Stirred by the irony and poignancy of the young dentist’s situation—a
poor man who not only did not have the resources to pay off the loan but was
ready to lose everything in order to meet the debt—Freire decided to return to
the Colégio Oswaldo Cruz, where he had completed his secondary degree three
years earlier, to teach Portuguese. Simultaneously, however, Freire employed his
legal skills as a trade union lawyer, assisting members to navigate legal matters.
Later in 1947, Freire was promoted as Director of the Division of Public
Relations, Education, and Culture of the SESI. Working among illiterate
impoverished communities, Freire embraced the radical Catholic ideas and
values of a burgeoning social movement in the church that was spreading
across Latin America. As point of reference, this was a time in Brazil when only
those who were officially deemed literate could vote in presidential elections, a
policy that raised grave concerns for Freire and others in the nation working to
advance democratic life. Hence, it is not surprising that the historical necessity
of the political moment would catapult Freire’s focus toward the development
of a revolutionary pedagogical approach, which simultaneously focused
on ameliorating illiteracy, while also supporting workers from oppressed
communities to enter collectively into the struggle for humanizing education
and establishing a more just society.
Freire continued his work with SESI and served from 1954 to 1956 as
superintendent of the organization. During these years, Freire’s approach to
literacy gradually drew the attention of the national office. During an effort
in 1957 to appoint Freire as national director of the Division of Research
and Planning, an interdepartmental letter praised Freire’s “experience
and knowledge,” asserting that he would be invaluable to the division by
“encouraging studies and the recruitment of individuals able to provide
us with the effective means to formulate viable solutions pertaining to the
pressing social issues in the current state of the nation” (Freire and Macedo
1998: 16).
10 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Figure 1.3 Paulo Freire as a young man, c. 1940.

 Lived History 11

Figure 1.4 Paulo speaking at a SESI meeting, c. 1950.

Of particular note, in 1958, was Freire’s participation in the Second National

Conference on Adult Education in Rio de Janeiro. He was a major contributor
to the Pernambuco Regional Commission report, Education of Adults and
Marginal Populations: The Mocambos Problem.4 In his report, Freire advised
that adult education in the mocambos had to be founded on “the consciousness
of the existential knowledge of the personal and social reality of the people
rather than in learning letters, words and sentences. Further, education for
democracy could be achieved only if the literary process was not about or
for learners but with learners and with their reality” (Clare 2006). Here it is
worth noting that Freire’s work in the mocambos, and elsewhere, was carried

4
A mocambo refers to a village community of runaway slaves in colonial Brazil (Clare 2006).
12 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

out with communities, whose illiteracy could be directly linked to a legacy of

slavery and the brutal conditions of colonization that remained untouched by
the modernization of Brazil (Prado 1969).
Throughout the following year, Freire continued to participate in the
Movement for Popular Culture (MCP) in Recife that he cofounded and in the
Cultural Extension Service (SEC) at the University of Recife. In the context
of MCP, advocacy for the active exercise of democracy was at the heart of
the organization’s mission, in that the members were “moved by the desire to
work with the popular classes and not above them … [but] with them and for
them” (Freire 1996: 110). The importance of his work with SEC, Freire noted,
was the participation of universities in popular education, which the members
believed “was the essence of a university’s mission and did not undermine its
rigor in teaching or research” (130).
Concurrently, Freire also worked systematically to delineate his literacy
work with SESI in his dissertation, which he defended, amid some controversy,5
at the University of Recife in 1959. Of this, Freire (1996) wrote:

The Brazilian present has been enveloped by these colonial legacies: silence
and the resistance to it—the search for a voice—and the rebelliousness that
must become more critically revolutionary. This was the central theme of
my academic thesis, “Education and Present-Day Brazil,” which I defended
in 1959 at the University of Recife … I incorporated parts of this thesis in
my first book, Education as the Practice of Freedom. My thesis reflected my
experiences in SESI, which had significantly affected me. I combined my
experiences at SESI with the critical reflection and extensive reading from a
foundational bibliography. (87)

In 1961, Freire was appointed director of the Department of Cultural

Extension of Recife University. In 1963, he had the first opportunity to conduct
5
There seem to be some conflicting reports on this point. Gadotti (1994) notes that, given Freire’s
challenge of the status quo, he was considered a traitor among many university colleagues. Gerhardt
(1993) claims Freire’s dissertation did not receive the approval of the university committee,
suggesting “the committee’s decision was somewhat logical” (4), given Freire’s claim that Brazil’s
universities had refused to make necessary reforms to move Brazilian society toward democracy
(Gerhardt 1993: 4). Nevertheless, Clare (2006) notes, “Freire continued his work at the university
and was appointed Professor of History and Philosophy of Education at the University of Recife’s
Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters the following year, teaching at the university from 1961
until he was ousted by the military coup in 1964—hence, the dissertation may not have been highly
regarded by the committee, but was approved.”
 Lived History 13

a larger application of his literacy approach, launching the “Bare feet can
also learn to read” campaign in the state of Rio Grande de Notre, where 300
sugarcane workers in the interior village of Angicos were taught to read and
write in 45 days. In response to the success of Freire’s literacy efforts, President
João Belchior Goulart and Minister of Education Paul de Tarso Santos invited
Freire to rethink adult literacy programs on a national scale in an effort to
forge a national literacy program. It is estimated that under Freire’s direction,
“20,000 cultural circles were programmed to be set up for 2,000,000 illiterate
people” (Gadotti 1994: 15). However, despite this extraordinary opportunity
to expand the reach of Freire’s literacy work, Brazil was again embroiled in
a turbulent moment in its history, where much uncertainty loomed over the
political direction of the nation.
Within three months of its official initiation in January 21, 1964, the new
military government shut down the National Literacy Program, in accordance
with the coup d’état of March 31, 1964—an action supported and partly
financed by the United States to protect its interest in Latin America (Lernoux
1980; William 2015). The Goulart government—whose reforms to socialize
the profits of large corporations and landowners and to improve the well-being
of all Brazilians, were deemed “a communist threat”—was overthrown and a
military dictatorship was to rule the country for more than twenty years. At
the time of the Golpe de 64, Freire had been working with the national program
in Brasilia. Considered “an international subversive, a traitor to Christ and the
Brazilian people” (Gadotti 1994: 34), Freire was accused of alleged “subversive
activities,” arrested twice, and imprisoned in Olinda and Recife for a total of
seventy days. In one instance during his interrogation, Freire was asked, “Do
you deny your method is similar to that of Stalin, Hitler, Peron, and Mussolini”
(Cited in Schugurensky 2014: 23)?
Although Freire was not physically tortured during his incarceration, his
imprisonment and subsequent exile had an enduring impact on his view of
life and his philosophy, intensifying his heartfelt dedication to the struggle for
liberation among the oppressed. About his response to the coup d’état and its
impact on his political understanding of education, Freire (cited in Shor and
Freire 1987) would later say:
14 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

I began to understand the nature of limits on education when I experienced

the shock of the coup d’état. After the coup, I was really born again with a
new consciousness of politics, education, and transformation. You can see
this in my first book, Education for Critical Consciousness … I don’t make
reference there to the politics of education. But, I was able to learn after that
about history. All these things taught me how we needed a political practice
in society … a permanent process for freedom, which would include an
education that liberates. (32)

Years in exile

Forced into exile in 1964, Freire spent a short time in Bolivia, before arriving
in Chile only days following the inauguration of President Eduardo Frei
Montalvo. This was considered an enthusiastic and progressive moment
in the country’s history, where programs for the poor, including literacy
efforts were supported. A new department was created that focused on
adult education, independent from the Chilean Ministry of Education.
Freire served as a UNESCO consultant for almost five years, working for
the Christian Democratic Agrarian Reform Movement and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Freire was able to extend his
collaboration to the Ministry of Education and the people working in adult
literacy, as to organize agrarian reform” (Grollios 2015). Freire’s relationships
and experiences with both liberation theologists and Marxists in Chile were
to leave an indelible mark on his intellectual, pedagogical, and ideological
formation (Holst 2006). Of this Freire wrote:

The Chilean masses know very well that the fundamental contradiction
human beings face is not between them and nature but that it takes place in
the economic, political, and social spheres. Those are the things, I confess,
that I learned in Chile. It is not that Chile made me a completely different
man from the person I was before, but what it did exactly was to deepen in
me a radicalization that was already in process. (Freire and Guimarães 1987:
127 trans. by Holst 2006)
 Lived History 15

Figure 1.5 Paulo Freire (left), with also exiled former mayor of Brasilia and minister
of culture under João Belchior Goulart, Paulo de Tarso Santos, who was the first
Brazilian to be granted asylum by the Chilean government.

Writing about Freire’s time in Chile, James Holst (2006)6 noted the often-
ignored relationship between Freire’s extensive hands-on literacy experiences and
profound learning process in Chile and his articulation of what would become
seminal ideas of his pedagogical project (i.e., banking education, problem-
posing education, generative themes, culture of silence, conscientização, cultural
action). Moreover, Freire often affirmed that it was in Chile where he “learned
to learn.” Key associations of that time included Marcela Gajardo, as well as
Raul Veloso, whose theory of intentionality of consciousness became significant
to Freire’s own thinking (Austin 2003: 66). The changes Freire underwent were
reflected in his writing. For example, in his first book, Education as the Practice of
Freedom, which focused on his earlier efforts in Brazil, the text reflected a liberal
democratic style and an emerging Brazilian national consciousness consistent
with Freire’s early views in Brazil (Mackie 1981). The tenor of his discourse,

6
For an excellent discussion of Freire’s years in Chile, see James Holst’s (2006) incisive essay, “Paulo
Freire in Chile, 1964–1969: Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Its Sociopolitical Economic Context”
published in Harvard Educational Review. Also see Robert Austin’s (2003) The State, Literacy, and
Popular Education in Chile.
16 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

however, made a dramatic turn by the following year, when Pedagogy of the
Oppressed was first published.7, 8, 9 Hence, it is safe to say that Chile profoundly
nurtured his “politic shift to the Left,” which unmistakably characterized the
tenor of the book (Roberts 2000: 24).
Freire and his family remained in Chile until April 1969, when he was
offered and accepted a temporary visiting post at Harvard University. The offer
came at an opportune time, as there were suspicions that rising conservative
politics had led to termination of his employment (Grollios 2015). In that
same year, Freire assisted the governments of Peru and Nicaragua with
literacy campaigns. In 1970, English and Spanish translations of Pedagogy of
the Oppressed were released in a world that was still grasping for responses to
the many issues and concerns raised by the social movements of the 1960s.
Shortly after, the family moved to Geneva, Switzerland, where Freire was
given a post with the World Council of Churches and established the Institute
of Cultural Action. During this decade, Freire did literacy work in other parts
of Latin America but also began work in Africa. First with the government of
Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, then with revolutionary organizations in former
Portuguese colonies of Angola (Movimento Popular Libertação de Angola) and
Mozambique (Frente de Libertação de Moçambique), and more substantively
in Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde (Partido Africans para Independência da
Guinea-Bissau e Cabo Verde), and Sao Tome and Principe, where literacy
campaigns were strongly focused on the process of re-Africanization and
nation building.
Paulo’s efforts in Africa, however, were beleaguered by a variety of
challenging conditions. The Apartheid government of South Africa banned
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, while perpetrating every form of colonial
abuse imaginable upon Black South Africans. Moreover, problems with

7
Myra Bergman Ramos provided the English translation of Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
8
Consistent with the repression of Freire’s ideas in Brazil and the circumstances of his live, Pedagogy
of the Oppressed, written during his time in Chile, was first published in Spanish. The book was not
to be published and circulated in Brazil until 1975, seven years after its first publication (Kirylo
2011).
9
Morrow and Torres (2002) write, “Ironically, due to censorship in Brazil, his most important book—
Pedagogy of the Oppressed—first appeared in Spanish and English in 1970 and did not appear in a
Brazilian Portuguese edition until 1975. . . But by the early 1990s it had sold over half a million copies
worldwide” (7).
 Lived History 17

bureaucracies, the absence of adequate resources, the brutal impact of

colonization, and inherent mistrust generated by these conditions stifled
literacy efforts—issues often overlooked in criticisms of Freire’s literacy
efforts. Nevertheless, the difficulties Freire experienced at that time also
generated significant realizations about the manner in which the colonizing
language “blunted the radical potential … and the objective of literacy as a
means to coming by a new consciousness, and stymied the capacity of people
to ‘read not only the word but also the world’ ” (Thomas 1996: 25). This
experience, in particular, punctuated for Freire the complexity, multiplicity,
contradictions, and “differentiated nature of social agency and conditions of
struggle” (29). In Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, Freire worked briefly with
revolutionary leader, Amilcar Cabral, who led the nationalist movement and
war for independence, until he was assassinated in 1973.
Freire very much admired the spirit and brilliance of Cabral’s ideas. Often
the political sensibilities of the two men converged (Cortesão 2011). Both felt a
deep sense of faith and respect for the culture and language of the people; and
both wholeheartedly believed that popular education programs had to begin,
first and foremost, within the concrete realities of people’s lives. Both men also
believed in the power of passion, intuition, and dreams that could usher in
new possibilities into our lives and in the world. Through relationships such as
these, Freire’s revolutionary perspective was both deepened and complicated
by his pedagogical experiences with a variety of movements in both Africa and
Latin America.

Post-exile years

Freire’s exile was lifted in 1979 and he returned to Brazil in1980, where he
accepted posts to teach at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
and the Universidade de Campinas. Upon his return to Brazil, Freire joined the
Partido dosTrabalhadores (Workers’ Party) in Sao Paulo and headed up its adult
literacy project for nearly six years. In 1988, when the party took control of São
Paulo’s municipality—the third largest city in the world—Freire was appointed
Municipal Secretary of Education. While in office, Freire faced several political
18 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Figure 1.6 Paulo Freire returned home to Brazil in 1980.

and pedagogical challenges, in that he inherited a broken educational system.

Nevertheless, during his short tenure, Freire sought to implement literacy
reforms consistent with his liberatory intent and to continue working with
popular education movements, in the hopes of building alliances between civil
society and the state (McLaren 2002). In 1991, in a short epilogue to Pedagogy
of the City, Freire wrote “Manifesto to Those Who, by Leaving Stay,” where he
expressed both his satisfaction with the work done but also anguish in trying
to contend with the vestiges of former conservative politics that still plagued
the city’s educational institutions.
From 1991 till his death, Freire continued his work in Brazil but was
also invited often to conduct retreats and seminars, consult on projects, and
lecture widely on his experiences, knowledge, and pedagogical ideas. True
to his philosophy, Freire often reminded those who praised and adopted his
ideas to not try to imitate his pedagogy, which was grounded in a particular
historical and geographical context, but rather that we should seek ways to
reinvent his ideas, so that our labor might truly be in sync with the actual
 Lived History 19

conditions teachers are facing within their particular historical and

geographic contexts.
In 1986, his wife Elza died, leaving Freire in tremendous grief. Many
expressed much concerned for his well-being. Fortunately, and to much
surprise, Paulo’s grief was short-lived. While teaching a graduate seminar, he
reconnected with an old family friend, Ana Maria (Nita) Araújo—who also
happened to be the daughter of Aluizio Pessoa de Araújo, the principal of the
Colégio Oswaldo Cruz in Recife, where Paulo had studied and taught. Paulo
and Nita married in 1987. For the last ten years of his life, Freire shared with
Nita a deep intimate bond, as lovers of life, political allies, and intellectual
comrades. Paulo often said that Nita had saved him from the great abyss of
his sorrow and that she was, for him, the unexpected culmination of radical
love.
Over the last decade of his life, Freire persisted with literacy efforts in Brazil,
but also traveled to different parts of the world as an ambassador of hope and a
scholar on issues of education, adult literacy, and inequalities. His philosophical

Figure 1.7 Paulo with his second wife, Ana Maria Araújo Freire.
20 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

and pedagogical writings provided inspiration across a variety of

disciplines. Paulo was honored with twenty doctoris honoris causa from
universities around the globe.10 In 1993, Paulo Freire was nominated for
the Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his extraordinary contributions
as a humanist and philosopher committed to social justice, economic
democracy, and human rights. Freire served as the honorary president of
the International Council for Adult Education, from 1985 until his death.
Freire’s conceptualization of education—as a serious political undertaking
focused on the transformation of society—motivated the pedagogical efforts
of revolutionary societies, as well as democratic organizations committed
to a more just world. At the age of seventy-five, Freire suffered a massive
heart attack and died on May 2, 1997, in São Paulo. Many of us around the
world greatly mourned his death.

Figure 1.8 Freire continued his work in Brazil and around the world.

10
In 1979, Freire was awarded an honorary doctorate from Claremont Graduate University.
Coincidentally, it was at this ceremony that I received my doctoral degree in Philosophy of
Education. I had the honor of being hooded by Paulo, my political inspiration and most notable
intellectual mentor.
 Lived History 21

By way of this brief account of Paulo’s lived history, we learn much about
the powerful ways in which his experiences both shaped his intellectual and
political growth and steadily deepened the development of his liberatory
praxis. We can also gather from this recounting of Paulo’s story the reasons
why he was so adamant about honoring the importance of lived histories as
meaningful aspects of our learning and as powerful forces in shaping our
lives. However, attention to only the context of lived experience is insufficient.
Instead, as exemplified by Freire’s own life, major philosophical influences
from both relationships with people and texts constitute significant contextual
material to motivate our actions, nourish our consciousness, and ultimately
guide our evolution as loving and knowing political subjects, capable of
ameliorating human suffering.

Figure 1.8 (Continued)

 2

Intellectual History

My reading of revolutionary thinkers, specifically the nonoligarchic ones,

helped me a great deal while offering me scientific bases for supporting my
ethical and political beliefs.
—Paulo Freire (1996)

Over his lifetime, Freire drew on ideas of intellectuals from a variety of

traditions and diverse perspectives, in constructing a philosophy of education
that could speak to the massive inequalities he perceived, experienced,
and confronted during his lifetime. His relationships were also sources of
intellectual interrogation and sustenance. For example, Freire (1985) noted
that he was strongly influenced by Rui Barbosa, a lawyer and philosopher, and
Carneiro Ribeiro, a medical doctor. These Brazilian intellectuals transcended
the frontiers of their own disciplines, nurturing in Freire a profound respect for
the power of transdisciplinary thinking—a way of thinking that defied the one-
dimensionality of Western disciplinary approaches to the study of education
and other social phenomena. In examining Freire’s intellectual history, this
transdisciplinary feature is evident in the authors he cited in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, which will be the primary focus of this chapter.
The aim of this chapter is to provide students with a philosophical
foundation for understanding the unique interpretations Freire brings to his
analysis of schooling in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Important to this effort
is the need to sustain the hermeneutic complexity generated by Freire’s
consistent effort to combine philosophical, political, and pedagogical concerns
in the development of his praxis of liberation. Toward this end, this chapter
provides a succinct discussion of Freire’s intellectual history in three parts,
pointing to the major intellectual traditions and philosophical thinkers whose
24 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

ideas shaped his interpretations; many of which he specifically utilized to

substantiate scientifically the claims posited in Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
This strategy is rooted in a desire to remain in dialogue with the book
itself, particularly with respect to how Freire employed the ideas of a variety of
theological, existential, revolutionary, anticolonial, and critical social theorists,
and educational philosophers who sought to critically interrogate cultural,
social, cultural, economic, and political questions tied to the subjugation of
subaltern populations. Moreover, these scholars and traditions reinforced Freire’s
profound commitment to an ethics of liberation and revolutionary strategies for
cultural action in schools and communities. Here, the philosophical influences
are presented in the quasi-chronological order in which they became part of
Freire’s intellectual history. The following discussion primarily focuses on those
ideas within different traditions of specific thinkers, whose ideas appear1 to
have influenced Freire’s arguments in Pedagogy of the Oppressed.2

Early Influences

Radical theological influences

Freire’s Brazilian Catholic childhood, his involvement with the Catholic

Action Movement and other Christian organizations, and his view of himself

1
The process of determining who would be discussed in this chapter was made primarily on the
basis of those authors cited by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, as well as major thinkers of the
traditions mentioned by Freire or about Freire in a variety of autobiographical and biographical
writings about his intellectual influences. However, I acknowledge that in the absence of being able
to directly corroborate with Paulo on this matter, there is the need to acknowledge a subjective
aspect to this approach, which cannot be avoided and for which I take responsibility. Nevertheless,
an effort has been made to rely on Freire’s accounts and those who knew him closely. That said, there
might be omissions, which I regret.
2
Each of the traditions, philosophers, and writings presented in this section must be understood
as hugely complex and deserving of far greater discussion. However, limitations in the scope of
the book and its size prevent more in-depth discussion. It is, therefore, important that the new
readers of Pedagogy of the Oppressed recognize that Freire’s ideas are not one-dimensional and that
they are informed by a wide variety of complex, often philosophically dense, and even seemingly
contradictory traditions and values. If particular ideas here should peak greater interest, the reader
should explore the rich literature that exists in each of the different intellectual influences discussed,
as well as a variety of books and articles that engage specific aspects of each of the traditions and
each thinker identified. Such a project will only serve to widen one’s respect for the intellectual
creativity and unwavering motivation of Freire’s ideas to address both substantively and expansively
questions of human oppression, along with the potential of education to serve as either a means for
oppression or liberation.
 Intellectual History 25

as a man of faith, cannot be underestimated (Kirylo and Boyd 2017; Madero SJ

2015). As a university student, Freire studied the ideas of the radical Catholic
student movement and read the works of radical Catholic philosophers. For
example, there is Momentos dos Vivos, where Cândido Mendes de Almeida
(1966) coins the term “Catholic left” with a grounded sociological meaning
that designates “the political positioning, until then unpublished in Brazil,
of Catholic groups and intellectuals in favor of provoking a rupture in the
socioeconomic structure that kept the country underdeveloped” (Oliveira
2007).3 Mendez de Almeida challenges the fatalism reinforced by those in the
church that mythologized the suffering and exploitation of the poor as God’s
will. There is also the work of Emmanuel Mounier (1970), who espoused a
personalist philosophy where the ontological and epistemological process
initiates within the dignity, status, and experience of the human being as
undetermined and participatory subject (Kirylo and Boyd 2017). He respected
the presence of intellectuals in the process of “necessary revolution” but argued
they had to break with their bourgeois identity and abandon the culture of
the elite. Mounier’s ideas supported Freire’s focus on “the humanization of
man” in Pedagogy of the Oppressed; his notion of “class suicide” or political
“conversion” to the side of the oppressed; his radically hopeful concept of
history; and his belief in the capacity of human beings to transform their
world (Elias 1994).

Radical Catholic thinkers

Others thinkers from this radical Catholic tradition include Jacques Maritain,
who focused his work on economics and humanism; Gabriel Marcel (1949),
whose “philosophy of existence” focused on the struggle of human beings to
contend with the dehumanizing character of deeply materialist society; and
Thomas Cardonnel, who championed the rights of the poor and helped to
introduce the concept of “established disorder” in Brazil (Bruneau 1974: 181);
along with the writings of other Catholic revolutionary movement authors
who interpreted their writings, such as Alceu de Amoroso Lima, Henrique
Lima Vaz and Herbert Jose de Souza among others (Gerhardt 1993: 3). The

3
Cited in Wellington (2011).
26 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

social and political concerns raised by these philosophers were also aroused
by the failure of the Brazilian government to establish an ethical and morally
just social, political, and economic structure; the revolutionary events
transpiring around the world in the 1960s; and, most important, a passionate
belief among Catholic radicals in the collective possibility of overcoming the
oppressive conditions people were facing in the country. In fact, “nowhere had
change gone further in the Roman Catholic Church than in Brazil. Brazil has
the most progressive Catholic episcopate in the Roman Church worldwide”
(Mainwaring 1987: 2). Hence, the influence of these radical Catholic thinkers
was at work in Freire’s early philosophical and pedagogical work, although
his articulations remained focused on the practice of literacy instruction with
impoverished communities of the northeastern region of Brazil.
Following his exile and move to Chile, in 1964, Freire became more
strongly influenced by his close association and engagement with the writings
of liberation theologists, such Gustavo Gutiérrez, Leonardo Boff, Frei Betto,
and Dom Hélder Câmara (Jeria 1986). It is useful to note that this is also
the era of Vatican II (1962–1965), initiated by Pope John XIII and moved
forward by Pope Paul VI—a time in which the church instituted significant
changes in an effort to establish a closer ecumenical relationship with the
people. These changes, however, were not readily embraced by all, constituting
many tensions between more radical and conservative sectors of the Catholic
Church, particularly in Latin America.4

Liberation theology
The roots of liberation theology in Latin America, a perspective in which Freire
was not only well versed but also influenced (Kirylo and Boyd 2017; Reynolds
2013), focused on the importance of context, experience, reflection, action,
and evaluative discernment in the interest of humanity and the well-being
of the entire community (Harnett SJ 2009; International Commission on the

4
The exclusion of women from the priesthood and thus, the leadership of the church also remained
(and remains) a contentious question. In response, fifteen women were appointed as auditors in
September 1964. Eventually twenty-three women were auditors at the Second Vatican Council,
including ten women religious. The auditors had no official role in the deliberations, although they
attended the meetings of subcommittees working on council documents, particularly texts that dealt
with the laity (Allen Jr. 2012; Tobin 1986).
 Intellectual History 27

Apostolate of Jesuit Education 1993; Nowacek and Mountin 2012).5 Moreover,

these are accompanied by three central tenets: (1) praxis begins from an option
for the poor as its ultimate motivation and inspiration; (2) acts of service (or
social action) to address in concrete ways the present conditions of human
suffering are highlighted; and (3) the question of liberation, which shuns the
accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor, underpins praxis (Libano
2017). At the heart of liberation theology then is a vision of spiritual life
inextricably tied to material transformation. In his book Theology of Liberation,
Gustavo Gutiérrez (1973) describes liberation theology as “a theological
reflection born of the experience of shared efforts to abolish the current unjust
situation and to build a different society, freer and more human6 … to give
reason for our hope from within a commitment that seeks to become more
radical, total, and efficacious” (ix).
With this in mind, liberation theology envisions a person’s faith and spiritual
commitment as the impetus for working toward the making of a better
world (Gutiérrez 1973).7 It therefore encompasses a moral commitment—
not unlike what we find in Freire’s writings—to be in solidarity with the
poor or undergo a “conversion with the poor,” as well as a willingness to
undergo “the Easter experience” or transformative moment, where one “dies

5
Chubbuck and Lorentz (2006), explain that since the early 1970s, Jesuit education or Ignatian
pedagogy has embraced a commitment to a “faith that does justice” (International Commission
on the Apostolate of Jesuit Education 1993: 134), a commitment articulated by Fr. Pedro Arrupe
in 1973 as education to prepare “men [and women] for others” who are “completely convinced
that love of God which does not issue in justice for [humanity] is a farce” (Arrupe 1973: 32). To
read more about the relationship of social justice, Ignatian pedagogy, and critical pedagogy, also see
Chubbuck (2007).
6
The issue of what is meant by “human” can surface in classroom discussions. Within the context
of the church often “human” demarcate the distinction between Godlike and humanlike. Within
secularized philosophical traditions, human nature is used to relate to that quality that is distinctly
human (of women and men), a quality that separates the essence of humankind from other animals.
Qualities that we share with animals are generally attributed to aspects of our animal nature.
Critiques about anthropomorphism are linked to discourses that privilege human life over all other
forms of living beings can also surface. Of concern is the manner in which anthropomorphism
results in inappropriate behaviors or attitudes toward animals, such as trying to adopt an animal
that lives undomesticated as a “pet” or misinterpreting the behaviors of these animals, along human
terms.
7
In Cristianos y Marxista despues del Concilio (cited by Freire), André Moine (1965) writes of some
of the tensions, issues, and concerns at work as radical Catholics working in Christian-based
communities found themselves at odds with Pope John’s more conservative views. Often they were
met by unfounded speculations that liberation theology might leave the needs of people unattended,
in favor of misguided Marxist political fervor.
28 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

and is reborn” to the struggle for a just world (Kirylo and Boyd 2017). Central
to the politics of liberation theology was an internal critique of the church as
sanctioning institutional violence (Gutiérrez 1973). Hence, Freire conceived his
faith, as “a presence in history that does not preclude me from making history, but
rather pushes me toward world transformation … the fundamental importance
of my faith [exists] in my struggle for overcoming oppressive reality and for
building a less ugly society, one that is less evil and more humane” (Freire 1997:
103–104). Palpable in his words is the influence of liberation theology to his
articulation of teacher-student qualities often perceived as spiritual in nature.
Brazilian theologian, Leonard Boff (2011) has affirmed Freire’s connection
to liberation theology: “Paulo Freire is considered one of the founders of
liberation theology. He was a Christian that lived his faith in a liberating way …
Paulo placed the poor and oppressed at the center of his method, which is
important in the concept of preferential option for the poor, a trademark of
liberation theology” (241).
The radical Catholic phenomenological influence of Pierre Teilhard de
Chardon (1959) cannot be overlooked. Teilhard’s writings advocated for an
understanding of reality that would reinsert human beings into the existential
struggle for their autonomy and freedom. Found here, is also the idea that the
oppressed internalize the deficit views cast upon them by the oppressor and,
thus, must undergo a struggle to regain their sense of autonomy and humanity.
Teilhard embraced an evolution of humanity that he conceived as a dialectial
union, which could simultaneously differentiate and personalize the subject.
At the center of his revolutionary spirituality is the belief that the Divine and
the world are not antagonists but rather exist in communion. Hence, human
beings have a duty to challenge social inequalities in community and transform
them in the interest of our evolution.
So, although Freire never formally linked his pedagogy to liberation theology
or spiritual matters, the influence of his Latin American Catholic upbringing,
his labor within a variety of radical Christian contexts, and his strong affiliation
and affinity with revolutionary theologians, nevertheless, influenced and
reinforced his views. More specifically, these included his perspective of
humanity, transformation, the pedagogical indispensability of love, faith and
hope, our capacity to denounce oppression and announce social justice, and his
 Intellectual History 29

utopian belief (Madero SJ 2015) in the need to strive for a world where human
indignities would cease.8

Other theological influences

Another important theological influence on Freire’s praxis is Paul Tillich
(1954), a Lutheran theologian who believed that theology had to be responsive
to the actual human situation. For Tillich, as for Freire, we could not understand
human existence outside the historical, social and political context that
shaped the meaning of our lives (Suchocki 1985). Also pertinent to Pedagogy
of the Oppressed is Tillich’s notion of kairos—a key or promising moment for
decision or action—that draws on the historical tenets of socialist thought to
theorize a crucial liberatory moment, when social and material conditions of
oppression could be overcome (Petruzzi 2001). Similarly, Tillich’s critique of
the ahistorical nature of rational science, which detaches human beings from
knowledge and creates feigned neutrality and static knowing, echoes Freire’s
critique of banking education. And finally, Tillich argued that love, power, and
justice constitute indispensable features of free human existence, an idea that
resonates with Freire’s pedagogy of love (Darder 2015).
Reinhold Niebuhr, an American theologian and ethicist, is another author
cited in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Niebuhr’s most important teaching
centers on his notion of “common grace,”—a grace that he did not believe
was dependent on Christian redemption. His was a staunch supporter of the
working class and his political involvement was tied to socialist convictions
influenced by Marxism, although he rejected the authoritarian communism
of Joseph Stalin. In the late 1960s, Niebuhr maintained the United States was
undergoing “the two main collective moral issues of our day—the civil rights
movement that seeks democratic improvement for [the] black minority, and
opposition to the terrible mistaken war in Vietnam.” In 1963, King wrote
an open letter from jail, stating: “As Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us …
freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by
the oppressed.”9 In Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and
8
For an excellent discussion of faith, spirituality and Freirean thought, see Paulo Freire: His Faith,
Spirituality, and Theology by James Kirylo and Drick Boyd (2017).
9
Cited in Paulo Elie’s (2007) essay, “A Man for All Reasons,” published in The Atlantic November
issue.
30 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Politics, Niebuhr (1960) challenged the unjust structures of power and the
violence of the powerful elite, who easily condemned “the violence of a strike
by workers and [then] call upon the state in the same breath to use violence in
putting down the strike” (130)—a view that also resonated with Freire.

Latin American philosophy

Latin American philosophy10 of the twentieth century encompasses long-

standing concerns with issues tied to indigenous rights, Latin American
identity, coherent philosophical tradition, and feminist concerns within the
context of deeply patriarchal relations of power. Debates across different
historical epochs since the 1500s generally encompassed conservative
ideologies of the elite who sought to protect pristine European influences and
their governance over the masses, on one hand; and progressive and radical
perspective that sought to challenge and break from the colonial legacy that
stifled political participation, economic well-being, and the liberation of the
oppressed.
For more than 500 years, the coloniality of power (Quijano 2000) has
been fiercely enacted by way of oppressive epistemologies and economic
imperatives in Latin America that rejected an ethics of liberation, negating “a
rethinking of the totality of moral problems from the point of the view and
the demand of ‘responsibility’ for the poor” (Dussel 2013: 142). Hence, of
particular note here are fierce intellectual debates against Eurocentrism11 that
demarcated twentieth-century thought in Latin America—debates that surely

10
This section draws on two very succinct but insightful articles. First Alexander Stehn’s (2017) in
“Latin American Philosophy,” published in the Internet of Encyclopedia of Philosophy; and Jorge
Garcia and Manuel Vargas’s (2013) article, “Latin American Philosophy,” published in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Both sources are well-respected peer-reviewed academic resources.
11
Eurocentrism, according to Shohat and Stam (2014), refers to a mode of thought that engages in
a variety of reinforcing intellectual forms. Briefly, five major aspects of this worldview include:
(1) Europe is seen as the “motor” for progressive historical change; (2) attributes to the West an
inherent progress toward democratic institutions; (3) elides non-European democratic traditions
and obscures manipulation of Western democracy in subverting democracies abroad; (4) minimizes
the West’s oppressive practices; and (5) appropriates cultural and material production of non-
Europeans, while denying both their achievements and their appropriation (see 2–3). Also see, J. M.
Balut’s (1993) the Colonizer’s Model of the World for an incisive discussion of Eurocentrism and its
role in the colonizing worldview of the West.
 Intellectual History 31

also influenced Paulo’s intellectual formation and development as an educator

and philosopher in Brazil.
Backlash against the demeaning intellectual dominance of the West in the
early 1900s led to foundational critiques of European positivism12 and erecting a
new Latin American material perspective that was culturally grounded in Latin
American values and priorities, as well as could encompass the complexities
of indigeneity within Latin American identity. Authors like Argentine
philosophers of liberation, Enrique Dussel, Arturo Andrés Roig, and Horacio
Cerutti-Guldberg; Marxist scholars, Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez in Mexico and
Caio Prado Junior in Brazil; Darcy Ribeiro, the Brazilian anthropologist; Alvaro
Vieira Pinto,13 the Brazilian philosopher (also exiled in 1964) who writes on
philosophy of science, and others offered new possibilities for the rethinking
of Latin American identity, consciousness, and political context. Through their
efforts, Latin American thought has undergone various stages in its evolution,
as a variety of thinkers and historical events have motivated different ways
of understanding and negotiating Latin American political and economic
landscapes. What was to become exceedingly clear in the decades to follow was
that philosophy could not be detached from geopolitics (Mignolo 2007).
The Mexican Revolution of 1910, for example, provided Latin American
thinkers a more expansive geo-historical vision of the New World, in which
the people could emancipate their lands and recover culturally, politically,
economically, and spiritually from a long saga of colonial violence. Régis
Debray (1967) wrote of political struggles in Latin America and the need for
“the worker and peasant masses” (18) to free themselves in the present from

12
Briefly, six major features of positivism include: (1) the logic of inquiry is universal across all
disciplines; (2) the goal of inquiry is to explain and predict conditions of social phenomenon; (3)
research should be empirically observable, using inductive logic to make claims that can be tested; (4)
inquiry should be neutral, objective, and value-free avoiding any form of personal bias; (5) inquiry
should be detached or decontextualized from cultural or political morals, values, or beliefs; and (6)
phenomenon in the world has an independent existence or “essence” which remains constant and is
observable. Positivism is generally associated with the Enlightenment defined in note 25.
13
Alvaro Vieira Pinto’s writings on consciousness and intentionality are important to Freire’s efforts
to link education with co-intentionality and the development of social consciousness. Moreover,
Pinto’s (1960) expansion on Jasper’s notion of limit situations is key to Freire’s sense of hope; in that,
limit-situations become for Pinto not “the impassable boundaries where possibilities end but the
real boundaries where possibilities begin” (284). Moreover, Pinto posits a living sense of historical
consciousness, where the present always contains the past and the future.
32 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

the contradictions of the past, through becoming conscious of the social and
material conditions that stifled their liberation. Similarly, political scientist,
Francisco Weiffert (1967) engaged key questions of revolutionary politics,
class-consciousness, and the state. As struggles waged in China, Chairman
Mao Tse-Tung’s (1964) Little Red Book would inspire calls to actions; and
the Cuban revolution would similarly serve as an impetus for flourishing
movements for liberation, as the writings of Fidel Castro, Ernesto (Che)
Guevara,14 and other revolutionaries, inspired by the Cuban philosopher and
poet, Jose Martí, reignited revolutionary dreams. So too, Freire’s ideas found
resonance in Martí’s writings (Alvarado 2007).

Jose Martí
Jose Martí was one of the earliest critics of positivism in Latin America (Martí
2009). In contrast to European positivists or materialists, who blamed the
problems of Latin America on the genetic inferiority of the races, Martí looked
historically to the colonizing politics of cultural and economic domination
around the world and its persistent impact on subaltern populations. In
response, Martí, a staunch critic of US imperialism, beckoned Latin American
intellectuals to develop their own ideas, rooted in the actual social, political,
religious, and economic issues facing Latin American populations. Martí
espoused a deeply inclusive Latin American identity, where all had the right
to participate in forging a genuinely liberated Latin America. Although, Martí
died during Cuba’s war to gain independence from Spain, his writing called for
liberating Latin America from the imperialistic impulses of both Europe and
the United States.

José Carlos Mariátegui

An important thinker during the “rebellious” period of Latin American
thought was the Peruvian scholar, José Carlos Mariátegui (1971), who through

14
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire makes note to Che Guevara’s (1969) memorable words regarding
love and revolution, which echo his own: “Let me say, with the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the
true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love. It is impossible to think of an authentic
revolutionary without this quality” (398). Also see, Peter McLaren’s (2000) Che Guevara, Paulo
Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution for an interesting and creative comingling of Che Guevara
and Paulo Freire’s ideas as foundation for a revolutionary praxis of education.
 Intellectual History 33

his writings offered a vision for Latin America that could transform the
destructive social and economic impact of European conquest. Considered
one of the most important Marxist thinkers in the history of Latin America
thought, Mariátegui called for a socialist solution and asserted the key role of
both aesthetics and spirituality to the communal struggle of the oppressed in
creating a new, more egalitarian society. Works by Mariátegui and others of his
era gave way to a distinctive Latin American school of thought that Francisco
Miró Quesada called the forjadores (constructors), who are credited with
developing a genuinely Latin American philosophy that in the 1940s critically
moved the field toward the establishment of a philosophical perspective
notably considered Latin Americanism. This generation and the next, who
built on the writings of Mariátegui, as well as Jose Vascancellos and Leopoldo
Zea, also read the works of Spanish philosophers such as Miguel de Unamuno
and José Ortega y Gasset.

Spaniard philosophers
The Spanish educator and philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno, is considered an
early existentialist whose work engaged the tensions and contradiction that
exists between intellect and emotion, as well as faith and reason. At the heart
of his ideas, Unamuno grappled with the meaning and limits of consciousness
and ongoing conflicts and contradictions that make up the whole of human
existence. Unamuno’s writings, like Freire, are characterized by a deeply
personal and passionate longing to know, even beyond death. A central theme
in his writings reflects an underlying desire to preserve one’s personal integrity
in the face of social conformity, fanaticism, and hypocrisy. Unamuno’s novels
and plays intensely depict characters agonizing with conflicting human
impulses. Unamuno also wrote a book titled Amor y Pedagogía (Love and
Pedagogy), a concept reflected in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Freire’s later
works (Darder 2015).
The Spanish philosopher and writer, José Ortega y Gasset’s philosophy of
life reflects aspects of pragmatism and realist phenomenology, which give rise
to an early form of existentialism and dialectical historicism. For Ortega y
Gasset, philosophers have an obligation to unveil beliefs, in order to challenge
false notions and promote new ways of understanding the world. Despite
34 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

an underlying individualism consistent with many philosophers of his time,

Ortega y Gasset believed this is best accomplished through engaging the
world openly and overcoming the limitations of idealism (where reality is
centered around the ego) and a realism that presides outside the person. The
only underlying true reality for Ortega y Gasset is one’s life—the life of each
individual. His core axiom, Yo soy yo y mi circumstancia (I am me and my
circumstance), challenged the limitations of Descartes axiom, “I think therefore
I am”; in that Ortega y Gasset asserts human beings are inextricably linked to
the materiality of our world. As such, life is constantly stirred by the tensions
and relationship between necessity and freedom, as well as the impact of our
decisions upon our fate—a fate for which we often do not accept responsibility
to transform. Moreover, Ortega y Gasset also argued for “historical reason,” in
that neither individuals nor societies exist or can be known outside of history.

Inseparability of coloniality and political economy

The historical inseparability of coloniality and the political economy of
European conquest—later manifested through capitalist formations of
European modernity15—have remained at the heart of the anticolonial
imperative of Latin American thought. Pedagogy of the Oppressed must
then be understood, first and foremost, as a translated Latin American text;
where Freire’s grappling with the colonial tensions and contradictions of the
Latin American condition, the influences of his university formation in the
1940s, and later his experience as educator and philosopher in Brazil and
Chile, became impetus for his humanizing praxis. Moreover, his evolving
intellectual engagement with the devastating impact of what Latin American
thinkers would come to refer to as the colonial matrix of power (Mignolo
2007; Patzi-Paco 2004; Quijano 2000) served as a significant foundation for

15
Jorge Larraín (2000) in Identity and Modernity in Latin America, explains,
For Marx, what was the basis of modernity was the emergence of capitalism and the revolutionary
bourgeoisie, which led to an unprecedented expansion of productive forces and to the creation
of the world market. Durkheim tackled modernity from a different angle by following the ideas
of Saint-Simon about the industrial system. Although the starting point is the same as Marx,
feudal society, Durkheim emphasizes far less the rising of the bourgeoisie as a new revolutionary
class and very seldom refers to capitalism as the new mode of production implemented by
it. The fundamental impulse to modernity is rather industrialism accompanied by the new
scientific forces. In the work of Max Weber modernity is closely associated with the processes of
rationalization and disenchantment of the world. (13)
 Intellectual History 35

Freire’s revolutionary articulations of such concepts as cultural invasion and

banking education as social phenomenon entrenched in the cruel interplay of
economic, political, and ideological control (Tlostanova and Mignolo 2009),
within both schools and society.

Existentialism

Freire followed the work of a group of Brazilian intellectuals who gathered

at the Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasilieros (ISEB) in Rio de Janeiro. The
institute was established in 1955 by the Ministry of Education and Culture to
create an autonomous space for conducting studies that could contribute to a
critical analysis of the Brazilian reality and encourage and promote national
development (Abreu 1975). The institute was disbanded following the Golpe de
64. Members of the institute were influenced by the writings of existentialists,
such as Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Mannheim, Karl Jaspers, Martin Buber,
Immanuel Levinas, and Paul Sartre; along with phenomenologists like Edmund
Husserl and Martin Heidegger, these authors were read among members of
the ISEB and, in turn, influenced Freire’s philosophy. So much so that repeated
references to “existential situation” and “existential experience,” for example,
are found throughout Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Existentialism refers to a broad and loosely defined intellectual movement
of the twentieth century, which emerged from a deep sense of despair following
the Great Depression and the Second World War. The nature of this despair has
been chronicled by existentialist philosophers well into the 1970s and persists
today, through the deep-rooted Western belief that the individual should have
the freedom to choose his or her preferred moral belief system and lifestyle.
Existentialists do not necessarily embrace a particular political or moral belief
system, in that they may adhere to religious moralism, agnostic relativism, or
moral atheism. Among existentialists, for example, can be found Kierkegaard,
a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, as well as Sartre and
Camus, who were atheists. What unites them is their focus on human existence
and their interest in the manner in which human beings often seek to transform
their essence or nature over a lifetime. Existentialism has also been associated
with several important movements, including phenomenology (which Freire
36 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

studied as a university student), nihilism, and later postmodernism (which

Freire marginally engaged, then later abandoned).
At the heart of existentialist philosophy is concern with understanding the
self and the meaning of life through engaging questions tied to free will, choice,
and personal responsibility. Inherent to this analysis is the quest of individuals
to find out who and what they are by way of the choices they make in the
world, generally based upon their lived experiences, beliefs, and worldviews.
Similarly, personal choice is thought to emerge uniquely, without necessity of
an objective form of truth. As such, once a choice is made, the individual must
be held responsible for that choice, without the necessity of exerting public
laws, societal rules, or cultural traditions upon individuals.
Another area of consensus among existentialists is that—in the face
of inescapable suffering, losses, and defeats over time and an absence of
perfection or full power and control over our existence—human life is neither
ever finished nor fully satisfying. Yet, despite the tenuous quality of human
existence, life is still viewed as meaningful by existentialists, since it is the
actual search and journey for true self and true personal meaning that most
determines one’s sense of being. In direct contrast, it is when an individual,
government, or cultural group exerts their power and imposes or demands
arbitrary beliefs, values, or rules that the human being is dehumanized and
reduced to an object. Existentialism then stresses that the individual’s judgment
should be the determining factor for what a person believes, rather than any
religious or secular social order.

Søren Kierkegaard
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1949),16 often at odds with the
established institution of the church, believed that individual choice and risk is
a fundamental necessity in deciding life’s ultimate meaning. For Kierkegaard,
subjectivity signified the infinite depth of human beings and, therefore, could
not be seen as the opposite of rational objectivity, but rather as something
beyond. Subjectivity, here, refers not merely to the human feelings or emotions,
but rather the way a person (the subject) relates to things in terms of his or her
16
See: The Essential Kierkegaard (2000) edited by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong and published by
Princeton University Press.
 Intellectual History 37

own existence. As such, subjectivity is understood always in relationship to

objectivity, given that our understanding is always finite and, thus, can never
fully grasp who or what we are as human subjects. Hence, the full extent of
being a human being can only be captured by way of lived experience; never
from the outside by way of objective definitions or scientific theories of human
nature.

Karl Theodor Jaspers

Karl Theodor Jaspers (1953) was a German psychiatrist and philosopher.
Among his best known contributions is his idea of the existence of an axial
period, referring to a period in human history when the great intellectual,
philosophical, and religious systems and traditions around the world came to
shape human societies and cultural systems emerged. Jaspers theorized that
around 800 BCE to 200 BCE there was a shift—or a turn, as if on an axis—
away from more exclusively localized concerns and toward an aspiration of
transcendence. This to say, that a shift occurred which motivated humankind
to speculate about the fate of humanity, the relationship of humans to the
cosmos, and the notion of the good in human beings (Taylor 2012).
Although Jaspers theory has been problematized for its attempt to
universalize cognitive development and inconsistencies (Smith 2015), Jaspers’s
underlying intent sought to unify our understanding of complex human
processes related to the radical demythologization of truth—achieved through
critical reflection on mythological authority and common sense practices—
in an effort to substantiate human solidarity as historical possibility. Also
underlying Jaspers ontological quest is the ethical principle as a reflexive
means by which human existence can transcend the dualism of the object/
subject split and, instead, embrace a consciousness where the person, as both
object and subject, are brought into totality, emancipating one’s humanity.
Moreover, Jaspers argued, “There is no road leading backward …. We can no
longer veil reality from ourselves by renouncing self-consciousness without
simultaneously excluding ourselves from the historical course of human
existence” (Jaspers 2010:143).
Another Jasperian concept important to the reading of Pedagogy of the
Oppressed is his notion of limits situation—“Limit situations are moments,
38 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

usually accompanied by experiences of dread, guilt or acute anxiety, in which

the human mind confronts the restrictions and pathological narrowness of its
existing forms, and allows itself to abandon the securities of its limitedness,
and so to enter [a] new realm of self-consciousness” (Thornhill 2006). Limit
situations signal undefined moments of human existence, generated by tensions
and contradictions, which unveil the limits of one’s consciousness or social
conditions and, thus, compels human beings to transcend the situation. For
Jaspers (1957), human beings are always more than what we think ourselves
to be. We are never complete “but is a process … endowed with possibilities
through the freedom [we] possess to make of [ourselves] what [we] will by the
activities on which [we] decide” (161). Yet, it cannot be ignored that Jaspers
also warned of ultimate situations, inescapable realities that cannot be changed
or surmounted (Jaspers 1954) and through which human beings, nevertheless,
construct meaning.

French Existentialists17
Jean-Paul Sartre (1946), one of the most recognizable French existentialist
philosophers, sought to engage those basic existential experiences that could
reveal our fundamental human condition in relation to others and the world.
Similar to other existentialists, Sartre embraced the notion “existence precedes
essence.” Inherent to this view, all existing things in the material universe only
have meaning through consciousness, in that it is through consciousness that
we create meaning. Therefore, there is no predefined essence to humanity and
so human beings must decide the meaning of existence for themselves. As
this infers, Sartre was concerned, in particular, with questions of freedom and
responsibility. He argued that it is through our willingness to accept responsibility
for our freedom, as well as the suffering that may come with it, that we become
authentic human beings. Hence, it is, indeed, our actions that then make us who
we are and these are determined not by predetermined destiny or the will of a
God but by the choices and actions of human beings in the world.

17
Although Freire does not mention the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, it seems likely that he would have read Levinas. In fact, given the logical connection
here, there are scholars who have engaged their works simultaneously (Benade 2015; Gomez 2009;
Joldersma 2001).
 Intellectual History 39

Simone de Beauvoir, one of two women intellectuals cited in Pedagogy of the

Oppressed, is best known as a French existentialist feminist for her literary and
philosophical works—such as The Second Sex, originally published in 1949—
which have been linked to the second-wave of feminism,18 despite Beauvoir’s
expressed concerns with the failures of the first wave of the Women’s Movement
to liberate women. Beauvoir insisted that women could not be truly liberated
until the system of patriarchal society itself was overthrown. Moreover,
Beauvoir details “the inadequacies of biological, Freudian, and Engelsian
historical materialist accounts of gender difference” (Mussett and Wilkerson
2012: 98) and that these theories had to be either modified or replaced “by
an existential-phenomenologist approach, rooted in past and present lived
experience, and leading to freely chosen reorientation of future societies in the
direction of equality” (98). In her essay “The Ethics of Ambiguity,” Beauvoir
(1947) tackles the existential question of absolute freedom and the constraints
of circumstance that stifle freedom. In La Pensee de Droite, Aujourd’hui
(The Political Thought of the Right, Today), Beauvoir (1955) argues that the
fundamental interests of the political right lie in “changing the consciousness
of the oppressed, not the situation which oppress them” (34).
Mikel Dufrenne is another of the French philosophers whose work is
recognized within the existential tradition.19 In Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
Freire makes particular reference to Dufrenne’s (1968) Pour L’Homme, where
the author speaks to the anguish caused by what seems to be a stubborn

18
The Feminist movement is often delineated by three waves of feminism. First wave: 1830s—early
1900s, where women fought for the right to vote, as well as equal contract and property rights.
Second wave: 1960s–1980s, is an important period in which feminist debates were broadened
in order to struggle for gender equity across the society; and Third wave, 1980s to present, often
considered a time of micropolitics in the struggle for gender equity, where feminist perspective
became more particularistic with respect to issues of racism, sexuality, ecofeminism, and so on.
There are some, however, that argue we are actually now in the Fourth wave of feminism; a time in
which feminist are working to contend with and move past what has been seen as the lack of focus
and “divisiveness” of the third wave. Whatever the case, it is important to note that within each
of this waves of feminisms there have been tensions and contradictions often linked to ideologies
and epistemologies that exist somewhere across the spectrum from radical to ultraconservative
debates. For more see: An Introduction to Feminism (Finlayson 2016) and Feminism: A Very Short
Introduction (Walters 2006).
19
Mikel Dufrenne (1953) can also be categorized in the tradition of phenomenology. His best-known
book, Phénoménologie de l’expérience esthétique (The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience),
expounds on the inextricable link between the larger dimension of human feeling and aesthetics.
This is a book that Freire is bound to also have read, given his expressed interest in aesthetics with
respect to the question of our humanity.
40 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

historical intractability toward the undoing of our humanity. In his work,

he engages the need to restore human subjectivity to our construction of
knowledge, given that it is our inalienable right—a right that is consistently
compromised by systems of oppression. Moreover, Dufrenne posits the
need to encounter the question of the other, through ongoing reflection on
our relationship to self, one another, and the world—which he elevates to an
ethical imperative. Dufrenne argues that this is particularly significant, given
declarations of the death of God in Modernist philosophy—a declaration also
accompanied with the asphyxiation of the self, which causes human beings to
build defenses against our inevitable end.

Other existentialists: Karl Mannheim and Martin Buber

The Hungarian-born philosopher, Karl Mannheim (1952) is best recognized
for his contribution to the sociology of knowledge. Mannheim incorporated
Marxist ideas in his work, particularly in his efforts to demonstrate that
“ideas were the product of their times and of the social statuses of their
proponents” (Sagarin and Kelly 1970: 293). As such, Mannheim sought
to explain why human beings “behave differently in the framework of
different social groups and class situations” (294). “Truths,” therefore, are
linked to and influenced by the social context from which they emerge.
In the Problem of Generation, for example, Mannheim (1952) asserts that
when any major event (i.e., the Great Depression, the holocaust, the Second
World War, Vietnam, and civil rights) collectively impacts a group of people,
particularly at adolescence, they are likely to exhibit a collective consciousness
about its meaning. Hence, generations can be grouped based on their
collective sociohistorical experiences of a major event, which Mannheim
believed had an impact on their thoughts and feelings as a group and, in
turn, influenced how they made sense of their existence and social identity.
Despite the problem with Mannheim’s effort to formulate “a value-neutral
concept of ideology” (Stirk 1992: 66), his writings on “liberty, democratic
planning, fundamental democratization of society, and the theory of
democratic personality are critical issues in Freire’s early writings” (Torres
1993: 120). Mannheim’s sociology serves as a catalyst for those seeking to
interpret society as a totality, beyond the specific interests of the ruling class.
 Intellectual History 41

Furthermore, Mannheim’s theory of the awareness process bears similarity to

Freire’s process of critical consciousness (Paiva 1979, 1980).
Martin Buber (1958), an Austrian, Jewish philosopher and educator, centered
his work on religious consciousness, interpersonal relations, and community.
Buber’s major philosophical contribution was his notion of dialogical
existence, where he points to the primacy and direct interactive quality of the
I-Thou relationship, in contrast to an I-It relationship or monologue expressed
through an indirect and mediated experience of the other. Moreover, in the
I-It experience, the individual approaches all others (things or people) as
instrumentalized objects—to be used, known, or experienced—dehumanizing
the other and devaluing the meaning of existence. In contrast to positivist
notions, Buber insisted that existence must be understood as an intimate
dialogue between people with one another and the world: a relationship that
could only transpire through openness and willingness to be responsive to
others and in communion with all beings.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology, as a branch of existential study, seeks to be scientific in

its objective study of social phenomenon, through employing a systematic
method of reflection for determining the essential properties and structures
of human experience. It is “above all, a meditation on knowledge … [putting]
consciousness face-to-face with the phenomenon and appears, thus as
consciousness of the given” (Torres 2014: 31). At the center of this school of
thought are five fundamental assumptions (Orbe 2009). Briefly and simply, the
first rejects the belief in objective research, preferring to cluster assumptions
through a process of phenomenological epoché—a process that seeks to block
biases and assumptions, in order to make sense of a social phenomenon within
its own system of meaning. Second, analyzing everyday behavior offers us a
greater understanding of its inherent nature. Third, we can best understand
human nature through studying the unique ways in which we reflect the
world around us. Fourth, engaging conscious experience, rather than so-
called objective data is preferred. And lastly, since the focus is on discovery,
unrestrictive methods of inquiry are employed.
42 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

The first moment: Georg Wilhelm Hegel

Historically, phenomenology has been divided along three distinct moments.
The first is associated with Georg Wilhelm Hegel’s (1900) Phenomenology of
Spirit. Hegel sought to break with the old order, arguing against the positivist
epistemological tradition of modern philosophy that had prevailed from
Descartes through Kant. In contrast to the idea that the individual mind
controlled thought, Hegel argued that a collective human dimension is at
work in the construction of knowledge and, as such, tension always exists
between an individual’s unique sense of things and the need for distinguishing
universal concepts for societal integration. Herein are two movements—
the first, meaning or “sense of certainty” and, the second, perception—that
correspond to the first two of Hegel’s three modes of consciousness. The
third movement, understanding, arises through the negotiation of tensions,
a process that becomes progressively more refined. This idea of knowledge
as movement across oppositional and contradictory tensions signals the
Hegelian dialectic, where it is understood as an interactive striving to arrive at
stable and truthful categories of thought. Knowledge as dialectical movement
is then a recurrent theme in Hegel’s writings and sits at the heart of his
innovative epistemology.
Hegel elaborates on self-consciousness as an awareness of another’s awareness
of oneself. Inherent to self-consciousness is found a struggle for recognition,
caused by opposing tensions generated by different meanings. On one hand,
there is the moment when self and other come together, which makes self-
consciousness possible; and, on the other hand, the moment of difference
arising when one is conscious of the otherness. For Hegel, this tension between
selves and others, between mutual identification and estrangement, manifest
in the field of social relationships. This struggle for recognition is magnified
between two individuals (or groups) who are bound to one another in an
unequal relationship of dependence. About this dialectical bond or relationship
between the consciousness of master and the consciousness of the oppressed,
Hegel argues: “The one is independent, and its essential nature is to be for
itself; the other is dependent, and its essence is life or existence for another.
The former is the Master, or Lord, the latter the Bondsman.” This points to
the struggle of lordship and bondage (111) or master and slave, and its various
 Intellectual History 43

expressions, which are reflected in Karl Marx’s analysis of social class and later
in Freire’s exposition of the oppressor/ oppressed contradiction in Pedagogy of
the Oppressed.
Equally important to this discussion is Hegel’s claim that social standards
or laws do not reside in objects or in the mind but in the organized social
whole (541). Within the context of this social dimension, each individual
identity is also part of a collective, where values and moral conventions of
the organized social whole are internalized as emanating from oneself. When
political life fails to be the true expression of common ethical life, forms of
social oppression result that seek to annihilate opposing forces. For Hegel,
the ethical encompasses common or communal values, customs, and codes
of conduct that determine how people act, their beliefs, and how they relate
to the world—all which become deeply embedded in the collective culture.
Nevertheless, Hegel argued that culture is a dynamic force always subject
to change, an idea that is in sync with his view of history as a dynamic and
unfolding collective force.

The second moment: Edmond Husserl

The second and most fundamental phenomenological moment is that of
Edmund Husserl (1954, 2012), considered the father of phenomenology, in that
his ideas had a widespread influence on philosophers who engaged questions of
existence and beingness. According to Husserl, phenomenology encompassed
“the reflective study of the essence of consciousness, as experienced from the
first-person point of view” (Woodruff 2007). This approach to knowledge
construction begins with the intuitive experience of phenomena, or what
emerges through human reflection; and, by way of this expression, seeks to
comprehend the essence of existence. Husserl rejected the abstraction and
detached knowing of positivism, by focusing attention on questions of human
perception, experience, and knowledge through the structure of consciousness.
Husserl’s underlying premise is that “All consciousness is consciousness of
something.”20

20
In an essay originally published in 1939 entitled “Une idée fondamentale de la phénoménologie
de Husserl: l’intentionnalité,” Jean-Paul Sartre makes reference to Husserl’s famous phrase “All
consciousness is consciousness of something.” Intentionality: A Fundamental Idea of Husserl’s
Phenomenology first appeared in Situations I (Paris: Gallimard, 1947).
44 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Husserl asserts that the only certainty we have is our own conscious
awareness. Hence, this is the place from whence we must begin to know the
world. However, our awareness and consciousness must always be understood
as an awareness and consciousness of something—where something refers to
any object, real or unreal, physical or psychical, which we reflect on—although
experience, in and of itself does not discern states of consciousness from objects
of consciousness. Thus, we cannot know whether objects of consciousness have
an independent existence separate from us, although they do unquestionably
exist as objects of our consciousness. It is precisely this relationship between
experience, the world, and consciousness then that permits human beings to
explore and understand our existence.
For Husserl (1954), consciousness does not exist outside of the lifeworld
nor does the lifeworld exist separate of consciousness—radically confirming
the dialectical relationship between consciousness and the world. “In whatever
way we may be conscious of the world as universal horizon, as coherent
universe of existing objects, we, each ‘I-the-man [woman]’ and all of us
together, belong to the world as living with one another in the world; and the
world is our world, valid for our consciousness as existing precisely through
this ‘living together’” (108). As such, the lifeworld, as the ground for all shared
experience, is understood as fundamental to ontological (of being or existence)
and epistemological (of the nature of knowledge or meaning) reflections and
interrogations.

The last moment: Martin Heidegger

The last moment in phenomenology is attributed to Martin Heidegger (1962)21
who is said to later have rejected phenomenology. Heidegger’s (1962) central
focus is the ontological question: “What is ‘being’?” In response, he sought
to distinguish between human existence as beings (Sein) and the existence
of things in general (Seindes). With this in mind, he centers his analysis on
Dasein (Gorner 2007: 4), “the being” for whom a description of experience
is essential to our engagement with and our ability to-be-in-the-world (Torres
2014). Heidegger also argues that human existence and time are inextricably

21
Originally published in 1927.
 Intellectual History 45

linked, since human beings are always looking toward the future.22 Hence, he
reasons that being is really just a process of becoming, rejecting the Aristotelian
claim that human beings possess a fixed essence.
Heidegger (1962) however, makes a distinction between authentic human
beings, who have a distinct grasp of their humanity (i.e., farmers and rural
workers); and inauthentic human beings (i.e., city dwellers) who are out of
touch with their own individuality. In turn, this inauthentic state of being causes
anxiety. This anxiety, according to Heidegger, is the result of subjugation to
arbitrary cultural rules. Moreover, human beings respond in two ways: either
to flee or face up to the anxiety. Heidegger proposes that facing the realities of
our human existence, although limiting, is also liberating.
Although Heidegger initially considered his concepts related to time and
being as universal, he later posits that the actual time or period (or epoch)23
in which we live impacts our way of being, providing the concept of Dasein
historicality (Heidegger 1962: 41). This phenomenon also signals a historical
condition or truth that may remain concealed, until a moment when the limits
of inauthentic existence or a fore-sight (a guiding idea that redefines our sense

22
At this juncture, it is useful to signal anew the Eurocentric philosophical foundations of the majority
of thinkers discussed in this chapter. This is particularly apparent here in Heidegger’s theorizing of
time and being—conceived through a lens that corresponds to Eurocentric system of values.
Eurocentrism, as it prevailed during European Enlightenment, was advocated in England by
John Locke and David Hume, in France by A. R. J. Turgot and Voltaire, and in Germany by
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Immanuel Kant, to give some examples. This means that during
this period it was in play all over Europe. For the origin and dissemination of Eurocentrism, the
idea of progress is very important. This idea means that world history as a whole, with all of its
relevant developments, comes to its absolute peak in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth
century. In this way it is possible to frame a concept of history that covers the whole world.
However, this possibility comes at a high price. Although certain periods of history are judged
in a differentiated way … Europe is the standard within which all the different phenomena in
space and time get their place as historic stadia. Europe of this period of time understands itself
as superior with regard to all other times and cultures, and … Europe defines what philosophy or
science is. (Kimmerle 2014: 100)
This also points back to the earlier discussion on Latin American thought, which sought to
challenge, destabilize, and transform the Eurocentric worldview in Latin America, fundamentally
linked to the coloniality of power. Moreover, the racism (and sexism, for that matter) that underpins
the worldview of the 1800s and 1900s when these theorists were writing is both inescapable and
indefensible; yet, as critical education theorists like Phillip Kain (2005) and Peter McLaren argue,
disrupting epistemological possibilities simultaneously exist within theories, particularly with
respect to Hegelian dialectics and historical materialism.
23
Freire makes note of the idea of epoch in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, referring to the critical work of
German Sociologist, Hans Freyer (1958), who posited that history enters critical epochs in which
the objective cultural forms are unable to contain the flux of life. As a consequence of the tension,
the historical moment gives rise to the necessity of transformative change.
46 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

of being) provoke ontological inquiry and “comports itself towards something

possible” (306). Heidegger defines truth as both revealing and concealing ways
of being-in-the-world … “situations are not spatial; rather … situations are
determined by taking action, asking questions, re-creating the situation into
which [one] has been thrown” (Petruzzi 1998). Human agency or freedom
can only be expressed through the process of inquiry, in which one critically
reflects upon ways of being-in-the-world.
The evolution of consciousness, for Heidegger, is then understood as key
to our human existence, emerging from our being-in-the-world and, thus,
historically motivated. However, different worldviews also create different
interpretations of what it means to be. Linked to this, Heidegger also engaged
questions of language and meaning, where language is not seen as an arbitrary
construct nor does it solely correspond to or describe the outside world. Instead,
he argues that our words actively name things into being and can have a powerful
and transformative impact on the world. As a student of both phenomenology
and the psychology of language, Heidegger’s views would have been significant
reference points for the evolution of Freire’s own views on literacy.

Revolutionary Influences

The ideas Freire expresses in Pedagogy of the Oppressed clearly reflect the
dramatic impact of his exile from Brazil, as well as a radical shift in his thinking,
inspired by his relationships and associations with revolutionary intellectuals
in Latin America and around the world. This arbitrary dividing line should
not be taken as a hard demarcation, but rather as simply a logical one, given
the historical conditions and pressing issues of his time. Freire’s intellectual
history resumes in this section, bringing together a discussion of Marxism,
the Frankfurt School, and anticolonial thinkers who influenced his thinking.

Marxism

German philosopher, Karl Marx is considered one of the most enduring

revolutionary intellectuals of all time—whether embraced or maligned, his ideas
 Intellectual History 47

have been overwhelmingly engaged across all disciplines and social movements
for liberation around the world. Marxist philosophy, as with many of the
philosophies discussed earlier, must be understood against the backdrop of the
Enlightenment,24 which gave rise to the overwhelming belief that phenomena
could be known objectively by way of the observing mind, which become the
medium for liberating the human spirit.25 Marx, as did other philosophers
discussed earlier, challenged positivist claims. For example, although initially
influenced by the phenomenology of Hegel, Marx (1933) came to challenge
what he considered to be the idealist tendencies in Hegelian dialectics.

The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to

nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy …. The answers
which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps.
Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature … comprised the camp of
idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various
schools of materialism. (329)

True to his material sensibilities, Marx developed a dialectical materialism

that encompasses four key ideas (Stalin 2013).26 First, we cannot understand
the nature of phenomenon divorced from its totality, from “a connected and
integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with,
dependent on, and determined by, each other” (9). The aim here is to understand
society as a whole. Second, nature is always in “a state of continuous motion
and change” (9), simultaneously rising and disintegrating. So in addition to its
interconnections, we cannot understand history, for example, apart from its

24
The Enlightenment refers to an intellectual and scientific movement of eighteenth-century Europe
that, in defiance of the autocratic rule of monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church, infused a
rational and scientific approach to religious, social, political, and economic views. The ideas of this
historical period led to the American Revolution and French Revolution and strongly influenced
the Industrial Revolution. Thinkers that loom large in this period are Rene Descartes, John Locke,
David Hume, Adam Smith, Spinoza, and Immanuel Kant.
25
Key ideas of the Enlightenment age include: (1) The Individual is starting point for all knowledge
and action and individual reason cannot be subjected to a higher authority; (2) Rationalism, where
reason and rational thought, independent of experience, is innate within the human mind and the
only basis for organizing knowledge; (3) Empiricism: the only valid way to gain knowledge about
the world is through observation or sensory experience; (4) Scientific method is considered to allow
the observation of facts and the discovery of laws that govern these facts; (5) Progress: knowledge
gained by scientific methods can be used to explain or predict events; and (6) Universalism: scientific
methods for acquiring objective knowledge are universal so they can be applied to all spheres of
endeavor. These ideas are foundational to positivism, which was defined in note 17.
26
First published in 1938.
48 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

constant movement. Therefore, history, as well as human ideas, knowledge,

and culture, remain always unfinished and in a state of becoming something
new (Roberts 2003). Moreover, knowledge, consciousness, and societies
change to the degree that their movement is acknowledged and embraced.
Third, change and movement in nature is not circular or redundant, but rather
goes from “the simple to complex, from the lower of the higher” (11). And,
fourth, contradictions are inherent to all phenomena. Things do not evolve
as harmonious unfolding, but rather, “as the ‘struggle’ of opposite tendencies
which operate on the basis of these contradictions” (13). In concert with this
approach, Marx proposed a political and economic analysis firmly grounded
on the indivisible link between theory and practice.
Marx offers a revolutionary reading of history that combines ontology and
epistemology through the premise of class struggle (Roberts 2003). Marx and
Engels (1972)27 note, “As individuals express their life, so they are. What they
are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce
and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the
material conditions determining their production” (42). In light of this, Marx
theorizes that the only viable means for transforming the oppressive and
alienating conditions produced by a dehumanizing wage system of labor is
a revolutionary process, which can collectively mobilize society toward a just
and equal redistribution of social and material wealth. Hence, “the economical
emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every
political movement ought to be subordinate as a means.”28 Nevertheless, “the
emancipation of the workers must be the task of the workers themselves.”29
Essential to this revolutionary process then must be conditions for workers
to participate as the historical subjects of their own knowing and liberation.
The power of Marxist ideas is consolidated in the theory of historical
materialism—a dialectical theory of knowledge and analysis that focuses on
historical processes and the societal causes of capitalist oppression. Marx

27
First published in 1854.
28
Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action. International Workingmen’s
Association written by Marx in 1871. See: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/
politics-resolution.htm.
29
The First Congress of the International in Geneva, 1866, written by Marx. See: https://www.marxists.
org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm.
 Intellectual History 49

contends that all forms of social thought (i.e., art, philosophy, science) and
institutions (including the family) originate from the political economic
superstructure30 of the state. Hence, everything in life is economically
determined. The flow of money informs our relations with one another, with
nature, and with the world. Marx employs the category of value to signify basic
relations of production in capitalism, where all social and material exchanges
are organized on the basis of value (Postone 1996). The alienating structures
of private property, for example, overwhelmingly shape our thoughts and
aspirations, as capital dictates the boundaries of human activity (Marx 1998).
About this Marx (1844) writes,

Through estranged, alienated labor, then, the worker produces the

relationship to this labor of a man alien to labor and standing outside it. The
relationship of the worker to labor creates the relation to it of the capitalist
(or whatever one chooses to call the master of labor). Private property is thus
the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the
external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.

Accordingly, all societal institutions are established and reproduced within

economic relations—economic relations that Marx claims can only be
transformed through a revolutionary process of class struggle where the
tyranny of capital is overcome. However, Marx also notes that it is precisely
from within the limitations of class tensions and antagonisms—produced
by the structural inequalities of the ruling class—that new possibilities for
liberation arise.
Marx further argues that the dialectical necessity of human history points to
the eventual dismantling of the oppressive state and the establishment of a just
society. Essential to Marxist thought are questions of history and of workers-
as-subjects (or makers) of history. “Historical materialism, by virtue of its
emphasis on human productive practices and historical specificity, holds out

30
Marx’s theory divides society in two layers, which he terms the “base” and “superstructure.” The base
refers to the sphere of all the material, tangible aspects of life, along with the economic relations that
capital generates. The superstructure refers to the sphere of political and ideological institutions; the
cultural belief system, and the hopes, dream, and spirit generated by the capital. The superstructure
is understood in terms of three aspects: (1) the legal and political expressions of society linked to
relations of production; (2) the forms of consciousness that express particular class views of the
world; and (3) the processes by which human beings become conscious of a fundamental economic
conflict and wage struggle.
50 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

the prospect of perceiving the present as history. Human beings can know the
world, despite its complexity, because they have made it” (Roberts 2003: 174).
Marx confirms that women and men make history, as much as we are made
by history, although often not within conditions of our own making. Hence,
to understand history, ourselves, and the world requires that knowledge be
constructed within the material conditions of our historical continuity This
challenges abstract, neutral, or prescribed views of history, knowledge, or
consciousness, by reasserting our humanity as full and active participants in
the revolutionary process—a process that must begin concretely where lived
history, consciousness, and material existence intersect. Marx (1998) begins
here in that knowledge, like history, does not exist divorced from our lives,
but rather “the production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness is at first
directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of
men [and women], in the language of real life” (42).
However, Marx also notes that society’s phenomenological sphere (or sphere
of appearance) is often quite different from its essence. Thereby, pointing
the way for the development of a theory of ideology that can engage the
contradiction between the appearance and essence of society—a contradiction
that benefits the ruling class. Ideology, in the Marxist sense, signifies the
production, reproduction, and consumption of ideas and behavior that distort
or illuminate the nature of reality (Giroux 1983), obscuring relations of power,
entrapping our sensibilities, and obscuring existence. Moreover, since ideology
is contradictorily situated and recreated within the sphere of appearance, it
expresses not only social and material formations of domination but also
resistance and affirmation. Marx uses the concept of commodity fetishism31 to

31
In Marxism, the concept of commodity fetishism is used to explain how the social organization of
labor is mediated through market exchange, the buying and the selling of commodities (goods and
services). In Capital, Marx and Engels (1996) explain the concepts underlying commodity fetishism
in the following manner:
As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within
which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and
the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men
[and women] themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between
things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion.
There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their
own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the
world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches
itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities. (83)
 Intellectual History 51

unveil the contradiction within a capitalist society, where the value of workers
is gauged through a system of monetary exchange (accepted by the worker),
while concealing the hidden extract surplus value (profit of the producer) and
the workers’ estrangement or alienation32 from their labor.33 For this reason,
Marxists maintain that seldom is domination absolute within the capitalist
mode of production.34 Rather, given the effectiveness of ideology in obscuring
structures of oppression, the working class often became complicit in their
own dehumanization.
Consistent with the discussion above and worth repeating, Marxism posits
the existence of social classes, whereby human beings are separated into distinct
segments of the population, according to their social and material wealth. The
dynamics of a society can only be understood in terms of a system where
the dominant ideas are formulated by the ruling class to secure control over
the working class. The deep structures of human inequality perpetuate and

32
“Alienation” refers to the process whereby workers are made to feel separate from the products of
their own labor. In capitalism, workers are exploited insofar as they do not work to create a product
that they, themselves, can sell to a real person; instead, workers, in order to live and survive, must
sell their labor to capitalists for a wage (as if their labor were itself a property or thing that can be
bought and sold). Workers are alienated from their product (what they make) precisely because they
do own the product they make, which belongs to the owners who have purchased the labor-power of
workers in exchange for exclusive ownership over the workers’ products and all the profit that comes
by the sale of those products. However, the worker’s production does not have to lead to alienation
and can actually be very satisfying. This happens under conditions where workers can pour their
subjectivity into what they make and even gain enjoyment from the fact that another person gains
enjoyment or satisfaction from what they have made. The idea here is that the further workers are
from the products of our labor, the more that we can become alienated and objectified, distanced
from our creativity and opportunities to transform our world. Such estrangement serves to meet the
objectives of capitalism, at the expense of the humanity of workers.
33
It is in his discussion of estranged labor that Marx (1844) differentiates human beings from animals,
which Freire takes up in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Of this, Marx contends,
The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its
life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He
has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life
activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he
is a species-being. Or it is only because he is a species-being that he is a conscious being, i.e., that
his own life is an object for him. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labor
reverses the relationship, so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life
activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence.
34
“Mode of production” refers to “everything that goes into the production of the necessities of
life, including the ‘productive forces’ (labor, instruments, and raw material) and the ‘relations of
production’ (the social structures that regulate the relationship between humans in the production
of goods)” (Felluga 2015: 180 - 81). According to Marx and Engels, (as stated earlier) for individuals,
the mode of production is “a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their
part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their
production, both with what they produce and how they produce” (Marx and Engels 1972: 42).
52 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

reinforce class divisions, along with the inherent social class conflicts and
contradictions of capitalist societies. However, the dynamics of class struggle
can move us beyond the negative reading of ideology above, to an arena of
critique where the oppressive ideas, structures, and practices of the ruling
class are openly critiqued and class-consciousness evolves. Marx argues that it
is through this evolution of class-consciousness and organized revolutionary
action that the working class give birth to new theories, along with new social
and political organizations.
For Marx, the historical class struggle of workers must be understood
dialectically—where the interconnections, changes, and movements between
and across individuals and societies, humans and nature, knowledge and
practice all retain the revolutionary tension necessary for critical inquiry and
the possibility of transformation. It is this feature of dialectical materialism
that ruptures the bourgeois (or liberal) farce of individual freedom, in the
absence of revolutionary aims. To this point, Marx argues, “In bourgeois
society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person
is dependent and has no individuality.” In contrast, Marxism expresses the
importance of communal solidarity, by calling for “an association, in which
the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
(Marx and Engels 1848).
Given the fundamentally antidemocratic foundation of capitalist relations,
Marxism considers democratic principles indispensable to overcoming our
alienation (McLaren and Leonard 1993), as well as our efforts to engage
critically across larger arenas of organized class struggle that extend beyond
our daily tensions as individual workers. Marx contends, “social domination in
capitalism does not, on its most fundamental level, consist in the domination
of people by other people, but in the domination of people by abstract social
structures that people themselves constitute” (Postone 1996: 30). Lastly,
Marx responds to this universalism of worker oppression through a call for
Internationalism, where the common interests and struggles of working people
worldwide focus on the abolition of national interests and the formation
of international communities where socialist values of human rights and
economic justice prevail.
 Intellectual History 53

Marxist intellectuals

The works of Marxist theorists influenced Freire’s ideas and are cited
throughout Pedagogy of the Oppressed. These include Vladimir Lenin, Rosa
Luxembourg,35 György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, as
well as Lucien Goldmann, André Nicolaï, and Gavrito “Gajo” Ptrovio. These
socialist philosophers engaged Marx and expanded his ideas in a variety of
ways, particularly with respect to questions of humanist praxis, ideology,
consciousness, cultural hegemony, and language. In several instances,
their writings challenge the Marxist orthodoxy of their time, in an effort to
free Marxism from the vice of an exaggerated scientificity and economic
determinism that betrayed its liberatory intent.

Vladimir Lenin
Bolshevik revolutionary leader, Vladimir Lenin is credited for the success
of the Great October Socialist Revolution36 of 1917. This Bolshevik offensive
is considered to mark the birth of the Soviet Union. Lenin’s What Is to
Be Done?—a book fashioned as a blueprint, based on Lenin’s tactics for
revolutionary praxis—is considered his most formidable contribution to our
understanding of strategic actions for societal reinvention. Lenin’s central
theme is built around three primary questions: (1) the character and main
content of political agitation; (2) organizational tasks; and (3) the plan for
simultaneously remaking society. Lenin points to the significant role of
theory, arguing, “without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement” (12).
For Lenin, theoretical (or ideological) struggle is as significant to revolution
as political and economic struggles. On this issue, Lenin is more pragmatic
than Marx, in that he contends that beyond the spontaneity of class struggle,
the revolution requires the active participation of committed organic
intellectuals (which he calls professional intellectuals), who are in relationship
with the working class. It is through this shared relationship of praxis, between

35
Along with Simone de Beauvoir, Rosa Luxembourg is one of only two female intellectuals included
in this intellectual pantheon.
36
Also commonly referred to as Red October, the October Uprising or the Bolshevik Revolution.
54 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

intellectuals and workers that Lenin maintains political consciousness evolves

and society is remade. Lenin, further, insists that practical participation in
political life is key, for it is through our lived praxis (where theory and practice
unite) that we come to truly understand the “relationships between all the
various classes of modern society” (43). Such participation works to “clarify
for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the
emancipation of the proletariat” (49).
Fundamental to revolutionary praxis, Lenin argues, is the need to
eradicate “all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of
distinctions of trade and profession” (71). This calls to mind Lenin’s concern
with the tendency of the Russian Social Democratic Party to instrumentalize
the economic demands of workers for revolutionary struggle and “why any
subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement … prepare[s] the ground
for converting the working class movement into an instrument of bourgeois
democracy” (59). For Lenin, the only real antidote to this dehumanizing
objectification is revolutionary praxis, where workers are integrated in the
process of intellectual formation and the practice of social democracy.
However, Lenin contended that to accomplish such a difficult endeavor
requires leadership. In concert with this directive, Lenin asserts: (1) no
revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of
leaders maintaining continuity; (2) the broader the popular mass drawn
spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and
participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the
more solid this organization must be; (3) such an organization must consist
chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) in an
autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization
to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who
have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police,
the more difficult will it be to unearth the organization; and (5) the greater
will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social
classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in
it (79). Although there are aspects of Lenin’s tactics that have been severely
criticized as antidemocratic and refuted, no one can deny that his leadership
and revolutionary vision ignited the liberatory aspirations of many worldwide.
 Intellectual History 55

Rosa Luxembourg
Socialist philosopher, Rosa Luxembourg, is best remembered for her
passionate discourses that sought to move notions of freedom and truth
beyond dogma or sectarian fixations, in an effort to recover Marx’s dialectical
insistence on an embodied revolutionary process. Hence, Luxembourg’s (1906,
2006) deeply humanistic and revolutionary sensibilities fueled her critique
of so-called reforms that betrayed the essence of working-class struggle.
Similarly, Luxembourg (2007) challenges the antidemocratic tendencies of
many Marxists of her time, who were mired in a lifeless, mechanistic, and
“policemanlike materialism” (116). This she argues undermines Marx’s own
humanism, which calls for “a society in which the full and free development
of every individual is the ruling principle” (Marx 1990: 739). In the face of an
increasingly dogmatic Stalinism, Luxembourg confronted what she perceived
as deceptiveness and dangerous “infallible authorities” of the party, who
undermined and betrayed the communal participatory demands of Marxist
praxis. In response, Luxembourg (1905) asserts in The Political Leader of the
German Working Classes, true to historical materialist ideals,

Social democracy is simply the embodiment of the modern proletariat’s class

struggle, a struggle which is driven by a consciousness of its own historic
consequences. The masses are in reality their own leaders, dialectically
creating their own development process. The more that social democracy
develops, grows, and becomes stronger, the more the enlightened masses of
workers will take their own destinies, the leadership of their movement, and
the determination of its direction into their own hands. (280)

György Lukács
The major contributions of the Marxist philosopher György Lukács include the
development of a Marxist system of aesthetics that opposed political control
of artists and, like Luxembourg, defended humanism. Through his writings,
Lukács sought to elaborate on Marxist notions of ideology, alienation, and
consciousness within the context of an ever-expanding industrialized society.
In 1923, Lukács wrote History and Class Consciousness (1972), where he forged
a unique Marxist philosophy of history, which laid the basis for a critical
56 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

literary and artistic perspective, which inserted artistic expression within the
theory and practice of revolution. Defying mechanistic tendencies to view
Marxism as merely a scientific analysis of social and economic change, Lukács
delineates Marxism as philosophy. Lukács notes an intrinsic dialectics within
the consciousness of workers, given their class positionality as objects of the
social process that shapes their lives. Lacking is a sense of self-consciousness,
which generates an intrinsic tension. This constitutes three aspects: first is
the worker’s own reified existence as a product of social mediation; second,
the social totality; and third, the workers as the subject-object of that totality.
Lukács (1972) writes, “The act of consciousness overthrows the objective form
of its object” (178) and, thus, the worker too can overcome objectification
through practical engagement with the totality of life.
A significant Marxist idea that Lukács (1972) expands here is that of
reification, an alienating process of rational objectification that detaches people
from their labor and knowledge, converting everything and everyone—
including living ideas, qualities, interests, relationships, and human practices—
into consumable objects, in the interest of capitalist accumulation. Lukács
reinforces the link of reification to the commodity-structure of capitalism,
where social relationships between people are objectified and fetishized, as if
“they possessed an autonomous power and objectivity” (Rooke 1998). “Its basis
is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus
acquires a ‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational
and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the
relation between people.”37 Lukács points to the manner in which this process
of commodification, across social, political, and economic spheres, perpetuates
human alienation and our subsequent subordination, within capitalist society.

Antonio Gramsci
The Italian revolutionary thinker, Antonio Gramsci, who was incarcerated
for much of his life by Mussolini, is another key intellectual who wrote in
the Marxist tradition. The compilation of his writing, published in Prison
Notebooks, provided a useful rethinking of several fundamental ideas

37
See: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm.
 Intellectual History 57

associated with Marxist thought and the assertion that a genuine democracy,
as a total and integral part of society, had to be the fundamental objective of
revolutionary struggle. Through his philosophy of praxis, Gramsci moved to
overcome what he considered to be the democratic limitations of economic
determinism and, in so doing, expand Marxism’s explanatory possibility.
About this, Gramsci (1971) writes, “The philosophy of praxis … does not tend
toward the peaceful resolution of the contradictions existing within history. It
is itself the theory of those contradictions” (196–197). Of particular concern,
for Gramsci was the failure of the working class to enter into the revolutionary
process, as Marx had theorized, and instead falling captive to the authoritarian
rule of fascist regime (Giltin 1979). This conflict prompted him toward a
theory of hegemony. Starting from the assumption that the historical process
has deposited an infinity of traces (Gramsci 1971:326) within us, Gramsci’s
radical conceptualization of culture opens new theoretical ground from which
to examine the structures of everyday life.
More specifically, “hegemony refers to the ideological control of dominant
beliefs, values, and social practices that are reproduced and distributed
throughout a whole range of institutions, including schools, the family, mass
media, and trade unions” (Giroux 1981: 94). Here, the supremacy of the ruling
class manifests itself in two distinct ways: as material domination and as
intellectual moral leadership. Through inquiry into the nature of hegemony,
Gramsci unveils the contradictions and unravels the entanglements between
structures of political power, ideology, and pedagogy that result in relations
of domination. Important to a theory of hegemony is the complexity that
governs the perpetuation of unacknowledged ideologies that both protect and
conserve the inequalities inherent to capitalist societies. Gramsci affirms the
need to engage dialectically with a variety of ideological ideas and meanings in
the context of everyday social life—ideas that are both imposed from outside
and voluntarily reproduced from within, through widespread common sense
notions—unexamined ideas, beliefs, or assumptions that betray the interests of
the working class, by reinforcing social and material relations of domination.
Here, the question of social agency is paramount to Gramsci’s analysis, which
diverts from an essentialized Marxist economic determinism and, instead,
gives centrality to the response of human beings to their world.
58 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Gramsci’s theory of hegemony also served as an important response to

changing forms of capitalist domination in the West that were evolving in
advanced industrial societies. With the rise of modern science and technology,
social control was exercised less through the use of physical deterrents and
increasingly through the distribution of an elaborate system of norms and
imperatives. Gramsci (1971) noted that, unlike fascist regimes that control
populations primarily through physically coercive forces and arbitrary rules
and regulations, capitalist societies utilize forms of hegemonic control that
function systematically to ensure the masses adapt to the authority of the
dominant society. Gramsci characterized the capitalist state as being made up
of two overlapping spheres, a “political society” (which rules through force)
and a “civil society” (which rules through consent). Accordingly, Gramsci
(1971) addresses the phenomenon of spontaneous’ consent—“given by the great
masses of the population to the general direction imposed upon social life”
(306). “Gramsci saw mass culture as the primary tool for submission. The more
mass culture infects the thinking and attitudes of the population the less the
state has to use harsher forms of coercion for domination. Gramsci described
mass culture, or civil society, as the trenches and permanent fortifications that
defend the core interests of the elites” (Hedges 2017: 1).
The notion of manufactured consent is situated in Gramsci’s view of “the
apparatus of state coercive power which ‘legally’ enforces discipline on those
groups who do not ‘consent’ either actively of passively” (307). At the heart of
hegemonic control are dynamics of political power—power derived by control
of social structures and material relations of production that embody routines
and practices, resulting directly from the context, content, and manner in
which knowledge is produced. Gramsci also draws attention to “the degree
to which the class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and
political power but also by bourgeois ‘hegemony’, the spiritual and cultural
supremacy of the ruling class, brought about through the spread of bourgeois
values and beliefs via civil society38—the media, churches, [education], youth

38
Gramsci’s theory of hegemony has also been employed in debates about civil society. For those
concerned with the ways in which liberal or bourgeois thought both narrowly defines and reduces
civil society to an “associational” or lesser domain in contrast to the state and market, Gramsci’s
definition affirms that civil society, within a genuinely democratic context, can serve as a public
 Intellectual History 59

movements, trade unions and so on” (Heywood 1994: 100). This represents a
power preserved by selective silences and manifested in the fragmentation of
social definitions, management of information, and the subsequent shaping
of popular attention, consent, belief, and trust (Forester 1987). However, what
cannot be missed here, according to Gramsci (1971), is that

hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the

tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and that
a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed—in other words, that
the leading group should make sacrifices … But there is also no doubt that
such sacrifices and such a compromise cannot touch the essential; for though
hegemony is ethical-political, it must also be economic. (373, emphasis
added)

With this Gramsci suggests how progressive or revolutionary ideas of subaltern

groups are appropriated to gain mass consensus, but only in so far as the
hegemonic culture, with its economic structure of dominance, is preserved.
“Education is central to the workings of hegemony in which every
relationship is a pedagogical relationship” (Mayo 2010: 2). As such, Gramsci’s
insights into how power is constituted within the realm of ideas and knowledge
production are particularly salient to this discussion. There are four important
educational themes that resound in Gramsci’s thesis of cultural hegemony.
(1) The role of educators (in intellectuals and education) is associated here
with “intellectual and moral leadership” (249), as well as the need for “active
participation in the practical life” (320) of the community. (2) The formation
of counter-hegemonic intellectuals (in intellectuals and education) or “organic
intellectuals … that emerge from out of the group itself … [so] more and
more people share the tasks of mental activity, of organizing, deliberating and
leading” (425). (3) The relationship culture, language, and knowing (in language
and common sense), “every language contains the elements of a conception of
the world and of a culture” (326). And, finally, (4) the historical significance

sphere of political struggle and contestation over ideas and norms. As such, it also offers a public
context for communities to collectively build their critical capacities to challenge oppressive
assumptions, practices, and policies, as well as articulate new ideas and visions (Heywood 1994).
For another interesting discussion into this question, see Marco Fonseca’s (2016) book Gramsci’s
Critique of Civil Society.
60 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

of passion (in knowledge and feeling) where “one cannot make politics-history
without this passion, without this connection of feeling between intellectuals
and [the] people …” (350).

Louis Althusser
Among Marxist scholars, there are two distinct views at play with respect
to the concept of ideology. The first is apparent in the writings of orthodox
Marxists who contend it is possible to get beyond ideology, in an effort to
reach some essential truths about society and freedom. In this perspective,
ideology is essentialized as creating false consciousness—a way of thinking
that prevents individuals from perceiving the true nature of their social
or economic situation, consequently obscuring relations of power. Louis
Althusser (2001) breaks with this essentialism,39 by arguing that ideology is
profoundly unconscious and a deeply embedded aspect of our culture, which
actively determines how we think about reality. By reality, Althusser refers
to that world that we create around us, once we have become a part of the
symbolic order.40 Submerged in this order, our perceptions of reality become
so indistinguishably bound to how we think that as soon as we even try to
articulate new truths, we easily can fall back into our old, conditioned view of
the world. Hence, for Althusser, it is impossible to access the real conditions
of existence due to our reliance on language, which is both generated by and
generates the prism of our ideological lens.
Althusser’s (2001) view on ideology is then constituted according to four
key assumptions.41 (1) Rather than the real world, ideology represents the
imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence. (2)
Ideology has material existence and manifests through actions that become
ritualized through human relationships and to social institutions. (3) All
ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects. And
39
“Essentialism” refers to (1) a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they
are and science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; and (2) a view that categories of
people, such as women and men, or heterosexuals and homosexuals, or members of ethnic groups,
have intrinsically different and characteristic natures or dispositions.
40
“Symbolic order” refers to the social world of linguistic communication, intersubjective relations,
knowledge of ideological conventions, and the acceptance of the law. Althusser draws this concept
from Jacques Lacan. See: Jacques Lacan’s (1977) Écrits: A Selection.
41
See: Althusser’s (2001) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (109–123) for a full discussion of
these key assumptions. The discussion here is drawn from this section of the book.
 Intellectual History 61

(4) individuals are always ready-subjects, in that even before birth we are
primed as ready-subjects to accept the hegemonic precepts of the society in
which we are born. Hence, similar to Gramsci, Althusser sees hegemony as
less reliant on the power of the state apparatus than on the power of ideology,
where individuals consider themselves to participate solely through their own
volition. In keeping with these assumptions, Althusser introduces the notion
of ideological state apparatus—which denotes institutions such as education,
churches, family, media, trade unions, and law, which formally exist outside
state control but which served to transmit or interpellate the values of the state.
Within the context of education, Althusser (2001) maintains that the ruling
class has made education its “dominant ideological State apparatus … which
has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant ideological State
apparatus, the Church” (104). He argues that as each cohort of students exit
educational institutions, they enter into the workforce “practically provided
with the ideology which suits the role it has to fulfill in class society” (105).
Moreover, Althusser argues, “no other ideological State apparatus has the
obligatory (and not least, free) audience of the totality of the children in the
capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven”
(105). Despite this central ideological function, schools are portrayed as neutral
settings “purged of ideology … where teachers respectful of the ‘conscience’
and ‘freedom’ of the children … entrusted to them (in complete confidence)
by their ‘parents’ (who are free, too, i.e., the owners of their children) open up
for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their
own example, by knowledge, literature and their ‘liberating’ virtues” (105–106).
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire makes reference to Althusser’s (1967)
discussion of contradictions42 and overdetermination.43 It is through his theory

42
For Althusser (1969), it is important to recognize that “the contradiction is inseparable from the
total structure of the social body in which it is found, inseparable from its formal conditions of
existence and even from the instances it governs; it is radically affected by them, determining in
and the same moment, and determined by the various levels and instances of the social formation it
animates, it might be called overdetermined in its principle” (101). Althusser draws this idea from
Mao’s Tse-Tung (1965).
43
Althusser uses the idea of overdetermination as a way of thinking about the multiple, often
oppositional, forces active at once in any political situation, without falling into an overly simplistic
idea of these multifaceted and multidimensional forces being simply “contradictory.” Moreover,
“overdetermination of a contradiction is the reflection in it of its conditions of existence within the
complex whole” (254).
62 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

of overdetermination, that Althusser posits a double-edged epistemological

challenge to all binary claims of absolute truth, whether these arise from
idealism or materialism. For Althusser, truths are not objective, detached,
absolute or homogenous; but rather are constructed across a multiplicity of
affirming, contradictory, and opposing practices and theoretical perspectives,
which result from an “active intervention in the construction of multiple truths”
(Shin 2012: 4). In seeking to enliven the Marxist dialectic, Althusser offers us
a “decentered structure” that is both multidimensional and multifaceted (Shin
2012), extending our revolutionary field of engagement, as well as providing
greater conviviality in the context of class struggle. Further, in contrast to
notions of political purity, Althusser argues for a way of comprehending culture
as a superstructure, where traces of the past persist within the substructure,
even in the process of revolutionary change. As such both conditions of
domination and liberation are understood as existing within a complex whole
of contradictions, informed by unevenness.
Nevertheless, Althusser asserts that through rigorous critical engagement
of society, politics, economics, and history, we can begin to understand how
ideological beliefs are interpellated into every aspect of our material lives and
how they persist. This notion of interpellation, introduced by Althusser, signals
a powerful social process in which we encounter cultural values and internalize
them, as if they were solely ours. In the course of our socialization, ideas and
assumptions of the world are presented to us, commonsensically, for our
acceptance without questioning. For example, beginning from birth, gender
roles are assigned to us by the culture in which we live; these are presented
in such a way that we are encouraged to accept them as immutable. How we
engage with (or disengage from) these commonly held societal beliefs and
attitudes positions us in relation to power within our society (i.e., our location
related to our class, gender, and sexuality). However, through our rigorous
engagement with the world, Althusser posits that we can come to see the ways
in which we are interpellated by ideology, as we move critically toward a more
complex process of recognition and possible transformation. By so doing,
women and men come to better understand the oppressive conditions we face,
the decisions we choose, and commitments we must make to transform these
conditions. Here, Althusser (1967) is consistent with Marx who contends that
 Intellectual History 63

“it is in ideology that human beings ‘become conscious’ of their class conflict
and ‘fight it out’; in its religious, ethical, legal and political forms, etc., ideology
is an objective social reality; the ideological struggle is an organic part of the
class struggle” (11–12).

Other Marxist Philosophers

Freire also draws on Lucien Goldmann, André Nicolaï, and Gavrilo “Gajo”
Petrović’s humanist Marxist perspectives on consciousness and praxis.
Goldmann begins from his opposition to the scientificity of what he considered
to be Marxism in need of reinvention. The absolutizing of history and the specter
of authoritarianism which had befallen it had to be tempered by restoring
the dialectics of Marxist humanism. This constituted a major concern for
Goldmann, given his opposition to the individualism of bourgeois rationalism
and empiricism. In The Human Sciences and Philosophy, Goldmann draws
on Lukacs’s notion of ideology and consciousness, to distinguish between
“real consciousness” and “potential consciousness.” For Goldmann (1969),
real consciousness is “the result of the multiple obstacles and deviations that
the different factors of empirical reality put into opposition and submit for
realization by potential consciousness” (118).
Through engaging the obstacles and deviation, human beings construct
new knowledge and evolve in consciousness. Goldmann (1968) asserts “that
on the level of individual consciousness, what corresponds to the dialectical
conception of history is the immanent act of faith” (18). In Comportment
Économique et Structures Sociales, André Nicolaï (1960) argues that economic
facts are not independent of social, political, psychological, historical, and
anthropological contexts and, thus, economics only make sense of our class
struggle to overcome scarcity. Nicolai also develops a method of dialectical
engagement—built on the idea that structures impact social behavior—which
can uncover unperceived practical solutions. This idea is similar to Lucien’s
notion of real consciousness, discussed above.
Gavrilo “Gajo” Petrović was one of the main theorists involved in the
Praxis School in Yugoslavia. The Praxis School primarily engaged Marx’s early
writings on his theory of alienation. Petrović also served as the editor of the
journal Praxis, which published works congruent with the Marxist humanist
64 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

stance of the school. The members of the Praxis School clashed with orthodox
Marxist-Leninists of the Communist Party and were subjected to much
criticism by zealous supporters of Stalin’s regime. In response, Petrović and
his comrades called for freedom of speech, pointing to Marx’s insistence on
the importance of ruthless critique of all that exists.44 The underlying intent
was a return to “the real” Marx, in contrast to Stalin’s authoritarian right-wing
philosophy, which had diverted from the human essence of praxis and thus
fallen into dictatorship.
In his essay, “Why Praxis?,” Petrović (1964) argues that “Socialism is the
only human way out from the difficulties in which humanity has entangled
itself, and Marx’s thought—the adequate theoretical bases and inspiration
for revolutionary activity.” Moreover, he was concerned that an authentic,
humanist socialism was simply impossible without revitalizing Marx’s
humanist philosophy and moving toward an understanding and practice of a
Marxism that could step beyond a dogmatic authoritarian posture. He argued
again the alienation and instrumentalization of human beings, under “the
pressure of mass impersonalism and of the scientific method of ‘cultivation’
of the masses [which] is more and more opposed to the development of a
free human personality.” Petrović and his comrade also fought against the
notion of a “correct” or “pure” form of Marxism; but rather, “to develop vivid
revolutionary thought inspired by Marx.” Ultimately, Petrović saw his work and
that of the Praxis School as “a political project committed to ‘the development
of philosophical thought and realization of a humane community.’”

Critical theory

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire makes reference to several authors associated

with the Institute for Social Research (Das Institute fur Sozialforshung), often
referred to as the Frankfurt School. Under the direction of Max Horkheimer,

44
This expression, ruthless criticism of all that exists, is used by Marx in a Letter to Arnold Ruge of
September 1843. The whole expression states:
If constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more
clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,
ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being
just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. (Petrovic 1964)
 Intellectual History 65

theorists like Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert

Marcuse, and Erich Fromm, whose works have been loosely referred to as
critical theory (or critical social theory), sought to radically challenge and
transform positive forms of rationality that defined the construction of meaning
and knowledge in the West. Toward this end, the Frankfurt School provided
a substantive critique of instrumental reason,45 through an incisive analysis of
modernity’s unwavering allegiance to Enlightenment rationality. Rather than
overcoming ignorance and suffering in the world, Adorno and Horkheimer
(1972) argue, “the enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant.”
Writing during a critical moment of advancing capitalism and social
unrest, a common philosophical thread across their writings is an underlying
ontological and epistemological commitment to the idea that theory, as well as
practice, must inform our philosophical and political efforts to transform the
brutal structures and conditions of human oppression in the world. In its early
years, the Frankfurt theorists, influenced by Marx, were primarily concerned
with an analysis of the base structure of bourgeois society; but with time,
their interest developed into a closer analysis of the cultural superstructure
(Jay 1973). This shift was, undoubtedly, a result of the disruptions and
fragmentations experienced in the process of their emigration and repeated
relocation in the 1930s and 1940s—a process precipitated by the threat of
Nazism, the member’s avowedly Marxist orientation, and the fact that most
of them were Jews. Hence, their contributions to critical social theory cannot
be understood in the absence of the historical context that influenced the
development of their ideas and shaped their theories.

45
Although Freire does not mention French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (1979) or German
philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1987), both are considered important thinkers with respect to a
critique of instrumental reason (Smith 2008). Lévinas points to the manner in which ontology, by its
very nature, attempts to create a totality in which what is different and “other” is necessarily reduced
to sameness and identity. This proclivity for totality is a basic manifestation of “instrumental” reason,
where reason is used as an instrument for determining the best or most efficient means to achieve a
given end. Through its embrace of instrumental reason, Western philosophy displays a destructive
and objectifying “will to domination.” Moreover, because instrumental reason does not determine the
ends to which it is applied, it has been used in the pursuit of goals that are destructive or evil. In this
regard, instrumental reason was responsible for much of the crises of Europe the twentieth century,
particularly with respect to advancing totalitarianism (Wolin 2017). “According to Habermas’ staging,
all the participants in the discourse of modernity see the division between subjects, and the petrification
of sociality due to instrumental reason, as the defining pathology of the times” (Smith 2008: 646). For
Habermas (1987), “Since the close of the eighteenth century, the discourse of modernity has had a
single theme under ever new titles: the weakening of the forces of social bonding” (139).
66 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

The Frankfurt school

The work of the Frankfurt School came into being as a direct response to
key political and historical transformations taking place in the early part of
the twentieth century. The political shifts in Germany’s governing structure
had a significant impact upon its founders. During this tempestuous era
Germany had managed to temporarily contain class conflict. But within two
years following the First World War, the foundations of the German imperial
system were undermined and a republic was declared in Berlin (Held 1980).
What followed were thirteen years of chaotic political struggles between the
German Communist Party (KPD) and the more conservative forces of the
Social Democratic Party (SPD). As the KPD became increasingly ineffective in
their efforts to organize a majority of the working class, the Social Democratic
Leadership of the Weimar Republic supervised the destruction of the
competing radical and revolutionary movements. In the process, the SDP did
not only fail to implement the promised democratization and socialization of
production in Germany, it also failed to stop the monopolistic trends of German
industrialists and the reactionary elements which eventually paved the way
for the emergence of Nazism. As the Nazis seized power in Germany under
Hitler’s rules, Italy and Spain came under the fascist leaderships of Mussolini
and Franco. A similar fate befell the worker’s struggle in these countries, where
all independent socialist organizations were suppressed, which is what led, for
example, to the imprisonment of Antonio Gramsci as noted earlier.
In light of the Marxist orientation shared by the members of the Frankfurt
School, “the emergence of an antidemocratic political system in the country of
the first socialist revolution” (Warren 1984: 145), consequently, had a profound
impact upon the evolution of critical theory. The Russian revolution had been
systematically weakened by foreign interventions, blockades and civil war;
and Lenin’s revolutionary vision was rapidly losing ground. After Lenin’s death
in 1924, Stalin advanced in Russia with the expansion of centralized control
and censorship, a process created to maintain European Communist parties
under Moscow’s leadership, a phenomenon that prompted the critiques of
Rosa Luxembourg, as previously discussed. In 1939, the Hitler-Stalin pact was
enacted representing an ironic historical moment for those committed to the
struggle of the working class and the socialist principles espoused by Marx.
 Intellectual History 67

A final event that influenced the development of critical theory was the
nature and impact of the unbridled advance of capitalism in the West. The rapid
development of science and technology and their overwhelming penetration
into the political and social systems resulted in new transformations in the
structure of capitalism, accelerating the development of an advanced industrial-
technological society. Both the major historical and political developments
of capitalist society, as well as the rise of bureaucratic communist orthodoxy
affirmed for the members of Frankfurt School the necessity to address two
major issues. First, the need to develop a new critical social theory within a
Marxist framework, which could contend with the complex changes arising
in an industrial-technological, post-liberal, capitalist society; and second, the
need to recover the power of Marx’s dialectical approach, which had undergone
a major economic and materialistic reduction by a new authoritarian Marxist
orthodoxy (Warren 1984).
The intent of the Frankfurt School was to become a material force in the
struggle against domination of all forms, by addressing through their writings
and political participation the following questions (Held 1980: 35).

● The European labor movements did not develop in a unified struggle of

workers. What blocked these developments?
● Capitalism was a series of acute crisis. How could these better be
understood? What was the relation between the political and the
economic? Was the relation between the political and the economic? Was
the relation changing?
● Authoritarianism and the development of the bureaucracy seemed
increasingly the order of the day. How could the phenomena be
comprehended? Nazism and fascism rose to dominate Central and
Southern Europe. How was this possible? How did these movements
attain large-scale support?
● Social relationships, for example, those created by the family, appeared to
be undergoing radical social change. In what directions? How were these
affecting individual development?
● The arena of culture appeared open to direct manipulation. Was a new
type of ideology being formed? If so, how was this affecting everyday life?
68 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

● Given the fate of Marxism in Russia and Western Europe, is Marxism itself
nothing other than a state orthodoxy? Was there a social agent capable
of progressive change? What possibilities were there for effective socialist
practices?

Efforts to respond to such questions centered on the manner in which

ideology, in the context of capitalism, functioned to obstruct the capacities of
human beings to act in their own interest. As such, the work of the Frankfurt
School challenged traditional positivist definitions of culture that defined it as
autonomous and unrelated to the political and economic structures of power
that shaped everyday life.

Theodor Adorno
For Theodor Adorno, a major contributor to the Frankfurt School’s investigation
into the relationship of culture, power, and ideology, conventional views of
culture failed to engage the decisive role of ideology in constructing both
difference and social conflicts. In Negative Dialectics, Adorno (1973b) critiques
the idea of identity thinking (us versus them) and its ties to the exclusionary
universalism of the Enlightenment. He argues that identity thinking constructs
“the other,” by including dominant cultural values and ways of being as
legitimately human, while excluding those cultural values and ways of the
“other” that would counter this legitimacy. Hence, he posits that this cultural
phenomenon of exclusion is, in fact, not a “natural” manifestation, but rather
is constructed by the powerful in order to justify domination.
Adorno, therefore, criticizes philosophical notions that reify (objectify) the
logic of culture as somehow independent of history, materiality, and social
context, arguing, “culture … cannot be fully understood, either in terms of itself
… or in terms of the so-called universal development of the mind” (Giroux
1983: 22). Here, Adorno (1991) problematizes authoritarian historical forms of
Marxism that place “capitalism into a naïve narrative of progress and freedom
[which] becomes, through its attempt to unify and integrate history, complicit
with its object” (3). Informed by this critique, he developed a critical analysis
of culture that makes it central to the development of historical experience, as
much as in the social and material processes of everyday life. Adorno, similar
 Intellectual History 69

to other theorists of the Frankfurt School, concluded that repressive forms of

positivist rationality redefined the idea of culture in Western society, resulting
in the objectification of the cultural realm.
This reification of culture permitted its appropriation as a new locus
of social control, under which the domination of nature and society
preceded technological progress and economic growth. To describe this
phenomenon, Adorno (1991) used the term “culture industry” in response
to the institutionalization of culture as an industrial force, which not only
produces goods but also legitimates the logic of capital and its institutions.
It is this hegemonic mechanism of rationalization, standardization, and
commodification of culture, which consolidates, reinforces, and perpetuates
dominant values and beliefs, that he termed “ideology.” Moreover, Adorno
asserts, “the effectiveness of the culture industry depends not on its parading
an ideology [or] disguising the true nature of things” (10), but rather in fueling
the belief that there exists no “alternative to the status quo” (11).

Max Horkheimer
Max Horkheimer (1972), often associated with a critique of ideology, also
draws on the negative ideology of Marxism—the idea that ideology, as an
individual or set of claims, perspectives, and philosophies masks or conceals
the social contradictions in society, on behalf of the ruling class. More simply
put, Horkheimer viewed ideology as “the veil over the contradictory character
of society” (cited in Stirk 1992: 66). For Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt
school thinkers, ideology spoke to forms of consciousness that become
standardized and homogenized as representing everyone’s general interests
but, in fact, conserve the interests of those in power. This is accomplished
in society by way of reinforcing the notion that “societal outcomes represent
natural ones when they are the result of particular constellations of human
relations; and/or … glorify the social situation as harmonious when it is, in fact,
conflict-ridden” (Held 1980: 186). Hence, ideologies are not mere illusions,
but rather the outcome of reified social relations that mystify and distort
the truth about how and why there exist gross power differentials in society.
Ideologies, moreover, embody “symbols, ideas, and theories through which
people experience their relation to each other and the world” (Held 1980: 186).
70 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Hence, the need made for a critique of ideology to unveil the structures of our
dehumanization and domestication is at the heart of critical theory.
For Horkheimer, ideology underpins capitalist social relations based on
class interests that in practice (essence) negate individual autonomy, despite
ideological adherence (appearance) to the doctrine of individualism. Hence,
the individualism of capitalist ideology simultaneously emphasizes and
denies the individual’s subjectivity. On the one hand, the individual subject,
freed from the bondages of feudalism, is now free to buy and sell on the open
market. The individual’s material success, therefore, becomes a guideline for
judging right and wrong; and consequently, this success also becomes both
the sign and reward of individual value. On the other hand, the individual
subject is negated and alienated in a system of buying and selling. Hence,
as mentioned earlier, the process of exchange becomes the mode by which
individuality is organized and claimed. Pursuit of self-interest is equated
with pursuit of individual material gain. Through this scheme, the liberal or
bourgeoisie defense of individual freedom becomes ideology, in that it masks
capitalist’s interests and the underlying motivation that inform its origins
(Held 1980).

Herbert Marcuse
Also critical to an understanding of how ideology works on and through
individuals is the Frankfurt School’s notion of depth psychology developed
by Herbert Marcuse (1955). Influenced by the more progressive strands of
Sigmund Freud’s46 theories of the unconscious and instinct, Marcuse conceived
of ideology as existing at the depth of the individual’s psychological structure
of needs, common sense, and critical consciousness. Thus, instead of limiting
his notion of ideology only to external social processes, Marcuse (1955), in
Eros and Civilization, dialectically defines it as forms of historically rooted
domination that exist both in the socioeconomic structure of society as well as
in the sedimented history or psychological structures of the individual. In this
manner, he seeks to explain “that the struggle against freedom reproduce[s] …
in the psyche of man [and woman] as the self-repression of the repressed
46
See, for example, Sigmund Freud’s (2002) Civilization and Its Discontents written in 1930 and
Marcuse’s (1955) Eros and Civilization.
 Intellectual History 71

individual, and his self-repression in turn sustains his masters and their
institutions” (16). Marcuse’s view of ideology connects with Gramsci’s
notion of cultural hegemony, in that it points to the manner in which human
domestication results from dominant forms of social control encased in a
myriad of contradictions and unresolved conflicts that permeate everyday life.
However, for Marcuse, this is also linked to eros—an erotic instinctual need
for freedom significant to the struggle for liberation (Katsiaficas 2011).
In his writings, Marcuse also sought to imagine a society in which all
aspects of our humanity—our work, play, love, and sexuality—could function
in sustaining a free society, by first considering the ways in which these are
disrupted in modern society. In One Dimensional Man, considered to be one of
the most important books of its time, Marcuse (1964) asserts that, despite the
one-dimensionality of human existence within capitalist society, there actually
exist dimensions of our humanity that have been eroded and that we must
recover. Part of this erosion includes destruction of the intimate spheres of life
(i.e., sexuality), which have been appropriated and commodified in ways that
facilitate domination, without critique or protest. The society, Marcuse writes,
turns everything it touches into a potential source of progress and exploitation,
of drudgery and satisfaction, of freedom and of oppression. The outcome of
this contradictory rationality is “the conquest of the unhappy,” where any sense
that something is wrong and that change is needed or possible is suppressed.
Proceeding on the basis of negative (or dialectical) thinking, Marcuse stresses
the political necessity of overcoming “the oppressive and ideological power of
given facts” (227), if human beings are to recover the multidimensionality of
our existence.

Erich Fromm
Socialist psychoanalyst and philosopher, Erich Fromm sought to combine the
explanatory powers of Marxism with Freud’s more progressive psychoanalytical
ideas, in ways that could breathe new life into the inextricable relationship
that exists between human beings and society. Central to his life’s quest was
an unwavering commitment to illuminate the dynamics of psychological
repression and social domination, by revealing the complex relationship
that exists between the individual and society. Fromm (1955) argues that
72 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

human beings, in the context of modern capitalist society, have been violently
uprooted from our organic connection to nature; and, thus, have been left
poorly equipped to adapt to in a rapidly changing world. He further notes that
since human beings have simultaneously developed the ability to reason and
recognize our increasing alienation—or separation from nature—the human
situation of our objectification causes us an existential dilemma.
Fromm’s writings are anchored in a radical humanism that throughout
his life potentiated his steadfast emancipatory politics. Fromm (1966)
contends,

Radical humanism considers the goal of humankind to be that of complete

independence, and this implies penetrating through fictions and illusions to
a full awareness of reality. It implies, furthermore, a skeptical attitude toward
the use of force, precisely because during recorded history it has been, and
still is, force—creating fear—which has made humans ready to take fiction
for reality, illusions for truth. It was force which made people incapable of
independence and hence warped their reason and emotions. (13)

Hence, the human condition, our potential physical and intellectual capacities,
and the evolution of consciousness are all themes interwoven across the
landscape of Fromm’s psychology of liberation. In a world Fromm perceives as
steadily driven by technology toward a soulless and mechanistic existence, he
seeks to both critically understand and recover the essence of our humanity,
the spirit of our existence, and the possibility for an emancipatory purpose to
human life.
In The Art of Loving, Fromm (1956) takes up a central theme of his life’s
work: Love as the answer to the problem of human existence (7), particularly
within the dehumanizing context of capitalist society. For Fromm, “to analyze
the nature of love is to discover its general absence today and to criticize the
social conditions … responsible for this absence” (133). Fromm, further,
argues, “In a culture in which the marketing orientation prevails, and in which
material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised
that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs
the commodity and the labor market” (4). Underlying his critique of capitalism
as disintegrating society is the assertion that the unbridled commodification of
 Intellectual History 73

human beings, as market objects of exchange, has not only separated us from
nature but from one another.
Fromm (1956) asserts, “the principle underlying capitalist society and
the principle of love are incompatible” (131). The anxieties produced by
this incompatibility have generated a culture of lovelessness and alienation;
which effectively perpetuates, on one hand, repression of individual freedom
and expression, while on the other, promotes increasing concentration of
wealth and power among the dominant class. Accordingly, “in contemporary
capitalistic society the meaning of equality now refers to the equality of
automatons—human beings who in fact are devoid of their individuality”
(Fromm 1964: 15). Central to Fromm’s efforts to challenge this phenomenon
is his historical materialist engagement with human relationships, which he
perceives as essential to the future of our humanity. Love as an individual
and collective political force is, therefore, viewed as capable of disrupting our
alienation, recovering our humanity, and propelling human existence toward
greater emancipatory consciousness.
From this sense, “love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person;
it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness
of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one ‘object: of love’” (46); and,
as such, Fromm (1956) maintains, that love is at the root of human solidarity.
Indispensable to this idea of love is a “communication with each other from
the center of [our] existence.”

Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but

a moving, growing, working together; even whether there is harmony or
conflict, joy or sadness, is secondary to the fundamental fact that two people
experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one
with each other by being one with themselves, rather than by fleeing from
themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the
relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned. (103,
emphasis added)

In theorizing emancipatory relationships of love, Fromm identifies several

qualities he deems indispensable to love—discipline, concentration, patience,
concern, and responsibility. Essential to knowing and being in a relationship are
74 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

the indispensable qualities of love, humility, faith, courage, and action. In his
work, Fromm speaks to the reciprocal aliveness (or biophilia47) and horizontal
nature of relationships—human interactions that affirm life—where faith and
respect to for the other abide; where “The teacher is taught by his [or her]
students” (25), relating “to each other genuinely and productively” (25).
Conversely, Fromm (1973) theorizes the deathlike (or necrophilic)48 quality
of loveless relationships where indispensable qualities of love are absent,
particularly with respect to those groups perceived as problematic to advancing
principles of profit and consumption. Here, Fromm makes reference to an
alienating culture of exclusion, which results in the suppression of the objectified
other—whether through ideological signification of inferiority or violent forms
of repression. Fromm (1955) associates this necrophilic phenomenon to the
manner in which “religious and racial minorities, as far as they are powerless,
offer vast opportunities for sadistic satisfaction for even the poorest member
of the majority” (290). Similarly, Fromm argues that possessive mechanisms of
“extreme submission and domination” make people “insane,” to the point that
all relationships become “dependent on those to whom he submits, or whom
he dominates” (31). Such forms of narcissism, rooted in social and material
relations of capitalist production, promote dehumanization and “lost contact
with the world” (34). In the process, the other is perceived and treated as an
object of domination, transformed “into a thing, something animate into
something inanimate” stripped of that “essential quality of life—freedom” (32).
In The Fear of Freedom, Fromm (1942) undertakes a historical examination of
the psychological dynamics associated with freedom and its impact on human
beings. Central to his argument is that true freedom can only be predicated on
an organic relationship of human beings to the world, within the spontaneity
of love and productive work. In the absence of this relationship, the alienation
and isolation brought on by human insecurities and anxieties diminishes
the possibilities of freedom and unravels the integrity of the self. Fromm,
therefore, asserts that true freedom or freedom to requires true connection with
others—a connection that allows us both to enter into spontaneous activity,

47
From defines biophilia as “the passionate love of life and all that is alive; it is the wish to further
growth, whether in a person, plant an idea, or a social group” (Fromm 1973: 365).
48
From defines necrophilia as “the passion to destroy life and the attraction to all that is dead, decaying,
and purely mechanical” (Fromm 1973: 6).
 Intellectual History 75

and, as such, experience a “spontaneous realization of the self ” that with each
interaction, unites us “anew with the world …” (224). Hence, freedom is not
an individual stagnant construct or object to be obtained, but rather it is a
living process generated within the relational structures in which we reside.
Fromm contends that the contradictions of capitalism, in conjunction with
Calvinist values, violates the necessary conditions for freedom by trampling
human agency, in order to preserve its social and material domination. This,
Fromm maintains, occurs through a mode of production that both objectifies
and instrumentalizes human beings, alienating us from one another and our
social environment. Fromm complicates this analysis by suggesting that even
when human beings are freed from structures of domination, there is a fear of
freedom (or freedom from) and a tendency to experience a new set of anxieties
that can result in feelings of hopelessness—a hopelessness that can only be
overcome when we can work together spontaneously to use our freedom to in
the process of remaking our world. Unfortunately, Fromm also notes, that a
common response to anxieties associated with the fear of freedom is to move
toward authoritarianism, destructiveness, and conformity, which ironically
become associated with a greater sense of security and safety.
Dismissed from the Frankfurt School by Horkheimer in 1939 and accused
by some of the Frankfurt School members of having “emptied psychoanalysis
of its revolutionary content by abandoning Freud’s49 essential premise that
libidinal drives50 are deeply embedded biological entities that energize

49
Although Fromm (1941) acknowledges that “Freud went further than anybody before him in
directing attention to the observation and analysis of the irrational and unconscious forces
which determine human behavior,” in the Art of Loving (1956), he points to “Freud’s error” or
“his physiological materialism” rooted in an undialectical reading of the relationship between
psychology and biology. This, according to Fromm, results in deterministic conclusions of, for
example, psychosexual stages of development. About this, he accused Freud of ignoring the psycho-
biological aspects in his conclusion of male/female sexuality, which he chalks up to “Freud’s extreme
patriarchalism, which led him to the assumption that sexuality per se is masculine, and thus made
him ignore the specifics of female sexuality” (36).
50
“Libido” refers to the sexual or erotic drive. For Freud, this is analogous to the drive for hunger.
Freud views it as a fundamental human instinct that is evident already at birth. All the libidinal
impulses, for Freud, are inherently attached to vital bodily functions (e.g., nourishment, voiding
of waste). What distinguishes the libidinal dimension from the functional aspect, as pure bodily
necessity, is the pleasure with which the activity is associated. Thus the libidinal drive is tied to the
pleasure principle. In his theory, Freud essentializes these drives as biologically determined, which is
reflected in his libidinal phases psycho-sexual behavior, which are categorized as oral, anal, phallic,
latent, and genital. See Freud’s (1949) The Ego and the Id and Sigmund Freud: Examining the Essence
of His Contributions by Stevens (2008).
76 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

human personality” and bypassing the “modernist agenda,” (Friedman and

Schreiber 2013: xxiii), Fromm, nevertheless, remains widely read and is one
of the most cited critical theorists in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. And, of all
the philosophers discussed, Fromm is one of the closest to resemble what
we today call a public intellectual; for apart from his scholarly writings, he
was consistently involved as an activist in a variety of social movements
throughout his life.51 Fromm also had a strong connection to Latin America.
In 1950, Fromm moved to Mexico to accept a post at the UNAM (the Mexican
National Autonomous University) in Mexico City, where he taught for fifteen
years. As an active psychoanalyst, he also assisted with the establishment of the
Mexican Institute of Psychoanalysis and served as director until 1976 (Burston
1985).52 Therefore, it is not surprising that Fromm and Freire’s paths crossed
over the years.

Karel Kosik
The Hungarian Marxist humanist, Karel Kosik, is often overlooked with
respect to his critical influence on Freire’s ideas. In Prague, Kosik became a
leading voice for democratic socialism in the period referred to as the Prague
Spring of 1968; his on-the-ground political involvement, however, resulted
in his dismissal from his university post in 1970. Kosik’s (1976) major work,
Dialectics of the Concrete, came to be regarded globally as a major contribution
to critical theory, particularly in Latin America. In the Spanish translation,
Dialéctica de lo Concreto, published in 1968, Adolfo Sánchez Vásquez asserts
in the prologue, “Kosik is not only one of the most important philosophers
of the second half of the twentieth century, but also one of those who best
understood the spirit of resistance of critical thinking.”
Kosik undertakes a masterful reexamination and critique of Heidegger,
while providing a reworking of Marxian categories of humanist phenomenology.
At the heart of his analysis is a criticism of reductive Marxism, in which he argues
51
Apart from being a civil rights activist, Fromm also led vigorous movements against nuclear
weapons, participated in anti-Vietnam war protests, and worked with movements for the protection
of the environment.
52
Although, there is a tendency to only speak about Fromm’s influence on Mexican Psychology and
humanist revolutionary ideas in the region (Burston 1985), I would argue, that Fromm’s evolving
sensibilities were also deeply influenced by his association and friendships with thinkers rooted in
an early Latin Americanism or Southern epistemological tradition, including Paulo Freire.
 Intellectual History 77

that we can only grasp the reality of anything through our practical activity.
He contends this praxis is, in fact, the opening by which we gain a sense of
being. Kosik introduces the notion of the dialectical disunity of everyday life to
offer a rational critique of everyday intentionality, within the contentiousness
of modernity. “The dialectical disunity is lived as a social conflict—the conflict
of master and slave, ruler and ruled, of exploiter and exploited, manipulator
and manipulated—and as the spirit of man and nature—subject and object,
freedom and necessity, intent as causality” (Bakan 1983: 83). Given that
human beings have become divided by the deeply hierarchical nature of
capitalist relations of labor, Kosik asserts, uncompromisingly, that it is only by
way of “historical dialectical struggle that the essence of being human can be
developed, transformed and realized” (83).

Anticolonial theory

When one reads Pedagogy of the Oppressed, from a Latin Americanist

perspective, there is absolutely no doubt that Freire’s central thesis is intimately
tied to an anticolonial perspective—a vital discursive dimension of many Latin
American philosophers of his time. Both the works of Frantz Fanon (1952)
and Albert Memmi (1957),53 whom Freire cites in Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
are writ large in his theoretical formulation of the oppressed/oppressor
dialectic and contradiction. Both these agile thinkers, often categorized as
“postcolonial,”54 root their analysis amid respective experiences of colonial

53
Memmi and Fanon knew each other when both men were working in Tunis. See the essay by
Memmi (1973) titled “The Impossible Life of Frantz Fanon,” where Memmi draws on mutual points
of contact in a testimony to Fanon’s contributions, viewing Fanon’s life “as one possible model for the
dominated individual’s revolt against the conditions of his oppression” (Cassirer and Twomey 1973:
10). However, it is important to note critiques that have been issued regarding Memmi’s analysis and
characterizations of Fanon’s process. For an excellent discussion, see Charles F. Peterson’s (2007)
Dubois, Fanon, Cabral: The Margins of Elite Anticolonial Leadership, where he argues that “Memmi’s
questions of Fanon’s racial, cultural and geographical identifications reveal a mind unable to move
beyond oppressive frameworks. Fanon’s heresy of not sticking with his own kind disrupts Memmi’s
vision of nation, race, and culture” (100).
54
Briefly speaking, “postcolonialism” refers to an area of study that analyzes, explains, and responds
to the cultural legacy of colonialism and imperialism. As an area of study, postcolonialism engages
the human consequences of external control and economic exploitation of native people and their
lands. “The ‘post’ of Colonialism is both the after-time of a historical period and the critique of the
episteme or mind set that led one small part of the world to dominate the Other” (Willette 2013). In
addition to Fanon and Memmi, other key authors often associated with this academic tradition are
Michel Foucault, Edward Said, Gayatri Charkravorty Spivak, and Homi Bhabha.
78 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

relations in the Caribbean, France, Tunisia, ad Algiers—Fanon as Martinique-

born colonialized subject and Memmi, as the son of a Jewish-Italian father and
Berber mother, who grew up in Tunisia, within a Muslim context.
However, according to Cassirer and Twomey (1973), “Starting from similar
experiences Memmi and Fanon developed widely divergent perspectives
on the conflict between colonizer and colonized, between oppressor and
oppressed.55 While Fanon sought to involve himself in the conflict by denying
and transcending the identity imposed upon him by historical circumstances,
Memmi tried to combine involvement of the diverse elements that constitute his
historical identity” (9). Despite these differences, their writings emerged during
a most contentious historical moment of national liberation movements around
the world. Particular to their writings are the Algerian War of Independence
(Fanon) and the Tunisian National Movement (Memmi)—struggles inspired
and fueled by organized working class people, who had long been oppressed
by the French colonial system of capitalist rule. However, as with most writers
discussed earlier, their radical discourses conserve the patriarchal gaze, despite
their significant contributions to our understanding of human oppression.56

Frantz Fanon
Frantz Fanon, an Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist, philosopher, and revolutionary,
is considered one of the leading anticolonial thinkers of the twentieth century.
Although revolutionary movements embraced his passionate anticolonial
writings, his forthright challenge to the immorality of colonial rule was viewed
as a threat to the white establishment.57 By expounding on the racializing
dynamics at the heart of what later would be referred to the coloniality of
power, Fanon expanded the revolutionary ideas of Marxists and critical

55
It is precisely of this phenomenon of the oppressed to develop different responses patterns to the
subaltern experience of the oppressor/oppressed or colonizer/colonized contradiction that is at the
heart of the radical bicultural theory of cultural democracy developed in Culture and Power in the
Classroom (Darder 2012)—first published in 1991.
56
For feminists discussions on Fanon and Memmi, see: Frantz Fanon: Conflict and Feminisms by
T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting (1998) and Maria del Guadalupe Davidson’s (2012) essay, “Albert
Memmi and Audre Lorde: Gender, Race, and the Rhetorical Uses of Anger” in Journal of French and
Francophone Philosophy.
57
In 1959, the seriousness of this threat becomes abruptly evident when a car “accident” in Morocco and
a car bomb in Rome were both speculated to be attempts on Fanon’s life (Cherki 2006). Nevertheless,
Fanon persisted in his articulation of his anticolonial thesis until his death in December 1961 from
leukemia.
 Intellectual History 79

theorists to forge a significant philosophical assault against the brutality of the

colonizer’s gaze and its impact on the colonized. In the Wretched of the Earth,
Fanon (1963) takes the European colonizing societies to task for their violence
and wholesale disregard for the racism and suffering they perpetrate on the
colonized, even when confronted. About this, Fanon writes, “In the war in
Algeria, for example, the most liberal-minded French reporters make constant
use of ambiguous epithets to portray our struggle. When we reproach them for
it, they reply in all sincerity they are being objective. For the colonized subject,
objectivity is always directed against him [or her]” (37).
On the question of decolonization, Fanon (1963) views it as a historical
process, “an encounter between two congenitally antagonistic forces that in
fact owe their singularity to the kind of reification secreted and nurtured by
the colonial situation … the colonized and colonizer are old acquaintances …
[however] it is the colonist who fabricated and continues to fabricate the
colonized subject (2) … [and who] is the bringer of violence into the home
and into the mind of the [colonized]” (37). Inherent in Fanon’s politics of
decolonization is an urgency to confront the divided and exploitative world,
perpetuated by the colonial regime, where capitalism colludes with the forces
of violence and education serves as a primary vehicle by which to perpetuate
the status quo. For Fanon, “challenging the colonial world is not a rational
confrontation. It is not a discourse on the universal, but the impassioned claim
by the colonized that their world is fundamentally different” (6).
In Black Skin White Masks, Fanon (1967)—still agonized and conflicted
by his own internal anxieties rooted in his identity struggles as a colonized
subject58—examines the dehumanizing psychological impact of racism under
colonization, while retaining a Marxist analysis that situates colonialism at
the center of a racializing political economic project of social and material
domination. The mechanism of cultural assimilation is of particular concern
for Fanon, in that it speaks to a colonizing process in which the culture of the
colonized is invaded by the exploitative culture of colonial power. Here, Fanon

58
See the essay “The Impossible Life of Frantz Fanon,” written by Memmi (1973) that provides some
discussion of the dilemma’s Fanon grappled with around this question. However, also see Jadallah’s
(2012) incisive critique of Memmi’s perceptions of Fanon in her essay, “The Shibboleths within
Albert Memmi’s Universalism” in Jadaliyya.
80 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

employs Marxist dialectics to show that this disabling impact is both a collective
and an individual phenomenon. His analysis systematically uncovers the
manner in which the colonizer/colonized dichotomy is profoundly predicated
on an ideological fantasy of white superiority and Black inferiority, which is
consciously and unconsciously at work in the theories and practices of white
psychiatry and psychoanalysis.
Fanon contends that one of the most destructive dimensions of the
oppressive colonizer/colonized contradiction or dependency complex is the
manner in which the negation of Black identity becomes deeply internalized by
the colonized, resulting in their social and material alienation. Fanon further
argues that this internalization of self-hate and inferiority—propagated at the
hands of the colonizer—leaves colonized subjects fragmented and estranged
from the very essence of our humanity. At the heart of colonization, Fanon
argues is a ruthless racializing mechanism that denigrates and maligns the
worthiness of the culture, language, and knowledge of the colonized. To
be human is to be white; a commonsensical “truth” rooted in a Eurocentric
taxonomy, which signifies white faces as pure, good, and worthy of power;
while black faces are deemed bestial, violent, and irredeemable.59 Fanon argues
that the debilitating impact of the agonizing twoness60 that ensues, often
functions to destroy the self-determination of the colonized, who are thrust
into a futile dilemma at the mercy of the colonizer—socialized to reject our
59
Although some would dismiss the validity of Fanon’s analysis in today’s context, we need only
examine the overrepresentation of violence perpetrated on the Black population at the hands of
police officers in the United States. In 2015, police killed 102 unarmed Black people, nearly twice
each week. Thirty-seven percent of unarmed people killed by police in 2015 were black, despite
the fact that only 13 percent of the population in the United States is African American. Unarmed
black people were killed at five times the rate of unarmed whites. A police officer was only changed
in less than 10 percent of these cases; and in only two instances were officers convicted. Moreover,
as investigations into some of the most violent police departments in America have shown, police
violence reflects a lack of accountability in the culture, policies, and practices of the institutions of
policing, rather than crime rate levels. See Mapping Police Violence at: https://mappingpoliceviolence.
org/unarmed/.
60
In Culture and Power in the Classroom (Darder 2012), where I engage the notion of twoness through
a radical redefinition of “biculturalism,” I have noted “the early 1900s, writers, educators, and
social theorists of color have made references in their work to the presence of some form of dual or
separate socialization process among their own people. These references have included a variety of
terms used to describe the personality development, identity, or traits of non-whites socialized in
a racist society: double consciousness (DuBois 1903), double vision (Wright 1953), bicultural (de
Anda 1984; Ramirez and Castañeda 1974; Rashid 1981; Red Horse et al. 1981; Solis 1980; Valentine
1971), diunital (Dixon and Foster 1971), multidimensional (Cross 1978), and other references that
closely resemble notions of duality and “twoness” (Fanon 1967; Hsu 1971; Kitano 1969; Memmi
1957; Sue and Sue 1978)” (46).
 Intellectual History 81

own essence and to aspire to a whiteness that is unattainable, regardless of the

level of education attained or loyalty expressed to the colonizer.
In speaking to this latter point, Fanon takes up Aime Cesaire’s (1955)
notion of negritude, which deems assimilation into the culture and language
of the colonizer—rooted in a dependency that subordinates black humanity—
as inherently harmful. Of particular concern here is the manner in which
the aggression and violence of the colonizer becomes internalized by the
colonized against one’s own people. However it is important to note that
Fanon is not a determinist, in that history does not determine the fate of a
people; nor does he essentialize the colonized/colonizer contradiction as a
prison from which there is no escape. Instead, Fanon (1967) proclaims, that
for the colonized, we must be our own foundation and, thus, “the real leap
consists in introducing invention into existence” (229). For Fanon, it is “by
going beyond the historical and instrumental that [we] initiate our cycle of
freedom” (231) and forge a struggle for a new humanism (9). Underlying this
new humanism is an emancipatory subjectivity that can unravel the colonizer/
colonized contradiction.
In Dying Colonialism, we find a profound expression of Fanon’s political
radicalization as an anticolonialist, Pan-Africanist and internationalist,
where he is “deeply wedded to a view of the development of the nation state
and the creation of a new national consciousness as the legitimate goal of
the anticolonial struggle to transform people and their culture” (Peterson
2007: 94). In this book, Fanon (1965) draws upon the colonial tensions and
revolutionary dynamics of the Algerian War of Independence to conclude that
“the essence of revolution is not the struggle for bread: it is the struggle for
dignity” (12, emphasis added). And despite the historical impact of colonial
rule in Algeria, Fanon engages across various intricacies of Algerian life to
demonstrate how colonial subjugation of the population was negated, through
a variety of revolutionary responses carried out by the colonized. Fanon bears
witness to how the Algerian Revolution, like other mass struggles of the time,
was intertwined with the everyday realities of the people. Every day and
every action was framed within the revolutionary imperative of gaining the
independence and liberation of Algeria. A significant feature of Fanon’s work
is the manner in which he depicts the revolution as a historical moment of
82 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

dynamic change, where the social agency generated by revolutionary praxis

not only transformed the people and society but also reinvented their attitudes
toward those things appropriated from the colonial context, reinscribing these
with liberatory meanings rooted in their social and material conditions. What
Fanon powerfully affirms here is a socialist understanding of revolution, one
that is unwaveringly grounded in a humanizing process that ensues through
the actions of the people themselves; by which their self-determination, like
oxygen, creates and shapes a new humanity (13).

Albert Memmi
The Colonizer and the Colonized is considered Albert Memmi’s (1957) most
influential work, where he provides an extensive analysis of the condition of
both the colonizer and the colonized. Memmi’s thesis engages with the manner
in which both colonized and colonizer is entrapped in their respective role or
in what Freire refers to as the oppressor-oppressed contradiction. As such, “a
relentless reciprocity binds the colonizer to the colonized—his product and his
fate” (24). Reminiscent of Fanon, Memmi too situates the impetus of his work
in lived history: “I was Tunisian,61 therefore colonized. I discovered that few
aspects of my life and my personality were untouched by this fact. Not only
my own thoughts, my passions and my conduct, but also the conduct of others
toward me was affected” (4). However, unlike Fanon, Memmi’s relationship to
Marxism is present but more tenuous, stating “colonial privilege is not solely
economic … the life of the colonizer and colonized is to discover rapidly that
the daily humiliation of the colonized, his [her] subjugation, are not merely
economic” (8). However, this should not be surprising, given Memmi’s deeply

61
Tunisia became a colony of the French in 1881, gaining its independence in 1956. During the French
colonial period, the country was home to French colonizers, Italians, Tunisian Muslims, and a
minority Jews. The Italians, although not as well off as the French, were also privileged. The Muslim
majority was the most oppressed. Although the Jews were also oppressed, Memmi describes the
Jews as more willing to try to assimilate to the French. According to Memmi, colonialism was not as
difficult for the Jews as it was for the Muslims because of their willingness to take on some aspects of
the colonial cultural. Jews joined the French in the streets of Algiers during independence uprisings.
Although Memmi joined the colonized rather than the colonizer, he contends that he understood
why the Jews chose the side of the French. He writes, “Because of this ambivalence, I knew only too
well the contradictory emotions which swayed their lives” (xiv). Moreover, it is important to note
here that there has existed what some consider a long-standing historical relationship of conflict
between Muslims and Jews in France (Mandel 2014), which surely was also felt in the Tunisian
colonial context.
 Intellectual History 83

existential and literary roots.62 Yet, despite his Modernist propensities, Memmi
offers some key insights into the dynamics of colonial bondage and its impact
on both the colonizer and colonized.
Memmi (1957) asserts that colonialism, as an economic and ideological
phenomenon, is akin to fascism; and racialized violence its instrument of
human oppression. Racism, in the colonial context, is understood as “ingrained
in actions, institutions, and in the nature of the colonialist methods of
production and exchange” (20). Hence, for Memmi, colonialism is predicated
on the centrality of racism as a structural mechanism of colonial oppression,
which results in the dehumanization of the colonized. Memmi also takes up
the question of assimilation in the colonial situation, which he contends is an
unattainable goal, given the deeply invasive and vertical relationship of the
colonizer to the colonized. Within this profoundly ambivalent relationship
of domination—requiring the labor and allegiance of the colonized, on one
hand, and the social and political economic repression of the colonized on the
other—results in an oppressive dynamic of ambivalence, leaving the colonized
to survive within a wretched state of “painful and constant ambiguity” (59).
Meanwhile, Memmi claims, even the lowliest from the dominant culture
enjoys a “profound satisfaction of being negatively better than the colonized:
they are never completely engulfed in the abasement in which colonialism
drives them” (61).
However, in his portrait of the colonizer, Memmi also makes note of the
colonizer who refuses; who despite expressed condemnation of injustice often
lives “under the sign of a contradiction which looms at every step, depriving
[them] of all coherence and all tranquility” (64). Forms of incoherence and
contradiction are intertwined within an unacknowledged duplicity associated
with their lack of genuine identification with the colonized—who, consciously
or unconsciously, the colonizer regards as deficit. Of this, Memmi asserts
the benevolent colonizer can be “both a revolutionary and an exploiter” (67),
going “so far as to give [their] approval and even [their] assistance, [but their]

62
It is interesting to note that in certain respect, Jean-Paul Sartre confirms this point when he writes
in the foreword of The Colonizer and the Colonized, Memmi “attempts to live his particularity by
transcending it in the direction of the universal. The transcendence is not toward Man, who does
not yet exist, but toward a rigorous reason enforcing its claims on everyone” (18).
84 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

solidarity stops here” (67); because they do not see the colonized as one of
them nor do they have the desire to be one with the colonizer. Moreover,
denial of the colonizing gaze leads them to rationalize their judgments of the
colonized and their detachment from their struggle for liberation.

How can one deny that they are under-developed, that their customs
are oddly changeable and their culture outdates? Oh, he [she] hastens to
reply, those defects are not attributable to the colonized but to decades of
colonization which galvanized their history … before colonization, weren’t
the colonized already backward? [And even when] he [she] has complete
faith in the genius of the people, all people … the fact remains, however,
that he [she] admits to a fundamental difference between the colonized and
himself [herself]. (68–69)

At the other end of the colonizer continuum, Memmi identifies the

colonialist, referring to the colonizer who readily accepts and defends the
colonial project, even if it means rewriting or erasing history or rewriting laws,
in order to legitimate the usurpation and impunity of the mother country. This
is carried out through an ideology predicated on the racialized supremacy of the
colonizer, amid an ever-growing hostility toward the oppressed. Memmi argues
that this oppressive relationship, mired in a growing contradiction, results in
the Usurper Role or the Nero Complex, where this “intolerable contradiction
fills [the colonizer] with a rage, a loathing, always ready to be loosed on the
colonized” (110). The tensions and anxieties of the colonizer, according to
Memmi, are deeply rooted in both the illegitimacy and injustice of the colonial
project, on one hand, and the manner in which the colonizer cannot imagine
human existence beyond the safety and security of the colonial condition.
In his portrait of the colonized, Memmi engages the impact of historical
erasure upon the colonized, which begins early in the educational process.
This dynamic of exclusion is repeated at all levels of power and decision
making, which functions effectively to detach and alienate the colonized from
their lived conditions. Moreover, this exclusion is accompanied with a deficit
mentality toward the colonized, which when internalized reinforces a belief
in their inadequacy to govern themselves and thus, promotes dependency on
the colonial relationship, despite its fundamental violation of their freedom.
Memmi also examines the question of schooling, language, and literacy within
 Intellectual History 85

the colonial context and its impact on the colonized. He points to the manner
in which the conflict between home and school culture creates a permanent
duality in the colonized adolescent. With respect to language, literacy in the
colonizer’s language similarly results in a linguistic dualism, given that the
mother tongue is not permitted to influence the larger spheres of power—
making the colonized foreigners on our own land.
Memmi engages different aspects of the colonized, which although useful
to understanding the cultural politics of colonialism, can at times fall into an
essentialized portrayal, where greater dialectical engagement with issues of
human agency and more open interpretations of human oppression might be
useful. This may exemplify, where Memmi’s classical lens can inadvertently
betray his moral intentions, in ways that reify both the colonized and colonizer
into inescapable bondage. This too may be why he offers only “two answers to
the colonized” (163), by which escape from this colonial bondage is possible. The
first is to become like the colonizer, which he argues is bankrupt; and the second
is revolt, which he sees as the only logical step in the undoing of the colonial
situation. While “the two historically possible solutions are tried in succession
or simultaneously” (144), Memmi argues that it is only with abandonment of
assimilation that recovery of self and of autonomous dignity can be achieved.

Comparisons of Fanon and Memmi

There has been a tendency to make comparisons between Frantz Fanon
and Albert Memmi; however, some significant philosophical distinctions
exist, which according to some scholars result in an uneasy correlation
(Allensandrini 2014; Jadallah 2012). Beyond the fact that both anticolonial
authors take up the subject of colonialism and posit theories about the
relationship between the colonizers and colonized, it is at the place of
respective methodological approaches that their roads divert. Perhaps one
of the most significant distinctions is that Fanon uncompromisingly remains
loyal to a Marxist humanist dialectic, grounding his arguments in his own
subjective/objective praxis63 as a psychiatrist and as a Black revolutionary, by
way of examining oppressive social and material relations within the colonial

63
About this point, Sharpley-Whiting (1998) notes in her book, Frantz Fanon: Conflicts and Feminisms,
that “Black Skin, White Masks is at once a clinical study and an experimental narrative” (11).
86 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

context. As Fanon’s work develops, his Western clinical training gives way
to his revolutionary commitments, which intensify within both his political
activities and philosophical interpretations. Memmi, on the other hand, retains
his traditional orientation as philosopher64 and novelist, whose sensibilities
are more akin to the existentialist influences of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert
Camus. Moreover, it can be said that Fanon, as Freire, assumes a posture more
akin to epistemologies of the South (Santos 2014).

Educational Philosophical Influences

Since Freire is primarily viewed as an educational philosopher, the following

section provides a brief account of the three educational philosophers he
references in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Henri Bergson, John Dewey, and Pierre
Furter compose a noteworthy trio,65 in that each offers Freire an important
degree of substantiation for his own insistence on acknowledging, both
pedagogically and politically, the power of education as both a humanizing
and democratizing force.

Henri Bergson

Henri Bergson was considered one of the most influential French philosophers
of the early twentieth century. Although hugely popular in his time, his work
was eclipsed after the Second World War by phenomenologists who built on his
writings, yet received greater acclaim for his ideas. Bergson’s epistemological
claims—tied to the belief that “through intuition … we probe reality—deform
it—though for practical purposes” (Gunter 1995: 379)—have made important
contributions to our contemporary philosophy of education. Bergson engages

64
Memmi, on the other hand, seems to have remained more staunchly rooted in his classical
perspective, to the extent that some scholars argue that Memmi has done an “about-face” in his last
book, Decolonization and the Decolonized (Lieberman 2007). Nevertheless, many critical scholars
continue to view Memmi’s early writings as significant and salient to the continuing anticolonial
debate.
65
Freire does not mention the writings of Croatian-Austrian author, Ivan Illich, in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed. However, as both a radical Catholic priest living many years in Mexico and an acerbic
critic of traditional schooling (Illich 1971), Freire and Illich’s paths crossed over the years and their
ideas have been engaged simultaneously in critiques and discussions of education. For examples see:
Kahn (2010); Kahn and Kellner (2007); Rosiska and Domonice (1974).
 Intellectual History 87

the reality of duration (process), where “things flow, are internal to one another,
and exhibit unpredictable creativity” (379), along with its interaction (dialectic)
of intuition and intelligence (Gunter 1995). In Bergson’s writings on education,
he protests the transmission of “dead ideas” and argues that education should
never sacrifice the vitality and reflectiveness of intuition to the transmission of
reified knowledge that is divorced of reflection and connection to the world.
Important to Bergson’s philosophy are his distinctive treatment of the
movement of time and his methodology of intuitionism that led him to
posit a method of multiplicity, in which he recognized the epistemological
disassociation, disharmony, differentiation, and divergences at work in the
construction of knowledge (Mullarkey 1995), in an effort to bring together
elements of heterogeneity and continuity, which he argued were inherently at
work in all phenomena. Many have considered Bergson’s notion of multiplicity
as a revolutionary concept in that it inherently supports efforts in education to
reconceptualize a pluralistic and diverse community.
Moreover,

in order to define consciousness and therefore freedom, Bergson proposes

to differentiate between time and space, ‘to un-mix’ them … On the
other hand, through this differentiation, he defines the immediate data
of consciousness as being temporal, in other words, as the duration (la
durée). In the duration, there is no juxtaposition of events; therefore there
is no mechanistic causality. It is in the duration that we can speak of the
experience of freedom. (Lawlor and Leonard 2016)

Bergson (1911), in Creative Evolution, equates life with creation, in that he

argues that creativity is what assists us to account for both the continuity of life
and the discontinuity of its evolution. Hence, the integration of both intuition
and creativity within the context of education must be considered essential
features of an education in the interest of human emancipation.

John Dewey

American philosopher and educator, John Dewey, often referred to as the father
of the progressive education movement, has influenced educators concerned
with advancing democratic ideals. During the early 1900s, Dewey sought to
88 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

articulate his pragmatic philosophy and expand on the idea of community to

explain the purpose of education in a democratic society. His beliefs centered
on a variety of basic principles, including the notion that education must engage
with an enlarged experience; that thinking and reflection are central to the act
of teaching; and that students must freely interact with their environments in
the practice of constructing knowledge. Although there are those who have
sharply criticized Dewey’s faith in creative intelligence as eminently naïve and
accused him of underestimating the sociopolitical and economic forces that
shape inequality and injustice, Dewey’s work is considered significant to the
evolution of discourses on education, the individual, and democracy.
Dewey’s writings are generally associated with pragmatism; a school of thought
grounded in a view of knowledge that counters the dualistic epistemology and
metaphysical abstraction of modern philosophy, while embracing a naturalistic
approach wherein knowledge is seen as evolving from the process of active
adaptation of an organism to its environment. In line with this perspective,
Dewey’s theory of knowledge focused on the interaction of the individual with
his or her social environment. In Education and Society, Dewey (1916) argued,
“Society exists through a process of transmission quite as much as biological
life. The transmission occurs by means of ideals, hopes, expectations, standards,
and opinions from those members of society who are passing out of the group
to those who are coming into it. Without this, social life could not survive” (3).
Inquiry, for Dewey, is not rooted in passive observation of the world, from
which truths are inferred. On the contrary, he saw inquiry as a dynamic
process, which begins with an obstacle that prevents effective action; from
there, it moves toward an active engagement with the environment, in order
to discover new ways in which the individual can readapt to the environment,
so that free action can be resumed. Dewey contended that traditional theories
of epistemology had become estranged from this important connection
to the world. In response, he endeavored to develop and refine a naturalist
scientific approach that could restore a fundamental relationship between
theory and practice. Dewey’s naturalist approach was then most concerned
with the product of interactions between organisms and the environment,
in that he insisted knowledge had to be linked to a practical instrumentality
or instrumentalism, which he identifies as the underlying motivation that
 Intellectual History 89

guides social interactions. Hence, for Dewey, our experience of the world
is constituted by our interrelationship with it, a relationship that must be
anchored to practical significance.
Dewey’s examination of societal, ethics, and aesthetics sought to expand on
the significance of community and the purpose of education in a democratic
society. His views of education are tied to three fundamental tenets for
teaching practice, including: (1) the idea that education had to engage with
the larger social environment; (2) that reflection must be at the heart of all
teaching; and (3) that students need consistent opportunities to interact freely
with their environment, in the process of knowledge construction. As such,
Dewey attempted “to link the notion of individual and social (cooperative)
intelligence with the discourse of democracy and freedom” (McLaren 1989:
199). Dewey also brought to educational discussions of his time a new language
of possibility, which challenged historical determinism, binary separations
between knower and the world, reinforced the social agency of the teacher
and student, and linked education to the possibilities of social change (Darder,
Torres, and Baltodano 2017).
As such, Dewey (1916) saw moral and social questions in education as
guiding human actions toward socially defined ends—democratic ends that in
practical and concrete ways would result in productive and satisfying outcomes
for both individuals and society. Hence, in contrast to an undesirable society,
“which internally and externally sets up barriers for free intercourse and
communication of experience,” for Dewey, an ideal democratic society

makes provision for participation in its good of all members on equal

terms and which secures flexible readjustment of its institutions through
interaction of the different forms of associated life is in so far democratic.
Such a society must have a type of education which gives individuals a
personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind
which secure social changes. (99)

Pierre Furter

The Swiss educational philosopher, Pierre Furter, became known in Latin

American through his long-term work in both Brazil and Venezuela. Similar
90 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

to Freire, Furter served as a consultant for UNESCO. His work focused on

worldwide education, regional disparities and their impact on impoverished
communities. In Eduçacão e Vida, Furter (1966) offers an alternative
humanistic educational approach to economic educational models. He has
made a much-needed contribution through a praxis of androgeny, a humanist
concept of education specially focused on the learning needs of adults. Furter,
however, viewed andragogy as a broader concept of education that applied
to all human beings. Key to this approach is an understanding of everyday
experience as the richest resource or fountain of adult learning. For Furter,
learners are most motivated to learn when they experience the process of
knowledge construction in ways that link it to their own needs and interests—
interests that will lead to improving their well-being.
Furter’s andragogical approach encompasses five key principles: (1) the
learner has a need to know why they need to learn something and how much
they will gain in the process; (2) learning requires a relationship that respects
the self-concept of learners, so that they are seen as responsible for their
decisions and their life and, thus, seen and treated as capable of being self-
directed; (3) For the learner, experiences are the basis of learning and, as such,
pedagogical approaches that take advantage of the many individual differences
among learners will be most effective; (4) there needs to be a readiness to learn;
that is, the learner must be willing to learn when the occasion demands some
kind of learning related to the concrete conditions of day to day life; and (5)
learners do best when there is guidance and concepts presented contextualized
for actual use in their lives.
Furter considers these humanizing pedagogical principles as a means for
creating an educational context where unknown possibilities can freely emerge
and flourish in ways that are meaningful to adult learners. For Furter (1966),
creating conditions for the “emergence of the awareness of our full humanity”
(165) is an essential condition of any democratic educational effort. Moreover,
he posits that education with adults had to address the common tendency of
adult learners to hold on to that which they perceive as a “guaranteed space”
through creating a pedagogical approach where: “The universe is revealed to
[learners] not as space, imposing a massive presence to which [they] can but
adapt, but [rather] as … a domain which takes shape as [they] act upon it” (27).
 Intellectual History 91

Moving forward

This extensive, yet concise, intellectual history of the philosophers who

influenced the ideas expressed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed is meant to assist
the reader to better understand many of the underlying themes of the book.
By referring back to this chapter, the reader will be able to make connections,
which may not initially be apparent. In this way, the chapter will assist the
reader to grasp more accurately the intent and possibility that inform Freire’s
liberating pedagogy.
 3

In Dialogue with the Text: Major Themes,

Chapter-by-Chapter

From these pages I hope at least the following will endure: my trust in the
people, and my faith in men and women, and in the creation of a world in
which it will be easier to love.
—Paulo Freire

In this chapter, each of the four chapters of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed
are summarized by way of a dialogical discussion1 with the major themes that
inform the composition of each chapter. The organization of each chapter
summary also reflects my pedagogical sensibilities, influenced by four decades
of interacting with the text. The rationale for this dialogical approach is that,
although Freire engages with notions of oppression and, thus, the need for
a pedagogy of the oppressed repeatedly throughout the entire volume, each
chapter is sharply defined by a focused set of themes, which Freire articulates
in juxtaposition to the overall purpose of his larger political project—namely
the creation of a world grounded in an ethics of social and material liberation.
In summary, the focus of Chapter 1 is squarely placed on assisting the
reader to understand the necessity for a pedagogy of the oppressed, given the
conditions of social and material oppression that prevail in the society and its
impact upon subaltern populations. In Chapter 2, the focus is on the concept
of banking education as an instrument of oppression, which Freire counters by

1
Given the dialogical approach that I have used for the chapter-by-chapter discussions of the major
themes, all italicized words and phrases in this chapter are from Pedagogy of the Oppressed as they
appear in the chapter under examination. Although this approach deviates from the standard APA
format used in the earlier chapters, of this book, this stylistic devise permits Freire’s voice to remain
active and present throughout my direct engagement with his work. In essence, this approach is in
sync with Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed.
94 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

way of a problem-posing pedagogy. In Chapter 3, the major focus is on Freire’s

conceptualization of dialogue and his dialogical methodology, which is tied
to generative themes; linking dialogical praxis to the development of critical
consciousness. And finally, in the last chapter, Freire focuses on an important
comparison between antidialogical practices and dialogical practices, which
he links to cultural action and a revolutionary vision of social transformation.
Moreover, I engage the chapter discussions as interlocking parts of a larger
revolutionary project, which seeks to set out underlying principles for
liberatory pedagogy, methodology, and leadership.

__________________________________

Chapter 1

Without freedom [we] cannot exist authentically.

—Paulo Freire

In the first chapter of the book, Freire contextualizes the need for a pedagogy
of the oppressed by engaging the historical and social conditions under which
the oppressed exist, and juxtaposing these condition with the ruling class.
Freire begins to carefully lay out the specifics of what he terms the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction and how he theorizes the possibilities for engaging and
transforming this contradiction—a contradiction anchored within particular
attitudes, relationships, practices, and dynamics of oppression, perpetuated
within the unjust structures of capitalist society. As his discussion unfolds,
Freire makes it clear that liberation is neither a gift that can be bestowed upon
others nor is it solely an individual pursuit. Rather, he argues, liberation is
the outcome of collective social struggle, which must be carried out through
a coherent commitment to a political project, in the interest of our humanity
and the authentic democratization of society.

Humanization: An inescapable concern

The struggle for humanity is only possible because dehumanization, although
a concrete historical fact, is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 95

order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes

the oppressed.

Freire begins his seminal work with the problem of humanization, which
he regards as an inescapable concern of those committed to a just world.
However, key to his conceptualization of humanization, as both a pedagogical
and political imperative, is also the manner in which this concern can lead
us, conversely, toward recognition of dehumanization. Here, Freire does not
essentialize either pole of the dialectical relationship between humanization
and dehumanization, in that he argues that both are possibilities in the
context of history and our human unfinishedness. What is particularly
striking here is that Freire, in no uncertain terms, sets down one of his most
important assumptions—an assumption clearly linked to his existential,
phenomenological, and Marxist humanist formation—humanization as the
people’s vocation.
Although Freire is well aware of the manner in which this vocation is
constantly negated and maligned, in concert with Marcuse, he affirms the
negation of the negation. That is to say, that although it is true that this
vocation is often negated by the injustices and violence of the oppressive
order, it is also reasserted by our yearning for freedom and the struggles
waged by the oppressed to recover our dignity and negate our alienation
and disaffiliation as subjects of history and citizens of the world. Freire,
however, does not only see this struggle as an existential concern but also
one that is directly linked to social and material conditions that require the
emancipation of labor, the overcoming of our alienation, and the affirmation
of our humanity. Nevertheless, for Freire, this historical task of the oppressed
is not solely about our liberation but also the liberation of the oppressors as
well. This is a point that often creates some confusion for new readers, in
that it is read through the linear and dichotomous lens of Western positivist
thinking. However, Freire signals here the dialectical relationship between
oppressors and oppressed. So, if one side of this relationship shifts, then so
will the other. Freire’s Marxist view of totality is clearly at work, in that when
he speaks of liberation he is speaking of the totality of the human condition
that encompasses oppressors and oppressed. As such, there is no way the
96 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

oppressed can truly be liberated, without also the oppressors being liberated
in the process.
For Freire, dehumanization is the direct result of the injustice and violence
perpetrated by the dominant class—a phenomenon that distorts the humanity
of both, oppressed and oppressors. The culture of hegemony normalizes and
reifies the unjust hierarchy of the ruling class, as asserted by Gramsci and
other critical theorists, while social and material forms of manipulation and
repression uphold its one-dimensionality. Accordingly, asymmetrical relations
of power are rendered common sense and serve to reinforce adherence to
and reproduction of social and material domination. The educational system,
according to Freire, becomes an instrument of dehumanization in that the self-
determination and empowerment of students from oppressed communities is
systematically thwarted.
Freire thereby speaks to the difficulties faced in the struggle for liberation,
given that those in power are seldom motivated to radically alter conditions of
inequality that benefit them; while those who suffer the concrete consequence
of oppression are far more inclined to do so. Hence, Freire maintains that
the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is
unable to lead this struggle. The immorality of unjust power is insufficiently
suited for the task. In contrast, Freire notes, it is through the power generated
by the oppressed, who recognize and assert the need for change, that an
authentic struggle for liberation can be forged; and, in so doing, the oppressor
is compelled to enter into a new relationship.
It is for this reason that Freire links critical thought directly to the pursuit
of our humanity, in that our capacity to think critically is a vital precursor to
the kind of social action necessary for overcoming, as Althusser argues, false
ideologies of oppression that have become interpellated across society. Through
the awakening of critical awareness, Freire contends, the oppressed can come
to perceive the causes for injustice and, in so doing, generate social action that
will create a liberating situation from which our humanity can freely unfold. It
is precisely through our persistent critical engagement with the dehumanizing
conditions we face, that our fixation with the culture of hegemony is shattered
and new possibilities for humanizing power relations can emerge. This idea is
essential for readers to grasp, in that Freire, in concert with staunch critics of
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 97

authoritarianism, issues a firm warning: exchanging places with the oppressor

does not overcome the oppressor-oppressed contradiction, which colonize the
hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits of the people.

Alienation: The colonized mentality of oppression

At a certain point in their existential experience the oppressed feel an irresistible
attraction towards the oppressors and their way of life. Sharing this way of life
becomes an overpowering aspiration. In their alienation, the oppressed want at
any cost to resemble the oppressors, to imitate them, to follow them.

In his varied discussions on the phenomenon of alienation—expressed as

dehumanization, colonization, domestication, mechanization, oppression,
cultural invasion—throughout the book, Freire brings together Marxism and
the anticolonial writings of Memmi and Fanon, in his analysis of the colonized
mentality. Within the structure of racialized capitalist relations, the oppressed
have been interpellated, as Althusser would argue, with the ideologies of the
ruling class. The consequence is an abstraction of our humanity, constrained
by the wishes and desires of the powerful. Often this process of estrangement
is accompanied by the internalization of deficit views toward self and
community, inherently shaped by the scorn, hostility, and resentment of the
dominant elite toward subaltern populations. This, Freire argues, is demarcated
by an underlying distrust and denunciation of one’s cultural sensibilities and
knowledge, an aspiration to emulate the oppressor, and a growing dependency
on the wealthy and powerful.

Dependency: The more that the oppressed internalize the attitudes and ways
of the oppressor, the more estranged we become from self, from one another,
and the world. Hence the lived histories, wisdom, and knowledges of the
oppressed become submerged in the consciousness of the oppressor, where the
inauthentic worldview that drives our objectification and subjugation produces
a state of ambiguity and disempowerment. Simultaneously, there often exists
a belief in the invulnerability of the oppressor—a belief that immobilizes and
thwarts our self-determination and social agency. Freire suggests, the deeper
our submersion into the oppressor worldview, the more likely the oppressed
98 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

will experience confusion, doubt, fear, or guilt, if action is initiated that counters
the status quo. This emotional dependence and adherence to the oppressor
worldview generates what Fromm terms necrophilic behavior—action that
extinguishes life. Moreover, this colonizing dependency can manifest as the
fear of freedom, which Freire argues must be acknowledged and engaged in the
liberatory formation of oppressed communities, in ways that do not create still
greater dependence.

Fear of Freedom: In moving back and forth in his discussion of oppression,

Freire asserts, freedom is not an ideal located outside of us but the manifestation
of concrete social relations; therefore, freedom is essential to dismantling the
duality of estrangement. Freire, who draws from Fromm’s Fear of Freedom,
reminds us there are two opposing tensions: the oppressed can be hesitant to
embrace freedom, while the oppressors fear losing their freedom to oppress.
Hence, the fear of authentic existence prevails in both oppressed and oppressor.
Still, Freire insists that the freedom to be—key to the process of humanization—
is vital to self-determination and liberation, suggesting that, as the oppressed
engage critically with the power to act in the world, the contradictions that
underlie the fear of freedom are potentially resolved by liberatory action.
However, a concern for Freire is the manner in which the oppressed
may work to overcome their fear of freedom by seeking to reverse roles
with the oppressor. This strategy unfortunately reinforces a prescription
to domination—where the dominant group prescribes the boundaries of
existence, while the colonized must conform. Unfortunately, the oppressed
submerged and resigned to an oppressive consciousness are inhibited from
acting on their own interest, feeling incapable of waging the risks necessary
in the struggle for freedom. Yet, Freire argues, If the humanization of the
oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for
the powerful to exert social and material control. As this culture of hegemony
is intensified, Freire expresses concern over a fatalism that can befall the
oppressed, reinforcing docility and domestication.

Fatalism: Freire laments the manner in which fatalism has become a trait of
national character, within oppressive societies. He points to the manner in
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 99

which human suffering is falsely rendered inevitable destiny or fate—whether

consequence of God’s will or a belief in the unworthiness of the subaltern. Here
again, Freire points to the duality of alienation that permits the sham of fatalistic
assumptions to remain veiled in the colonized mentality. Freire argues, “As long
as the oppressed remain unaware of the causes of their condition, they fatalistically
‘accept’ their exploitation. Further, they are apt to react in a passive and alienated
manner when confronted with the necessity to struggle for their freedom and
self-affirmation.” The colonizing impact of fatalism, rooted in the violence of
oppression, can often manifest itself, according to Fanon, in contradictory
ways, including aggression by the powerless toward our own people.

Violence: Freire’s perspective on violence is another of those key ideas that

has been widely cited. He draws here from Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth
to assert, Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. Freire
stresses, violence is founded upon a dehumanizing ideology that transfigures
the living into “things,” which can then be controlled, manipulated, eclipsed,
or extinguished. In this way, concrete conditions of violence against the
oppressed—perpetrated through subtractive schooling, labor inequalities,
labor discriminations, policing abuses, or mass incarceration—are created,
which support despotism, alienation and the negation of humanity. Hence,
Freire argues, It is not those whose humanity is denied them who negate
humankind, but those who denied that humanity.
In concert with Althusser, Freire maintains that the exclusionary and violent
worldview of the oppressor engenders an entire way of life … for those caught up
in it—both oppressed and oppressor. Both are submerged … and both bear the
marks of oppression. However, this should not be in anyway interpreted to mean
that both share equal responsibility for the violence. Nothing could be further
from the truth, in that it is the cultural hegemony instituted by the oppressor
that spawns and provokes violence—including the horizontal violence that
the oppressed may manifest upon one another. Moreover, in line with Fanon,
Freire clearly distinguishes between a possessive violence perpetrated upon
the oppressed that negates life and those conscious or unconscious acts of
rebellion by the oppressed meant to affirm life, by opposing the inhumanity or
false generosity of the oppressor.
100 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

False Generosity: False generosity is another key Freirean idea often cited
in the literature. Freire introduces the concept early in the chapter, when he
admonishes those who would attempt to “soften” the power of the oppressor in
deference to the weakness of the oppressed. Freire views the culture of hegemony
in society as a permanent wellspring of false generosity, in that its charitable
practices on behalf of the oppressed generally whitewash both the impact of
poverty and the underlying deficit views, which blame the people for their
own oppression. Employing Fromm’s notion of necrophilia, Freire contends
that false generosity actually fosters the perpetuation of death, despair, and
poverty among the oppressed, given the necessity of an oppressed mass within
capitalist society.
For Freire, false generosity constitutes then a form of violence, in that it
interferes with the individual’s ontological and historical vocation to be more
fully human—and, so, deepens the dependency of the oppressed on the
“benevolence” of the oppressor. False generosity shrouds the lovelessness of
the oppressor who, Freire contends, sustain welfare programs for the people,
as long as these do not tamper with the unjust system of labor, which assures
power and privilege remains in the hands of a few. To drive this point home,
Freire contrasts false generosity with true generosity, which fundamentally
emerges from the pursuit of freedom. Within the dynamics of a true
generosity, the oppressed are never expected to humiliate and erode their
dignity, in supplication for that which should rightly be ours. In contrast, a
true generosity is founded upon a loving relationship of communion with the
people that nourishes respect, freedom, and self-determination.
In direct contrast, the beneficiaries of an unjust system of domination
and exploitation generally refuse to acknowledge that to keep women and
men socially, politically, and materially impoverished, despite their so-
called charity, is to interfere with the capacity of the oppressed to be fully
human. Hence, the oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having
more as a privilege, which dehumanizes others and themselves. Instead, they
see their wealth as an inalienable right, which they’ve earned through their
wherewithal and intelligence. Meanwhile the have-nots are seen through a
victim-blaming lens, where they are deemed incompetent and lazy, and worst
of all is their unjustifiable ingratitude towards the “generous gestures” of the
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 101

dominant class. It is precisely the violence of this alienating dynamic and its
impact on the oppressed that solidifies and intensifies the tragic dilemma of
the oppressed.

The tragic dilemma: Oppressor-oppressed contradiction

The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided;
between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human
solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices;
between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of
acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being
silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to
transform the world. This is the tragic dilemma of the oppressed which their
education must take into account.

Freire articulates the oppressor-oppressed contraction as a condition of

oppression that results in deep-seated duality, dichotomy, and ambiguity—all
responses to tragic conditions of dehumanization that prevent the authenticity
of human existence. To understand this key concept in Freire’s work requires
an epistemological understanding of the Marxist dialectic discussed in the
previous chapter. It is, in fact, dialectical2 thought that aids in shattering the
duality and dichotomy of human relations, in an effort to restore totality and
resolve tension in the interrelationship between that which is often considered
disparate or oppositional. Central to overcoming the oppressor-oppressed
contradiction is an engagement with the dialectics of objectivity and

2
Often students struggle to understand the difference between dialectic and dialogic. In a dialectic
process, describing the interaction and resolution between multiple paradigms or ideologies,
generally, one presumed solution establishes primacy over the others. The goal of a dialectic process
is to merge point and counterpoint (thesis and antithesis) into a compromise or other state of
agreement via conflict and tension (synthesis). It encompasses then a synthesis that evolves from
the opposition between thesis and antithesis. In a dialogic process, various approaches coexist and
are comparatively existential and relativistic in their interaction. Here, each ideology can hold more
salience in particular circumstances. Changes can be made within these ideologies if a strategy
does not have the desired effect. Whereas dialogic processes, especially those involved with regular
spoken conversation, involve a type of listening that attends to the implicit intentions behind the
speaker’s actual words. Unlike a dialectic process, dialogics often do not lead to closure and remain
unresolved. Compared to dialectics, a dialogic exchange can be less competitive, and more suitable
for facilitating cooperation. Hence, this helps to explain Freire’s preference for a dialogical approach
in a problem-posing pedagogy. See: Chapter 17 of Critical Thinking (Paul 1993).
102 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

subjectivity, which can expand an understanding of the oppressor-oppressed

contradiction.

Dialectics of Objectivity/Subjectivity: Positivist thought constructs a false

binary or separation between subject and object, between human action and
the world, between the oppressor and oppressed. This points to an epistemology
where objective reality or the material object is privileged in the construction
of knowing. As such, the body, feelings, and intuition are either maligned or
marginalized. It is this dichotomous worldview that bolsters false conditions
of separation, by dismissing the role of human subjectivity. In direct contrast,
Freire argues: One cannot conceive of objectivity without subjectivity. Neither
can exist without the other, nor can they be dichotomized. What this means
is that in order to transform the world, we should not fall into subjectivism,
where objective reality is denied and only the individual subjective experience
prevails. Nor should we fall into objectivism, which strips objects of their
context and connection to humanity. In both instances, our transformative
capacity to collectively struggle against oppression is hugely undermined by
either inaction or actions that, wittingly or unwittingly, perpetuate the myths
and false perceptions that preserve the oppressor-oppressed duality.

Oppressed/Oppressor Duality: Freire engages the suffering that results from

the oppressor-oppressed duality from the standpoint of both poles. For the
oppressed, this suffering is the outcome of internalizing an inauthentic sense
of being that denies our humanity, in that it is rooted in the consciousness
of the oppressor. Hence, Freire argues: They are at one and the same time
themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized.
Until the oppressed are able to unveil this existential duality, a false sense
of being can prevail, which may be expressed through fatalistic resignation
and adherence to the situation of alienation. Of particular concern for Freire
is when the oppressed prefer to maintain the security of conformity, rather
than to risk overcoming this contraction, informed by the social forces
of oppression.
On the other side of the pole is the oppressor, who holds dehumanizing
views that objectify the oppressed as violent, ferocious, subversive, envious, or
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 103

stupid. At this end, being human is considered the domain of the privileged,
who accumulate wealth and power, in the name of productivity and progress.
However, Freire insists, those who oppress others also exist in a state of
dehumanization, hence, they too are inauthentic beings. To step out of their
duality would also require them to discover the conditions of their situation—
which can provoke guilt and suffering. More often than not, unfortunately,
this dynamic does not move the oppressor to overcome the contradiction, but
rather to better rationalize the inequalities and injustices that preserve their
domination. Here, Freire turns to both Fromm and Lukács’ arguments, in that
what tends to prevail is a reification of the oppressor-oppressed contradiction,
in that without possession of power over the oppressed, their sense of “normalcy”
is shattered.

Resolution of the Contradiction: According to Freire, the central problem

to be resolved is the fundamental expulsion of the internalized culture of
social and material domination, which requires the authentic participation
of the oppressed in cocreation of the world. This, inherently, reflects a
Marxist critique, which admonishes the capitalist mode of production that
perpetuates the slave-master dynamic. Hence, the contradistinction of the
oppressed and oppressor must be overcome, if our liberation is to unfold as
day-to-day existence. Nevertheless, Freire argues that the greatest obstacle
to liberation is the internalized culture of domination that systematically
functions to submerge the consciousness of human beings in the imagination
of the ruling class. Accordingly, many of the oppressed, rather than to fight for
their liberation from an unjust system aspire, instead, to wealth and power,
reinforcing the hegemonic culture of domination. For this reason Freire
contends, the struggle for liberation must be engaged as both a material and
ideological fight for our autonomy and responsibility over our destiny—a
destiny beyond the tyranny of racialized class inequalities.
Notwithstanding, this revolutionary process entails a deeply serious and
committed political project, in that both the oppressed committed to liberation
and the oppressor committed to conversion will face a multitude of struggles
in order to supersede the essential contradiction. Freire, reflecting radical
Catholic roots, notes that this conversion requires a profound rebirth and
104 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

confirms the converted oppressor has a historical role, in abandoning their

culture of exploitation and indifference to the oppressed. However, whether
for the oppressed or the convert who fights at their side, Freire maintains,
as did Althusser, the sedimented traces of domination will require our self-
vigilance as we move through different stages of struggle—from oppressed
objects to subjects of history—and endeavor to reinvent a liberatory praxis
for humanity.

Pedagogy as revolutionary praxis

No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed
by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models
from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the
struggle for their redemption.

Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed must be first and foremost understood

as revolutionary praxis that counters capitalist relations of production and
colonialism, in that it is committed to a larger political project of societal
liberation. Thus, a political project emerges from an enduring relationship of
dialogue with the people and constitutes a pedagogy that is forged with not for
the oppressed. Oppression and the social forces that perpetuate its existence
become the objects of reflection, from which transformative action can be made
and remade. The root of this revolutionary praxis is a dialogical relationship
that is fueled by critical reflection and the sustained intervention of the people
in the fight for liberation. Moreover, Freire makes it resoundingly clear that
the pedagogy of the oppressed cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors,
but rather requires the participation and leadership of the oppressed. Essential
here is a deep sense of faith in the people, by those who fight at their side.
This delicate issue, unfortunately, has often remained obscured or ignored
historically within impoverished communities around the world—hence, the
oppressor-oppressed contradiction endures.

Two Distinct Stages: Freire identifies two major stages in the pedagogy of the
oppressed. In the initial stage, the major concern is unveiling the culture of
domination, dealing with the concerns of the oppressed, and working toward
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 105

transformation of the concrete conditions. At this stage, the pedagogy must

be of and by the people, not for the people. The second stage begins when the
reality of oppression has been transformed. It is at this point, and only then,
when it can become a pedagogy of all people, in the process of permanent
liberation. The latter assumes ongoing expulsion of oppressive myths tied
to a legacy of oppression, which can still surface unexpectedly to negate the
social and material conditions of the new historical moment. Furthermore,
Freire notes that the common dimension of both stages of the pedagogy is
action in depth, through which oppression is challenged and transformed.
Similarly, Freire confirms that at all stages of liberation, the oppressed must see
themselves as men and women engaged in the ontological and historical vocation
of becoming more fully human.

Praxis: In this chapter Freire also introduces the notion of praxis, which he links
to critical reflection and action with the people—concepts that he develops in
Chapter 2. Here, Freire asserts, at the core of a revolutionary praxis is critical
dialogue fueled, as Che Guevara contends, by love for humanity and the world.
And such dialogue begins with the concrete concerns and conditions that
emerge from and with the people. This presupposes a humanizing relationship
guided by mutual respect, love, care, trust, and commitment. In contrast to the
domesticating dynamics of oppression experienced by oppressed communities
that demand our passivity and silence, dialogue is a co-intentional and co-
creative act of human interaction focused on the transformation of the
concrete situation. Revolutionary praxis, moreover, recognizes the dynamic
nature of humanity where thoughts will change and new knowledge will be
created—knowledge from which new forms of understanding and action will
be engendered. Freire, as does Fromm, distinguishes revolutionary praxis as
biophilic—a life-affirming expression of love and solidarity with the oppressed.
As such, liberating praxis becomes raison d’etre—the underlying purpose
for existence or literally, reason for being—of the oppressed. Freire extends
this raison d’etre to revolutionary leadership, who understand liberation
implicitly as a pedagogical and political undertaking. He argues here that
revolutionary praxis, which inaugurates the historical moment of this raison
d’etre, is not feasible without the conscious participation and commitment of
106 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

the oppressed. With this in mind, Freire reminds revolutionary leaders that
their own conviction of the necessity for struggle (an indispensable dimension of
revolutionary wisdom) was not given to them by anyone else—if it is authentic.
In this manner, he reaffirms the underlying purpose of a pedagogy of the
oppressed, where teachers and students or leaders and communities exist as
historical subjects, in the fight for liberation.

The fight for liberation

The conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their liberation
is not a gift bestowed …

On the question of liberation, Freire draws from Fromm to argue that when
the oppressed forge the fight for their freedom and humanity, they also must,
in turn, embrace their total responsibility for the struggle. This process entails
a refusal to exist as objects to be manipulated by the oppressor and, instead,
take on the struggle as fully present and committed subjects of history. It is
through this process that the oppressed unveil conditions of oppression and,
in this way, become both objects and subjects of transformative action. As our
collective criticality and political sensibilities evolve, we can more consciously
activate our participation in history, and in so doing, overcome the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction that incarcerates our humanity.
Freire argues, in order to wage the struggle for liberation, the oppressed
must recognize the reality in which we are immersed as never a fait
accompli, but a limit-situation that can be transformed. Freire maintains, it
is precisely from the vantage point of our unfinishedness—and recognition
that the oppressor cannot exist without the oppressed—that radical hope
and liberating action can ensue. Our concrete commitment to enter into
the struggle for our liberation initiates our unshackling from the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction. More important, through a revolutionary praxis of
collective struggle, the oppressed (and those who fight in solidarity at their
side) build the critical awareness necessary to, step by step, vie for a liberatory
vision of our collective human existence. Freire reminds us that at all stages
of our liberation, we must see ourselves as women and men engaged in an
ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human. In this
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 107

way, Freire pronounces one of the most important, yet often missed, dialectical
principles of his pedagogy: while no one liberates oneself by one’s own efforts
alone, neither is one liberated by others.

Questions for reflection and dialogue

1. What does Freire consider to be our most important vocation? In what

ways does this impact how we think of education and society?
2. Freire connects alienation to the colonial mentality. What are major
expressions of alienation and how do these impact the oppressed within
schools, community, and society?
3. How does Freire theorize the dialectics of objectivity/subjectivity? How is
this related to the oppressor-oppressed contradiction and how does Freire
propose its resolution?
4. What are the two distinct stages of pedagogy of the oppressed? How are
these related to revolutionary praxis?

__________________________________

Chapter 2

For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly
human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention,
through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings
pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.
—Paulo Freire

In Chapter 2, Freire sets out to unveil the manner in which education

functions as an instrument of oppression. Motivating philosophical ideas that
enliven his critical analysis come from the works of existentialists, Marxists,
and critical theorists who engage questions of ideology, cultural hegemony,
consciousness and oppression in ways that distinguish presuppositions that
underlie structures of domination and liberation. From the onset, Freire
begins a discussion of the narrative character of an educational system
108 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

rooted in perpetuation of a colonizing and capitalist worldview. This entails

a banking concept of education where knowledge is a gift bestowed by those
who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know
nothing. In response, Freire proposes a problem-posing pedagogy, where a clear
commitment to revolutionary praxis and a coherent purpose for humanizing
inquiry are unapologetically centered on reinventing education for the practice
of freedom.

Banking education
The “humanism” of the banking approach masks the effort to turn women and
men into automatons—the very negation of their ontological vocation to be
more fully human.

At the heart of a banking concept of education is a deficit view of subaltern

populations as pathology of the healthy society. Central to its aims is the need to
conquer the minds and hearts of “deficient” students, so they willingly adopt
and adhere to the unjust mentality of the ruling order. Hence, students from
oppressed communities are expected to “integrate” into definitions of self and
the world, as well as aspirations, prescribed by the dominant class. Those who
resist the hegemonic process of integration are seen as “marginals” who resist
the gift of education and, thus, require greater social containment. One of the
ramifications of this colonizing (or racializing) mind-set is the systematic
exclusion and expulsion of “troubled” students, who are an obstacle to the
fluidity of social control. In contrast, those who eagerly comply are deemed
a “good fit” and, often enlisted, knowingly or unknowingly, as neocolonial
subjects3 of the ruling order. Freire notes here that, while some may express
commitment to liberation, those who remain immersed in the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction can normalize the climate of banking education,
without perceiving its alienating intent. Paradoxically, then, they utilize this
same instrument of alienation in what they consider an effort to liberate.

3
The term neoliberal subjects is used here to refer to individuals from the oppressed class who become
educated or “accomplished” within the status quo and, hence, affiliate themselves with the oppressor
class and participate in the social control and management of oppressed populations.
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 109

Instrument of Alienation: To understand education as an instrument of

alienation, Freire notably relies on both Marx and the Gramscian idea of
cultural hegemony, where common-sense notions of society and the myth of
education as a “humanist” project effectively conceal the underlying reasons
for the persistence of social and material inequalities. Here, the dominant view
of history and the world, as it currently exists, are blurred to support views of
poverty, social inequalities, and academic failure as permanent or biological
phenomena—divorced of its contemporary societal apparatus and rooted in a
legacy of colonial power and capitalist oppression. Freire returns, once again,
to Fromm, by asserting, the banking concept of education, which serves the
interests of oppression, is also necrophilic, in that it stifles the creative power of
the oppressed and produces contents, whether values or empirical dimensions
of reality, [that] tend in the process of being narrated to become lifeless and
petrified. Ultimately, Freire maintains, this lifelessness produces suffering that,
according to Fromm, is the direct outcome of human equilibrium disturbed.
Freire details how this fragmenting, objectifying, and mechanizing pedagogy
inhibits student creativity and imagination, by reinforcing alienation, fatalism,
and submersion in a worldview of domination, discouraging critical thought
and transformative action. He denounces the manner in which banking
education presents reality as a motionless, static, compartmentalized, and
predictable world, to which human beings must adapt. The issues and topics
of classroom study, for example, are often alien to the realities of students
from oppressed communities and, thus, have little consequence or meaning to
their lives. Education isolated from their daily existence and set apart from the
totality of oppressive societal conditions promotes students’ immobility and
disempowerment, by domesticating their intentionality of consciousness. As
their credulity is stimulated, their social agency is disabled by the educational
dictates of the dominant class, who care neither to have the world revealed nor
to see it transformed.
Drawing on Simone de Beauvoir’s work, Freire asserts that banking education
is focused on changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which
oppresses them. Indeed, the paternalism of banking education expects that
students be passive and willing recipients, accepting and altering themselves
to whatever is presented as “truth.” In the process, he argues, education is
110 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

reduced to words [that] are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow,
alienated, and alienating verbosity—hence, lifeless and powerless to transform
conditions of human suffering. Also important to understand is that the means
used are not important, in that when human beings are fundamentally denied
the right to decide about our own lives, we are objectified—a phenomenon
tied to the epistemology (theory) and methodology (practice) of oppression
in combination that informs banking education. This results in an overarching
pedagogical expectation that students memorize mechanically the narrated
content, becoming receptacles’ to be “filled” by the teacher.

Teacher-Student Contradiction: In his discussion of the banking concept

of education, Freire draws on Jean Paul Sartre’s critique of digestive or
nutritive education, where the teacher feeds knowledge to the student to
fill them out. Here, students exist as objects to be manipulated and coaxed
by the teacher, in order to facilitate the students’ passive receptivity to
whatever knowledge teachers (or the state) deem worthy. In this oppositional
dynamic, a teacher-student contradiction4 is solidified in that the teacher and
student are considered to exist at opposite poles. The depositing teacher is
the knowing subject: the student depository the ignorant object. Implicit
to this dichotomy is a view of students as spectators—apart from the world
and apart from others. Unbeknownst to most educators, the capacity to
manage spectating students is often a mark of good teaching. A good student,
meanwhile, embraces—as meek receptacle—the knowledge dispensed by the
teacher, without objection. To disagree with the teacher’s truth is perceived
as antagonism, regardless the validity of the student’s objection. To explain
the power of this alienating dynamic, Freire returns to the Hegelian dialectic
of slave-master, where the student must accept their ignorance as justifying
the teacher’s existence but, unlike the slave, they never discover that they [too]
educate the teacher.
The teacher’s task in banking education is to fill the students with their
narration, without concern for who the students are or what they bring to the

4
The reader should recall here the earlier discussion of the oppressor-oppressed contradiction, in the
immediately preceding discussion of Chapter 1.
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 111

classroom. In essence, students are regarded as clean slates, whose cultural and
linguistic histories and everyday lived experiences mean little in a mechanized
culture of teaching and learning, built on abstracted, fragmented, and
instrumentalized views of knowledge. Here, students are allowed to act only in
the interest of receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. Anything outside this
assimilative epistemology is perceived erroneous, irrelevant, misguided, or an
obstruction to the student’s academic or material achievement. Accordingly,
students’ creativity and imagination are sidelined by an approach that seldom
proposes that they think critically about the concrete conditions of their own
lives. As a consequence, the oppressor-oppressed contradiction—enacted
through verticalization of the teacher-student relationship and inherent in
the deposits themselves—is preserved. The outcome is a system of educational
attitudes and values that preserve and fortify the contradiction, mirroring the
oppressive society as a whole.5
However, Freire contends that neither the domestication of consciousness
nor the teacher-student contradiction comprise essentialized forms of
existence from which there is no exit. In fact, he argues that the anguish and
tensions generated by the teacher-student contradiction, for example, can
invoke students who were formally passive to resist and reject against their
dehumanization. Nevertheless, Freire reminds readers that, as historical beings,
when the organic movement of students’ ideas and participation is stymied in
the classroom, this constitutes a violation of their humanity. Here, he confirms
that the oppression of human beings cannot be understood apart from the
dehumanizing conditions that engender alienation. Moreover, Freire suggests,
in line with Fanon, that when students resist or push against this violation it is

5
Here, Freire connects the following attitudes and values with the mirroring of oppressive society:
a. the teacher teaches and the students are taught;
b. the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
c. the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;
d. the teacher talks and the students listen—meekly;
e. the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
f. the teacher chooses and enforces his or her choice, and the students comply;
g. the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher;
h. the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it;
i. the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which
she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;
j. the teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.
112 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

simply a logical response to the psychological violence of oppression. In fact,

the rebellion they express as they emerge in the historical process is motivated
by that desire to act effectively. Given the social and material consequences
that inform banking education, Freire decisively declares that educators
committed to liberation must reject it in its entirety—and, in its place, give rise
to a pedagogy guided by a problem-posing approach, where the practice of
freedom lies at the heart of its purpose.

Problem posing education

Problem-posing education … breaks with the vertical patterns characteristic
of banking education … [fulfilling] its function as the practice of freedom …

Problem-posing pedagogy as revolutionary praxis is Freire’s response to the

oppressive educational culture of the banking concept of education. It is an
educational approach grounded on a dialogical praxis, with the explicit intent
of promoting liberatory educational projects aimed at not only the resolution of
the oppressor-oppressed contradiction but the generation of a living pedagogy
for establishment of a permanently free society. The ideas in the first chapter of
Pedagogy of the Oppressed serve as an important foundation for understanding
a problem-posing pedagogy. First and foremost, the pedagogy is informed by
a humanizing praxis, where the relationship of human beings to the world is
central to teaching and learning.
Problem-posing pedagogy entails a horizontal approach that welcomes
student participation as free thinkers and actors within their world, with
an eye toward the development of critical thought. As such, a problem-
posing pedagogy is generated through dialectical engagement of teacher
and students, where teaching and learning are understood inseparable
to a (subjective-objective) revolutionary praxis within schools and
communities that supports conscientização—a communal process of
evolving social consciousness. Freire suggests that central to this approach
are fundamental questions related to culture and power that generate
new and open interactions between teachers and students, which support
unveiling and transforming oppressive values, attitudes, and practices that
thwart dialogue.
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 113

Dialogue
A problem-posing pedagogy acknowledges the meaningfulness of human
communication and communal relations in our lives. For this reason, Freire
considers pedagogical dialogue as indispensable to developing relationships of
cooperation and collective action within schools and society. He argues that a
problem-posing educational approach provides students with the foundation
for cultivating liberatory sensibilities and establishing the solidarity necessary
for social transformation. Hence, dialogue is essential to a revolutionary
praxis, in that without it students are left at the mercy of a brutal domesticating
worldview and a mode of production that interferes with their authentic human
existence. Through dialogue, a problem-posing pedagogy creates the conditions
for new pedagogical relations to emerge, where teachers are also students and
students are also teachers. In this liberatory dynamic, the hierarchical banking
method of the teacher, as the only one who teaches, is ruptured. Instead, the
teacher is also taught in dialogue with students, who in turn while being taught
also teach. In this way, a sense of joint responsibility for a process in which all
grow is established and nurtured between teacher and students.
It goes without saying, that for Freire, dialogue as a communal activity seeks
to establish a democratic process of engagement that can ultimately lead to
transformative action and greater critical awareness of the concrete conditions
that impact our lives. The dialogical relationship, therefore, precludes
dichotomies between teacher-student and student-teacher. The cultural and
historical knowledges that both teachers and students bring must be allowed
to intermingle organically with texts and materials (cognizable objects). In this
liberatory environment of knowledge production, teachers and students are
always both cognitive and narrative subjects involved in study. An important
concept that Freire raises here, influenced by Marxism, is our need to overcome
a view of both knowledge and cognizable objects as private property. Instead,
the knowledge, texts, and materials introduced become objects of reflection by
teachers and students alike, brushed against the realities of our lived histories.
This organic dialogical process of knowledge construction provides the
pedagogical space for educators to, time and again, rethink our reflections,
within the reflections and contributions our students make to the dialogue.
Hence, passivity of students as docile listeners is overcome, as they become
114 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. This approach to critical

dialogue encourages the regenerative and ongoing consideration of ideas and
themes of study that emerge from both teacher and students in the teaching-
learning context. The role of the problem-posing educator, Freire steadfastly
affirms, is to create, together with the students, the conditions under which
knowledge at the level of the doxa6 is superseded by true knowledge, at the level of
the logos.7 Hence, Freire identifies authentic thinking as one of the fundamental
outcomes of critical dialogue—a way of thinking that intimately grounds us in
and with our world.

Teacher—student as revolutionary partner

Freire insists, revolutionary teachers must be partners of the student. This principle
is linked to the resolution of the teacher–student contradiction—a phenomenon
where the role of the teacher is not only hierarchically conceived but is also
situated at the opposite pole in an absolute and permanent dichotomy. In
contrast, the teacher-student as revolutionary partner encompasses the dialectics
of teacher and student simultaneously, exchanging the role of depositor, prescriber,
domesticator, for the role of student among students. Here, the teacher-student
as revolutionary partner engages with the student—teachers in a humanizing
relationship that supports their mutual quest for liberation. This partnership also
points to dismantling of an authoritarian and alienating intellectualism; which,
by so doing, enables teachers and students to unveil and challenge the unjust
structures and deficit myths that obstruct their consciousness as free beings
for themselves. Freire rightly argues that revolutionary partnerships between
teachers and students can only generate liberating praxis when there exist a
profound trust in people and their creative power.

Praxis revisited
With a dialogical enactment of praxis, a problem-posing pedagogy creates
the space, place, and time for teachers and students to discover and rethink

6
In brief, Freire is referring here to Doxa, the place where common beliefs or opinions guide human
thought.
7
Again, briefly speaking, Freire is referring here to Logos, the place where rational principles,
grounded on thoughtful reflection, guide human thought.
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 115

together the social and material contradictions that impact their world. Freire
contends that it is precisely through this critical dialogical approach that the
oppressed come to identify together actions that will support efforts to resist,
counter, and challenge oppressive conditions within schools, communities,
and society that rob our humanity. Revolutionary praxis, as an existential
human necessity, makes this possible; in that—through reflection, naming
of the world, and action—human beings come to understand ourselves
interdependently within history and within the world. And, with this
discovery, we come to know our history, our world, and ourselves as, indeed,
interrelated, living, organic beings, existing always as unfinished and in the
process of becoming. As such—no matter to what extent the situations of our
existence may conceal or limit the power of our creativity and capacity to
speak and act against injustices, we nevertheless, exist in the ever presence of
historical possibilities for transformation. It should be no surprise, then, why
Freire insists, problem-posing theory and practice take the peoples’ historicity as
the starting point of their education.
Anchored in dialectical thought, revolutionary praxis as a transforming
principle transcends the theory–practice contradiction and enhances the
pedagogical interaction of action and reflection. In the process of reflection,
Freire inspired by Husserl notes, teachers and students enhance the landscape
of their perceptions and begin to appreciate the background intuitions and
background awareness, which in the past may have been obscured by the
oppressor-oppressed contradiction. Now, praxis gives rise to new awareness
and an evolving consciousness of the self as subject of history. Similarly,
such reflection, in conjunction with action, breaks through the dichotomy
of the contradiction, in that it also brings a greater realization that practice
never exists independent of theory, because one is the foundation and
consequence of the other. Grounded, thereby, in this recognition of the ever-
present interplay of permanence and change, the oppressed engage the world
as the object of transformative action, through which liberation is forged.
Hence, Freire affirms that revolutionary praxis is the foundation for a critical
consciousness that seeks to transform oppression as an action pursuing
freedom.
116 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Conscientização
The evolution of critical consciousness or conscientização is one of
the underlying aims of a problem-posing pedagogy. Freire’s concept of
conscientização signals an understanding of critical awareness and the
formation of social consciousness as both a historical phenomenon and a
human social process, linked to our emancipatory necessity as human beings
to participate as both cognitive and narrative subjects of our destinies. It is
vital that we keep in mind that conscientização does not occur automatically,
naturally, nor should it be understood as an evolving linear phenomenon.
Instead, Freire speaks to an emancipatory consciousness that arises through
an organic process of human engagement, which requires critical pedagogical
interactions that nurture the dialectical relationship of human beings with
the world. This entails a grounded appreciation for the dialectical tension
that must be retained between the empowerment of the individual and the
collective empowerment of the people.
Whereby, banking education seeks to undermine the liberatory
consciousness of the oppressed, Freire calls for the development of a living
pedagogy that affirms life, through engendering a liberatory consciousness.
In concert, Freire reaffirms, “a deepened consciousness of [our] situation
leads people to apprehend that situation as an historical reality susceptible
of transformation.” In this way, women and men committed to liberation
create the conditions for empowerment and their mutual liberation. A
problem-posing pedagogy, through the power of embodied revolutionary
praxis, supports the intentionality of consciousness, in a way that displaces
the estrangement of alienation by ushering in a new consciousness of self
and the world. It is here that Freire makes reference to the Jasperian split—or
consciousness of consciousness—which in actuality refers to the moment when
the oppressed begin to experience the eclipse of their unconscious acceptance
of the oppressor-oppressed contradiction and become aware (or conscious)
that a new liberatory consciousness has emerged in their lives and their
relationship to the world. Hence, it is the moment within revolutionary praxis
when the oppressed become conscious of the revitalization of their humanity—a
revitalization rooted in the practice of freedom, where fatalism gives way to
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 117

empowering perceptions of reality and to communal relationships, rooted in

solidarity and hope for the future.

Education as the practice of freedom

Education as the practice of freedom—as opposed to education as the practice
of domination—denies that [humankind] is abstract, isolated, independent,
and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality
apart from people.

In positing a view of education as the practice of freedom, Freire again challenges

educators to embrace a humanizing purpose—a relationship that extends
outside the classroom. Moved by his radical Catholic values, Freire signals
the prophetic and revolutionary futurity of a problem posing pedagogy, where
authority must reside on the side of freedom, not against it. Freire affirms here
the capacity of men and women, to transcend the immobility and fatalism of
the alienating conditions that shape our lives. To do this effectively, we must
be able to engage our current conditions not as unalterable fate but merely
as limiting—and therefore a challenge we can overcome. This also entails an
awareness of our incompletion, which lies at the very roots of education as an
exclusively human manifestation. Freire notes, with a debt to Marx, that one of
the starting points of a humanizing education is also found in the historical
conditions that shape and are shaped by our lives. Hence, in alliance with our
humanizing vocation, Freire asserts, the oppressed must fight for their liberation.
Freire again reminds us that it is only through overcoming the contradictions
of the oppressor-oppressed dynamic that we step into the practice of freedom.
Through the emergence of consciousness and our critical intervention in the
world, we come to better understand how our consciousness of the world
impacts both our actions and how we perceive our place in the world. With
this in mind, Freire invites us to exchange a controlled, static and well-behaved
present, as well as a predetermined or predestined future for a dynamic and
life-affirming present, rooted in a revolutionary future, which necessitates our
active participation in the reinvention of a genuinely free society. This struggle
against oppression, however, must be guided by a liberatory praxis that
118 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

supports our conscious emergence from the contradictions that once ruled our
lives as colonized populations. Freire draws on Sartre to express that, within
a revolutionary praxis of education, consciousness neither precedes the world
nor follows it. Therefore, the point of departure for a liberating praxis, whether
in schools or communities, lies in the people themselves and a consciousness
that exists, steadfast, in the here and now. This practice of freedom as true
communication must also engender solidarity, in that pursuit of our humanity
cannot be a solo endeavor, but rather the praxis of the people. With all this in
mind, Freire warns: In the revolutionary process, the leaders cannot utilize the
banking method as an interim measure, justified on grounds of expediency, with
the intention of later behaving in a genuinely revolutionary fashion. They must
be revolutionary—that is to say dialogical—from the onset.

Questions for reflection and dialogue

1. How does Freire define the banking concept of education? How does the
banking educational model function as an instrument of alienation?
2. Describe what Freire means by the teacher-student contradiction. How
might you envision teachers and students as revolutionary partners in the
educational process?
3. How does Freire define problem-posing education? How can teachers
integrate a problem-posing approach in the classroom? What obstacles
might they face?
4. How do you understand the development of critical consciousness
(conscientização) and what is its pedagogical role in the practice of
freedom?

__________________________________

Chapter 3

Through their continuing praxis, men and women simultaneously create

history and become historical-social beings.
—Paulo Freire
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 119

In Chapter 3, Freire continues to deepen his articulation of a revolutionary

praxis through engaging dialogue as an essential theme to the practice of
freedom. Themes discussed in the early chapters, including humanization
and dehumanization, alienation, fatalism, banking education, the student-
teacher contradiction, false generosity, problem-posing education, and
conscientização reappear scattered throughout. In addition to the dialogics
of the word and naming the world, Freire focuses on a methodology of the
oppressed that emerged from his literacy work. Here, again, Freire connects
the significance of the major themes to the praxis of revolutionary leaders.
Most important to Freire’s dialogical formulation, however, is the manner
in which dialogue with the people serves to disrupt the culture of silence
perpetuated through structures of social alienation and material oppression.
Freire’s Catholic roots give rise to indispensable qualities of critical dialogue
that pave the way for the horizontal relationship that can nurture and sustain
the indivisible solidarity required, in order to participate collectively in
transformative praxis. This chapter also takes the reader outside the classroom
and into a thematic universe of critical inquiry, where the values of problem-
posing pedagogy are integrated into a methodology of the oppressed that gives
voice to concrete concerns and issues of alienation that obstruct the liberation
of the oppressed and offers a participatory approach for investigation with and
of the oppressed.

The word
Human existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but
only by true words, with which men and women transform the world.

Freire begins the discussion of dialogics with the concept of the word, which
he considers to be the essence of dialogue itself. Engaging its constitutive
elements, Freire argues, the word becomes truly the means by which dialogue
is possible. Here, as he does in his discussion of praxis, he insists that if the
radical interaction of reflection and action is sacrificed, an authentic or true
word and, therefore, praxis is nullified. This is essential to understand, in that
Freire conceives of true word as a transformative requirement. Inherent, is the
idea that, on one hand, with absence of action there is no transformation; and,
120 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

on the other, action without dialogue negates true praxis. Of course, the reason
for this is that Freire equates the true word to be the underlying work of praxis.
Moreover, Freire upholds both an egalitarian and communal view of the word;
insisting, the word is not the privilege of [the] few, but the right of everyone. No
one can say a true word alone nor can they say it for another.
Freire identifies an inauthentic word as one that perpetuates alienation
and the oppressive dichotomy of the subject-object contradiction. This
occurs when the word is stripped of any possibility of transformative action,
since the reflection required to produce the true word is distorted. He links
the lifelessness of the inauthentic word with an alienating verbalism, where
the empty word has no power to denounce the world and therefore unable
to support the action required for transformation. Similarly, he speaks of
an activism, where action occurs for action’s sake, negating true praxis and
making dialogue impossible. Hence, any dichotomy of reflection and action
leads to expressions of inauthentic existence, reinforcing the culture of silence
produced by the oppressor-oppressed contradiction.

Culture of silence
To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce;
to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.

For Freire, to silence the people constitutes a form of dehumanization predicated

by social and material structures of domination. Reinforced by the culture of
silence is a sense of fatalism, hopelessness and despair, which can lead to the
intensification of oppression. However, Freire refuses to essentialize these
debilitating responses, by suggesting that finding hope, despite conditions of
oppression, can also lead to the incessant pursuit of the humanity denied by
injustice. However, he does make clear that dialogue is impossible within a
climate of hopelessness. In fact, without hopeful conditions to speak the true
word, our encounters become expressions of alienation—empty and sterile,
bureaucratic and tedious.
The culture of silence must be understood as an extension of the
phenomenon of alienation, discussed in the first chapter. Here, Freire ties
alienation to conditions where dialogue is absent and, thus, the true word
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 121

of praxis can find no expression. He argues that the concrete conditions of

alienation impair the capacity of human beings to exercise their right to speak
the true word, which reflects the realities of their oppression and exploitation.
As such, the culture of silence functions to preserve the dehumanization of
the oppressed, in that Freire unwaveringly maintains that dialogue cannot
exist between those who seek to name the world and those who would thwart
their right to do so. In light of this tension, Freire argues, Those who have been
denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and
prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression.

Naming the world

To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it.

Within Freirean thought, the means by which women and men name our
world is through our participation in critical dialogue. In this way, naming the
world opens up the transformative possibilities for unveiling the oppressive
conditions of our existence and, by so doing, renaming our world. Freire rightly
asserts that we have not been built in silence; but, rather, through dialogical
action and reflection, we imbue our word and our labor with the essence
of our existence. Here, Freire employs Pierre Furter’s notion of authentic
human existence: that which permits the emergence of the awareness of our full
humanity, as a condition and as an obligation, as a situation and as a project.
It is, therefore, through the dialogical emergence of awareness that the true
word is spoken and possibilities for humanizing praxis manifest. It is with this
in mind that Freire reaffirms: Dialogue is thus an existential necessity. Critical
dialogue, as the means for purposeful reflection and action with one another
and the world, must be understood as a communal undertaking. It cannot be
reduced to one person “depositing” ideas in another, nor can it become a simple
exchange of ideas to be “consumed.” Freire also distinguishes dialogue from
polemic arguments or hostile debates, informed by an authoritarian culture
of conquest—where epistemologically only certain truths are given legitimacy,
while others are marginalized, ignored, or rendered invisible.
Instead, dialogue provides ample opportunity for naming the world, as
mediated and expressed by the oppressed, to be addressed as legitimate and
122 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

worthy acts of cognition. Dialogue as the practice of freedom commences

only when the oppressed (or the students-teachers) can begin to ask: What
shall we dialogue about? This preoccupation signals, as Freire notes, a step
toward greater autonomy and responsibility for the content of dialogue. This
reflects a profound step in the naming of the world, as the oppressed become
subjects of the learning experience, rather than persisting as silenced objects
of domination. Freire connects this expression of liberatory consciousness—
born of struggle—with the supersedence of slave labor by emancipated labor,
which gives zest to life. In essence, the verticalization of oppression is stymied
through the communal establishment of horizontal relationships—a dynamic
implicit to revolutionary praxis.

Horizontal relationships
Founding itself upon love, humility, and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal
relationship of which mutual trust between the dialoguers is the logical
consequence.

In order to establish genuine dialogue, Freire firmly contends that educators

must transform vertical relationships rooted in authoritarianism. This entails
dismantling the colonizing ethos of domination by establishing the conditions
for horizontal relationships within schools and communities. In this discussion,
as noted earlier, Freire’s theological influences provide him a language of
humanization from which to articulate what he considers to be the horizontal
nature of genuine dialogue—namely love, humility, faith, and trust. These
indispensable qualities, in combination, serve as an emotional, political, and
spiritual foundation for the establishment of what he terms indivisible solidarity.

Love: Freire returns to the question of love, asserting it is impossible to name

the world without the presence of profound love; in that the act of naming the
world is part of a creative, life affirming and authentic praxis, for which love
is indispensable. In fact, Freire notes, in concert with Che Guevara, the true
revolutionary must perceive the revolution, because of its creative and liberating
nature, as an act of love. For Freire, love constitutes the very foundation through
which dialogue must unfold. In its absence, domination as alienation of our
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 123

humanity reveals what Freire terms the pathology of love, where a destructive
sadist-masochist contradiction emerges. In direct contrast, dialogue founded
in love, generates the courage, responsibility, and discipline of women and
men committed to the struggle for liberation. However, Freire warns, as an act
of bravery, love cannot be sentimental; as an act of freedom, it must not serve as
a pretext for manipulation. It must generate other acts of freedom; otherwise, it
is not love. Hence, it is only through the resolution of the oppressor-oppressed
contradiction, that we restore love and defy the lovelessness of asymmetrical
relations of power that defy our humanity.

Humility: Freire makes the case for the manner in which the unjust
verticalization of human relationships results in false humility, authoritarian
fixations, and disabling alienation—for both the oppressor and the oppressed.
Arrogance and paternalism, fueled by a sense of superiority and supremacy
are features of oppressive relationships that interfere with open human
expression and the people’s right to recreate our world. In the process, banking
educators, researchers, and leaders who lack humility enter into necrophilic
encounters, obstructing the possibility of any partnership in the naming of the
world. Hence, Freire asserts, men and women who lack humility and cannot
acknowledge [themselves] to be as mortal as everyone else, still [have] a long way
to go before [they] can reach the point of encounter.

Faith: Freire speaks to the indispensability of faith in humankind that must

engender the horizontal relationship of dialogue. To enter into dialogue
without faith in others, Freire notes, makes a mockery of dialogue, inevitably
degenerating into paternalistic manipulation. This signals the need for a
profound faith in the capacity of the oppressed to find our own way, to recreate
our world, and to generate the human autonomy and responsibility required
for personal and collective self-determination. Freire insists that this right to
self-determination, inherent in our humanity, is not the privilege of an elite,
but the birthright of all. However, he counsels, this is not a naïve faith, in
that we cannot pretend arrogantly that submersion in the consciousness of
domination has not caused us all impairment or has not left behind the traces
of our histories of oppression—whether oppressor or oppressed. Nevertheless,
124 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

rather than undoing our faith, Freire contends, horizontal relationships of

dialogue encourage thoughtful commitment and embodied action in the
name of human liberation.

Trust: Freire conceptualizes the climate of mutual trust as a direct dialogical

outcome of a horizontal relationship grounded in love, humility, and faith. The
interrelationship of these qualities within, for example, liberation theology
is considered paramount to the struggle for community empowerment and
societal transformation. Without the genuine presence of these indispensable
qualities (in combination), Freire maintains, trust cannot flourish in schools or
communities. So, although faith, as noted earlier, exists as an a priori condition
for dialogue, trust is not the same, in that trust can only be generated and
established within the horizontality of genuine dialogue—where people are
heard, their intentionality respected, and the space and time exists for being
and becoming free subjects of history.

Hope: Foremost for Freire is the recognition that the struggle for our humanity
and our liberation is impossible without hope—for without hope, fatalism
can overcome us, disintegrating our dreams and leaving us in the oppressive
zone of antidialogical existence. What Freire is signaling here is the manner
in which he conceives of hope as an existential necessity. This is so, for in
an antidialogical climate of hopelessness, it is nearly impossible to envision
our lives beyond the limit-situations that bind our humanity. Nor can hope
manifest in a context of crossing ones arms and waiting. Instead, Freire affirms,
As long as I fight, I am moved by hope; and if I fight with hope, then I can wait.
Freire suggests, our tolerance for waiting is directly linked to our capacity to
generate a sense of hope in our lives, despite the oppressive conditions that
surround us. He also links this hope to communion: Hope is rooted in [our]
incompletion; from which [we] move out in constant search—a search which can
be carried out only in communion with others.

Indivisible Solidarity: To provide an understanding of dialogue beyond

merely human communication, Freire culminates his indispensable qualities
for dialogical horizontality, by calling again for an indivisible solidarity. This
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 125

question of solidarity is often one of the most contentious, misunderstood,

and undertheorized dimensions of revolutionary praxis. However, given
Freire’s Marxist humanist leanings, it is not surprising that he speaks to this
question—a question that is fundamentally rooted in our human existential
need for community and belonging, as well as the historical necessity for
class struggle. Solidarity, then, is a key principle of praxis if we are to, indeed,
transform the culture of domination and capitalist mode of production that
fuels our estrangement from one another and the world. Freire notes that
self-sufficiency—so much a part of the colonizing ideology of modernism—is
deeply incompatible with dialogue. Accordingly, public spaces are destroyed
or controlled by the political interest of the elite, in ways that prevent genuine
public voice and true dialogue across the body politic,8 as well as ample
opportunities to mature in communal inseparability. Hence, a pedagogy with
the oppressed is made possible through indivisible solidarity—a solidarity
imbued by radical love, humility, faith, trust, and hope—where dichotomy
between human beings and the world is overcome by dialogical praxis.

Dialogical praxis
Only human beings are beings of praxis … only human beings are praxis.

Freire returns to the question of praxis as dialogical manifestation of critical

knowledge and creativity, rooted in reflection and action for transformation.
In Freire’s view of praxis, it is not enough for people to come together in
dialogue, in order to gain knowledge of the world. Intrinsic to dialogical praxis
is collective human action grounded in reflection and the naming of the world,
in order to transform it. Grounded in a Marxist view of human beings and
Kosik’s view of praxis, Freire initiates a discussion that distinguishes the praxis
of human beings from animals.9 He views human beings as incomplete beings,

8
Body politic refers to the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as an organized
group of citizens.
9
Freire’s view of animals has been contested among animal rights activists and some scholars of
indigenous knowledge. In his essay, “Toward an Animal Standpoint,” Richard Kahn refutes the
notion that “nonhuman animals are … unthinking, unfeeling, and lesser objects, instead of rational,
sentient, and equal beings” (4). Again see: Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, and Planetary Crisis (Kahn
2010) for an insightful discussion on this question.
126 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

who treat our actions and ourselves as objects of reflection. This capacity for
human reflection is what, Freire contends, distinguishes humans from animals
who are unable to separate themselves from their activity … [nor] reflect upon
it. Freire fashions here a boundary in the life space of humans and animals,
asserting only human beings are beings of praxis.
Another difference Freire asserts is the historical nature and social agency
of human beings, in that we instill the world with our creative presence by
means of transformation. In contrast, he posits animal activity as being neither
praxis nor creative transformation but, rather, an ahistorical activity of species
who are beings in themselves. Hence, humans are capable of praxis precisely
because we can be critically aware of our world and ourselves and, thus, exist
in a dialectical relationship between the determination of limits and [our] own
freedom. As such, it is through our capacity to be conscious of our autonomy
and our responsibility for decisions and actions in the world that offers human
beings the possibility of overcoming the limitations we face.
Freire maintains that true dialogue is impossible without critical thought, in
which reality is understood as process, as transformation, rather than as a static
entity. Here, critical thought is both inextricably tied to action and immersed
in the progression of time—the past, present, and future of our existence—
open to the risks of change this may involve. Hence, critical thought contrasts
with naïve thought that, wittingly or unwittingly, invests in accommodation to
the “normalized” and guaranteed space, seemingly ignorant of the injustices
reproduced. Critical thinkers, on the other hand, are committed to the change
required for our continued humanization. Freire draws on Furter’s work to
assert, “the goal will no longer be to eliminate the risks of temporality by clutching
to guaranteed space, but rather to temporalize space” in ways that permit the
world to be revealed.
Dialogical praxis generates the basic conditions for the development
of critical thought, through opening the field for engaging the limitations
that surround our lives. Without true dialogue neither communication
nor education can generate critical thinkers. It is only through dynamic
engagement of the world, by way of critical thought, that we unveil reality,
unmask the myths that obscure oppression, and continue to generate and
regenerate our critical faculties. In this way, Freire contends, a critical analysis
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 127

of a significant existential dimension makes possible a new, critical attitude

towards the limit-situations. The perception and comprehension of reality are
rectified and acquire new depth. As critical thought expands, conscientização—
as a communal social phenomenon—also evolves, in ways that deepen the
collective possibilities for dialogical praxis and prepares women and men to
struggle for our liberation. Herein also lies the investigative foundation for
what Freire terms a methodology of conscientização, rooted in the dialogical
praxis of problem-posing education.

Methodology of conscientização
When carried out with a methodology of conscientização the investigation …
introduces or begins to introduce women and men to a critical form of thinking
about their world.

A central feature of the second part of this chapter is Freire’s discussion of his
liberatory methodology. Here, the pragmatic dimension of Freire’s ideas begin
to crystallize in his efforts to articulate the aspects of a methodology embodied
through the concrete, existential, present situation of real people. He provides
an example of critical guidelines for the emergence of generative themes and
the investigative stages that result in a liberatory pedagogical approach to
community research with the oppressed, whether students in a classroom or
people in community contexts. In contrast to banking approaches that reify
the oppressed as objects of study, the lived histories of the oppressed are the
starting point of his work in communities. Anything short of this, Freire notes,
constitutes false generosity—a vertical structure of study that perpetuates the
domestication and disempowerment of students and communities. About
this Freire contends: One cannot expect positive results from an educational or
political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world
held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions
notwithstanding.
Freire’s methodology of conscientização affirms the various dimensions
of people’s culture as absolutely significant to informing both a humanizing
educational praxis and a critical investigation into people’s lives and their
actual needs. As an empowering and liberating pedagogical force, Freire
128 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

insists that the underlying focus of a methodology of conscientização is for

the people to become masters of their thinking. Freire stresses repeatedly that
such an approach can only be possible through the pedagogical inclusion of
cultural knowledge and lived experiences formally suppressed; which through
critically opening the epistemological field of engagement, now gives rise to
the people’s generative themes.

Generative themes
The concept of generative themes—which is neither arbitrary invention nor
hypothesis to be proved—is at the heart of Freire’s methodological approach.
He utilizes the term generative to signify themes that hold the possibility of
constantly unfolding and recreating into new and different themes, given that
the historical conditions associated with themes are ever changing. This also
means actions connected to particular generative themes will also change, as
the new untested feasibly is identified. This organic and dialogical quality of
generative themes merits some focus here. For if the methodology of study
follows the hierarchical ethos of traditional research, there is no need to
determine the nature of the theme, instead the emphasis will be placed on
proving whether the theme is actually legitimate or not. In this supposedly
neutral scientific pursuit of verifying the objective legitimacy of the theme—
which is usually predicated on the prescribed criteria of the dominant class—
its richness, its significance, its plurality, its transformations, and its historical
composition are sacrificed.
In direct contrast, Freire proposes a methodology that is fundamentally
dialogical, providing ample opportunity for the people to identify meaningful
themes, through their participation as subjects of their own study. This
dialogical approach cultivates and nurtures critical awareness about the
meanings people attach to the themes generated. Freire also asserts that the
very nature of the generative theme is best understood through one’s own
existential experience and critical reflection on the relationship between men
and women with one another and our relationship with the world. Hence,
the more actively engaged the people are in exploring their thematics, the
more profoundly aware they become of their situation and their ability to
take possession of that reality. In this way, their growing critical awareness or
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 129

process of conscientização leads to new actions with the purposeful intent of

transforming society.
Freire explains, however, that generative themes cannot emerge in a context
of alienation, where human beings are divorced from reality. This is so, given
that the formation of generative themes requires the space and place for
freely naming the limit-situation and considering the collective impact of our
perceptions and the realities of life. With this in mind, it is useful to clarify that
the object of study is never the people themselves—as if they were anatomical
fragments. Instead, the object of study must be the language and thoughts
used to signify reality, how reality is perceived, and the worldview from which
generative themes emerge. This indicates a participatory study of a people’s
praxis, guided by meaningful generative themes they use to name their world
and the actions they take together to transform limiting conditions.
Freire also links meaningful generative themes to general and concrete facts,
ideas, values, concepts, and hopes that characterize any particular historical
epoch. As such, limit situations are anchored to conditions and challenges
within broad to specific historical moments and broad to specific societal
contexts. Here, Freire explains:

Generative themes can be located in concentric circles, moving from the

general to the particular. The broadest epochal unit, which includes a
diversified range of units and sub-units—continental, regional, national,
and so forth—contains themes of a universal character. Within the smaller
circles, we find themes and limit-situations characteristic of societies (on the
same continent or on different continents), which through these themes and
limit-situations share historical similarities.

These historical themes exist always interacting dialectically with their

opposites. Hence, it is precisely this complex of interacting themes in any epoch
that comprises what Freire terms its thematic universe.
Freire also maintains, when people are confronted with a contradictory
universe of themes, it is not unusual for reality to be mythicized and for an
oppressive climate of irrationality to prevail; such is the case, for example, in
epochs of colonial conquest or fascist dictatorship. He notes the existence of
a dominated consciousness, which does not perceive the limit-situation in its
130 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

totality, but rather as a secondary phenomenon without particular influence

or cause. For Freire, this skewed perspective of casual factors as solely
epiphenomenon is of deep concern in the investigation of generative themes,
in that it tends to cause people to perceive reality as not only fragmented, but
in ways that dichotomize and deaden the interacting constituent elements of the
whole. Inherent in the contradictions of an epoch, for example, are a variety
of limit-situations that become dichotomized, essentialized, and veiled, in the
service of domination.

Limit-situations
Freire draws on Jaspers’ idea of limit-situations as de-essentialized by Vieira Pinto,
who provides a more optimistic reading of the concept. In this sense, a limit-
situation is not an impassible boundary of which there is no escape, but rather
the frontier, which separates being from being more. Hence, limit-situations point
to those human situations that bind our humanity and, thus, become obstacles
or challenges to dialogical praxis. Inherent to limit-situations are asymmetrical
relations of power, where the dominant class benefits from perpetuating the
limiting conditions. To overcome, for example, our dehumanization, which
assumes the end of dehumanization, we have to overcome the limit-situation
that converts human beings into things. To enter into a liberating praxis requires
us to engage more critically with the dialectics of our existence as subjects and
objects of our lives. In this way, we can come to reflect in new ways, with greater
clarity about our individual and collective actions, as well as begin to accept
greater responsibility for our decisions. In turn, we begin to overcome the limit-
situations that demean and oppress our lives.
Freire posits dialectically that themes both contain and are contained
in limit-situations. However, often limit-situations are not clearly seen nor
understood; corresponding responses—as historical action—will then fail not
only to transcend the situation but to see the untested feasibility that could
overcome the contradiction. Nevertheless, Freire suggests that through critical
engagement, a limit-situation’s true nature as concrete historical dimension
of a given reality can be unveiled. In so doing, the oppressive ideology that
normalizes perpetuation of the limit-situation is disrupted by limit-acts—
acts carried out by the oppressed to overcome the limitation. To transform
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 131

and supersede the limit-situation in the concrete requires critical perception

embodied in action. We must recall, however, that limit-situations occur within
ever-changing historical conditions, which means that when limit-situations
are superseded, new ones will surely appear, evoking the need for new limit-
acts. Nevertheless, to carry out limit-acts requires that we are able to critically
perceive the possibilities that exist beyond the limit-situation, in other words
the untested feasibility.

Untested feasibility
Dialogical praxis serves as a pedagogical and political means by which the
oppressed come to reflect critically on the conditions that limit our freedom,
in order to discover the unjust conditions that engender limitations, as well
as the untested feasibility. By untested feasibility, Freire is referring to those
human possibilities that lie just beyond the limit-situations, which often
remain obscured. Freire engages Goldmann’s idea of potential consciousness
and Nicolai’s view of perceived/unperceived practicable solutions to bring
complexity to his discussion of untested feasibility and its relationship to
consciousness. He reminds us that limit-situations imply that there exist those
who are served by the limitations and those who are negated and curbed by
them. Fatalism and other responses to alienation interfere with our capacity to
perceive the untested feasibility.
On the other hand, when limit-situations are perceived as the frontier
between being and being more human, the oppressed begin to increasingly
direct their actions toward the untested feasibility implicit in their perception.
Freire does warn though that those served by the limit-situation will perceive
the untested feasibility as a threat to the status quo and, therefore, block
dialogical praxis. It is, however, through problem-posing investigation that
the people engage conditions that limit their freedom and move more intently
toward bringing an untested feasibility of liberation to the present.

Problem-posing investigation

Freire reasserts the problem-posing approach as the liberatory foundation

for his methodology of conscientização—a methodology by which people’s
132 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

generative themes are critically engaged through a dialogical praxis of

participation. Just as problem-posing education counters the lifelessness of
banking education, a problem-posing approach to research with the people
constitutes a life-affirming praxis founded in love, faith, and trust in the people’s
capacity to generate those themes that are truly meaningful with respect to
their world. In this context, the teacher-student considers the program content
neither a gift nor imposition, but content developed in relationship with the
concrete needs and interests expressed by the people.
In discussing the authentic educational program of a problem posing
investigation, Freire notes, Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B”
or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world
which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions
about it. Freire recognizes these views as generated through the entire human
being, where anxieties, doubts, and hopes point to a variety of significant
themes rooted in communal knowledge and through which a pedagogy (and
methodology) of the oppressed can emerge dialogically—grounded in the
concrete, existential, present situation of real people. In this way, the regenerating
dimension of dialogical praxis supports the organic generation of themes
and ongoing expansion and renewal of the content and its direction. Here,
Freire also reminds us that the dialogical educator must engage the people’s
thematic universe not to lecture, but rather as issues to be decodified and
studied collaboratively. To initiate this collaborative process, Freire turns to
the decodification of the themes, which he contends stimulates the appearance
of a new perception and the development of new knowledge.
Freire’s thematic investigative approach is centered on gathering information
in order to build up a picture (codify) around real situations and real people. The
process of decodification begins at the point in the investigation when people
begin to identify different elements of the lived situation, exteriorize their
view of the world, and reflect critically on it in order to change it. Freire likens
this process to a photographer working to bring a photograph into focus. He
goes on to discuss different stages of decodification, with a clear intent on
maintaining the dialectical nature of the process. He exemplifies the dialectical
movement of thought in his analysis of a concrete existential coded situation.
The important thing here is to understand decoding as a process that moves
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 133

people from an individualized, estranged, abstracted, fragmented, and partial

understanding of the situation to an understanding of the situation within
the whole of our collective existence, in order to return to the situation with
new insights, together with other Subjects. Freire contends that if the process of
codification is done well, it will lead to new critical understanding of the coded
situation—an understanding that emerges as alienation to the concrete limit-
situation is overcome, a stronger sense of connection ensues, and an opening
of perception to greater possibility for transformation is realized.
One of the underlying aims of a problem-posing investigative approach
is the enactment of a revolutionary praxis that affirms the decodification of
people’s themes, as they critically move toward greater depth in their perception
and comprehension of their individual and collective lives and new ways of
thinking about the world. For Freire this signals a process by which human
beings emerge from [our] submersion and acquire the capacity to intervene in
reality, as it is unveiled. This growing awareness and capacity for intervention
stems directly from the deepening of conscientização—which Freire considers
characteristic of all emergences. Furthermore, it is precisely through the social
agency ignited by critical consciousness that action is initiated and sustained.
It is not surprising then that Freire would affirm problem-posing thematic
investigation as a methodology of conscientização, where consciousness moves
from “real consciousness”—where untested feasibility is imperceptible—to
“potential consciousness” that strives to transform the untested feasibility into
action. Freire’s discussion of the various stages of the thematic investigation
delineates an organic, life-affirming path forged by the investigative team with
the people, as co-investigators.

Stages of the thematic investigation

Thematic investigation thus becomes a common striving towards awareness of
reality and towards self-awareness, which makes this investigation a starting
point for the educational process or for cultural action of a liberating character.

Prior to beginning his discussion of the four stages of the thematic

investigation, Freire reminds us of the collaborative nature of this approach.
He insists, fundamentally, that we cannot think for others or without others.
134 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Even when people may be struggling with what may seem as superstitious or
naïve perceptions of a situation, Freire maintains that deep faith in people’s
capacity to rethink the assumptions that inform their situation in community
must be at the core of thematic investigation, in that how people express their
situation at any given moment in time is inseparable from the larger social and
material context in which they must survive. Freire contends, Human beings
are because they are in a situation. And they will be more the more they not
only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it. The stages
of investigation encompass a dialogical relationship between the investigative
team and community people participating in the study. Freire warns that
the process of investigation must never become mechanized, abstracted, or
reductive, but rather retain its dialogical sensibilities, without losing sight of
the totality from which the meaningful thematics of the people emerge. This
also entails a liberatory relationship in which both investigators and the people
work together in becoming jointly educated about the situations that impact
the life of the community.

Stage one: Learning the people’s perception of reality

The investigation begins with a process that requires the team to learn from
the community and the different ways in which people perceive their situation.
Freire notes that this stage can involve difficulties and risks for the team, as
they work to initially gain an understanding of the conditions in community
and to begin dialogue with the people about the objectives of the study. Freire
confirms, moreover, the investigation will be impossible without a relation of
mutual understanding and trust. Once representatives of the community
agree to participate, their presence at every stage of the work is central to the
integrity of the study.
As investigators engage with the people, it is important to be self-vigilant
about not imposing values that transform the themes expressed by participants.
This decoding stage begins as the investigative team seeks to decipher the
living code of the community itself, engaging its totality, in order to understand
how its different parts interact. As sympathetic observers, they note the varying
circumstances of the community and prepare to enter into dialogue about
impressions together, in order to consider and reconsider, in nonhierarchical
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 135

ways, their shared perceptions of the limit-situations and contradictions at

work, as well as to gain a better sense of the community’s interpretation of
the situations and contradictions they face. At this point, opportunities might
arise to begin organizing educational projects.

Stage two: Preparation of codifications

In the second stage, preparation of codifications for thematic analysis is the
focus of the study. As a team, the investigators now select the contradictions
that will inform the codifications to be utilized for the thematic investigation.
These may include, for example, sketches or photographs, which will support
the team’s critical engagement with the community. Freire, however, sets out
several important requirements, meant to ensure the dialogical nature of the
investigation. The first requirement is that the codifications must be familiar
and reflect the lived experience of the community. An equally fundamental
requirement is that codifications not be over enigmatic or oversimplified—
which Freire argues suppresses dialogue—rather they should be “simple
in their complexity and offer various coding possibilities in order to avoid the
brainwashing tendencies of propaganda.” Freire also suggests that codification
be organized as a thematic fan, which will help to assure a variety of possible
perspectives to emerge in the decoding process. In the dialogical process of
decoding, participants externalize their thematics; and, in so doing, discover
opportunities to engage their contradictions in ways that may lead to new
awareness of their reality. From here codifications are derived from the shared
contradictions, which lead to what Freire terms inclusive codifications. In this
way, the codifications begin to express dialectically the participants’ sense of
totality, which propels their thinking from real consciousness (which obscures
totality) to potential consciousness (which engender the perception of totality).

Stage three: Returning to the people

Stage three of the thematic investigation returns the codification of the
investigative team to the people for dialogical engagement, through what
Freire calls thematic investigation circles, also known as cultural circles. At
this point in the study, the codifications are discussed in ways that require
the investigative team to not only listen to the individuals but … also challenge
136 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

them, posing as problems both the codified existential situation, as well as their
own responses. These discussions are recorded to ensure that the investigative
team can return to them for subsequent analysis. Freire also notes that it is
at this stage in which the cathartic force of the methodology may surface, as
participants express emotions, sentiments, and opinions related to their lives,
which they would not otherwise share outside their home. As participants
express their connection between self and their existential situation, Freire
advocates for the conscientização of the situation, a process that prepares
participants for actions that can counter obstacles to their humanity.

Last stage: Systematic interdisciplinary study

In the final stage of the investigation, the team engages in a systematic
interdisciplinary study of the different aspects of the relationship with the
community. This entails a process whereby the themes explored are now
considered across different knowledge spheres, to allow for a more integral
understanding of what has been learned. Freire, however, warns that the
investigative team must remain wary of sacrificing the richness and power
of the investigation to strictures of specialties. Instead, the team works to
break down the themes in ways that can unveil the fundamental nuclei,
which provide direction to materials for preparing teacher-students to carry
out the ongoing community work in cultural circles. At this juncture, Freire
presents the dialogical notion of hinge themes—themes developed by the
investigative team to facilitate connections that may be needed in dialogue
with the community. A key concern of the work in the cultural circles is
that the themes should never be presented as an inflexible phenomenon or
divorced of people’s lives. Once, the thematic material of the people has been
fully explored, it is returned to them again as problems now to be transformed
through their actions. It is at this juncture in Freire’s approach that humanizing
educational programs can be developed and established in ways that reflect the
essence of the community. For Freire, this thematic approach also serves to
link intellectuals, often well-intentioned but not infrequently alienated from the
reality of the people, to that reality. It also gives the people an opportunity to hear
and criticize the thought of intellectuals—a situation that seldom exists within a
banking approach to research.
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 137

Revolutionary leadership
Revolutionary leaders do not go to the people in order to bring them a message
of “salvation,” but in order to come to know through dialogue with them both
their objective situation and their awareness of that situation.

Freire’s discussion of some of the issues and stumbling blocks of revolutionary

leaders and political projects meant to engage the needs of the people
prepares the reader for Chapter 4, where he unpacks the issue of cultural
action and revolutionary leadership in a more explicit and expansive manner.
Nevertheless, here, he speaks to those who would come to education and study
with the people to support an expressed revolutionary project but yet fall prey
to the hierarchical rationalizations of a banking education model. Instead,
Freire insists that truly humanist educators and authentic revolutionaries must
focus on the question of societal transformation in community with the people.
He admonishes revolutionary leaders who come to the people with agendas
and programs fashioned in complete absence of the people—the ones who
will be most affected by their content. Freire argues, banking educators and
revolutionaries who see themselves as saviors of the oppressed have forgotten
that the fundamental objective is to fight alongside the people for the recovery
of [our] humanity, not to win the people over to programs and campaigns that
perpetuate alienation. Here it is useful to, once again, recall that we cannot
expect positive results from an educational or political action program, which
fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Hence,
Freire deems the dynamics and impact of such programs as perpetuating the
colonializing and capitalist mentality of cultural invasion.
Lastly, Freire adamantly argues that to encourage the passivity of the
oppressed through authoritarian revolutionary schemes—no matter the
rhetoric—is indisputably incompatible with a humanizing culture of liberation.
He argues, instead, that the task of humanist educators and revolutionaries is to
engage in pedagogical and political cultural actions that are not only dialogically
compatible but also intimately committed to the liberation of the oppressed.
As such, our starting point for any educational program or community action
must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of
the people—not as intellectual device but embodied revolutionary praxis.
138 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Questions for reflection and dialogue

1. What does Freire mean by the true or authentic word? How does the
culture of silence prevent the oppressed from naming the world?
2. For Freire, what constitutes humanizing dialogue? What are the essential
components of dialogical praxis?
3. Freire maintains that through horizontal relationships, the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction can be resolved. What does he mean by this and
what are the indispensable qualities of horizontal relationships?
4. What is the underlying purpose of a methodology of conscientização?
Describe, in particular, the idea of generative themes and limit-situations,
as well as the four stages of Freire’s thematic investigation.

__________________________________

Chapter 4

If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by

which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action this theory
cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process.

Throughout the book, Freire suggests, in subtle and more direct ways, that
pedagogy of the oppressed is, in fact, a pedagogy of revolutionary change and
societal transformation that must be carried out by the people. In this chapter,
he unapologetically asserts the revolutionary nature of cultural action, squarely
examining the differences between antidialogical and dialogical approaches.
Freire argues that antidialogical conditions, given their alienating purpose,
serve as instruments of oppression; while a dialogical praxis, on the other hand,
is enacted through a pedagogical and political commitment to the liberation
of the oppressed. He expounds on the characteristics of antidialogical action,
which enact a pedagogy and politics of conquest, divide and rule, manipulation,
and cultural invasion. In direct contrast, he points to the characteristics of
dialogical action, which enact radical cultural expressions of cooperation,
unity, organization, and cultural synthesis. In a variety of ways, this last
chapter serves as a synthesis of the book, in that it revisits and weaves together
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 139

many of the central themes Freire has explored in the previous chapters, in
ways that speak to authentic revolutionary leadership, whether it be within
schools or communities. Freire, in particular, draws on Gramscian ideas of
both moral leadership and the formation of organic intellectuals, to engage
with the complexities of political authority and communal participation, both
deeply essential to a revolutionary praxis of cultural action.
Freire reaffirms the central thesis of his work: human beings are beings of
praxis; and, as such, authentic humanizing activity is the outcome of theory and
practice—a praxis that is the outcome of the dialectical relationship between
self, others, and the world. He posits the need for a dialogical relationship of
leadership between those who are designated as leaders and the people who
must participate as central figures in the process of transformation. Freire also
undertakes a critique of hegemonic or antidialogical leadership founded on a
banking concept, where leaders are the narrators and subjects of history, while
the people are expected to merely serve as docile objects of a prescribed political
agenda in which they are estranged from all decision-making. For Freire, this
does not constitute true revolutionary leadership but rather the reformulation
of the old oppressor-oppressed contradiction, with the leaders as its “thinkers”
and the oppressed as mere “doers.” Freire again maintains that revolutionary
leaders, who invalidate the praxis of the people, inherently invalidate the
legitimacy of their own praxis—a false, dichotomous, and oppressive praxis
that imitates the dominant elites. In doing so, antidialogical revolutionary
leadership is reduced to a revolution without the people, [who are now] drawn
into the process by the same methods and procedures used to oppress them.
Freire further warns against a mechanistic view of reality, where there
exists little awareness of the manner in which concrete situations impact
consciousness and, therefore, how consciousness impacts our world. Freire
notes the fallacy of a mechanistic view of transformation, where leaders
ignore the need to problematize false consciousness, convinced that slogans
and directives from an elite leadership is sufficient to changing historical
conditions. Freire returns here to Marx and the historicity of humanity,
asserting that there is no history without human beings and no human beings
without history. Hence, to deny people the right to participate in history begets
conditions of oppression, irrespective of rhetorical intentions.
140 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

In concert with Lenin, Freire adamantly insists that a true commitment to the
people requires a revolutionary theory of cultural action, where the dialogical
praxis of leaders and the people—in solidarity—engage critically the structures
to be transformed. This necessitates authentic community relationships of
struggle rooted in authentic dialogue, where revolutionary praxis emerges from
a shared commitment and emancipatory vision, where leaders do not reify the
oppressed as their possession. Freire calls for revolutionary leaders to incarnate a
genuine humanism, grounded in principles of a dialogical revolutionary process,
where leaders embody both a commitment and revolutionary solidarity with
people as comrades in the struggle for our liberation.

The revolutionary process

The revolutionary process is dynamic, and it is in this continuing dynamics, in

the praxis of the people with the revolutionary leaders, that the people and the
leaders will learn both dialogue and the use of power.

Consistent with earlier discussions of revolutionary praxis, Freire reaffirms

dialogical principles that inform the revolutionary process. Freire
repeatedly affirms that human activity grounded in action and reflection
is the root of societal transformation. However, at this juncture, he notes
the dialectical manner in which theory is necessary to the illumination
of praxis; in that revolutionary theory is the living manifestation of a
regenerating alliance that must persist in the making of a just society. In
other words, we come to reflect on the world in order to act upon it in
ways that inform democratic life; then we reflect on the actions taken and
their emancipatory impact; and, from there, evaluate the outcomes from
whence we then develop theory. In this way, theory remains rooted to the
lived experience of communal praxis.
In terms of leadership, Freire acknowledges that leaders bear the responsibility
for coordination and, at times, direction. However, he emphasizes the need
for dialogical responsibility, which emerges from shared responsibility with
the community and, therefore, cannot proceed without their voice and
participation—particularly when the consequences of decisions directly impact
people’s lives. This is to affirm that dialogue with the people is radically necessary
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 141

to every authentic revolution. In fact, Freire notes that it is this courageous

dialogical praxis between leaders and the people that most distinguishes a
true revolution from a coup d’état—an authoritarian form of seizing power.
This speaks to a political and cultural leadership relationship accountable to
the people, requiring open and honest dialogue about its achievements, its
mistakes, its miscalculations, and its difficulties.
In this dialogical praxis, Freire asserts a central ethical tenet of his pedagogy
and his politics: Dialogue, as the encounter among men [and women] to “name”
the world, is a fundamental precondition for [our] true humanization. Hence,
dialogue is not a concession or gift to be extended to the people, in order to
yield consensus. Rather, it is the right of human beings, as subjects of history,
to participate in self-determining our individual and collective destinies. If
we understand the revolutionary process as a pedagogical force then it too
must be rooted in the lived histories of the people and, thus, begin with their
concrete existential situation. As such, the revolutionary process affirms what
Freire considers a radical need: women and men as beings who cannot be truly
human apart from communication, for [we] are essentially communicative
creatures. Therefore, to silence our voices and active participation impedes
communication and reduces the people to the status of “things.”
Freire, again, reminds the reader that the oppressor-oppressed contradiction
is an essential requirement of domination, where the dominant pole and
subordinate pole exist antithetically. In direct contrast, he speaks to the
dialogical nature of revolutionary praxis, which shatters dichotomies, opening
the way for reflection and action to emerge simultaneously—both fluidly
and organically. In this way, actions, which may be feasible or infeasible at
the present time, can be engaged critically in ways that openly support the
evolution of conscientização. Communities work with the leaders to determine
liberatory strategies and tactics that are in sync with both the concrete
conditions of people’s lives and the larger political project of liberation. A
point often missed in discussion of the revolutionary process is that critical
reflection is also action. This constitutes, in the Gramscian sense, respect for
both the intellectual capacities and labor of the people, as well as the labor of
organic intellectuals who are involved in articulating revolutionary theory—
historically, politically, economically, and culturally—with the people as equal
142 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Subjects of revolutionary action. Herein lie the intercommunicative roots of the

Cultural Revolution envisioned by Freire and other revolutionaries of his time.
Drawing from Althusser, Fromm, and others, Freire complicates his
analysis by reminding us that, in the struggle for freedom, the moment
when power is seized reflects only one moment of the larger revolutionary
process; in that, revolution—as a social entity—comes into being within an
oppressive society. Hence, a dialogical praxis of revolution must contend with
the potentialities [or traces] of the social entity in which it originated, given the
interplay of contradictions. Freire explains, in a dynamic, rather than static view
of revolution there is no absolute “before” or “after.” For this reason, he adamantly
insists that dialogue must not be a promise for the future, but rather a constant
and ongoing dimension of liberating action, at all stages of the revolutionary
process.
This essential dialogical feature of liberatory struggle creates the space
where the people and revolutionary leaders come to learn how to engage and
exercise power democratically, in the interest of liberation. Conversely, it is
through denial of communion in the revolutionary process and withholding
opportunities to participate actively in the dialogical exercise of power and
self-governance that disabling dependency of the oppressed on the dominant
class is engendered. Consequently, antidialogical actions that reflect a fear of
freedom and lack of faith in the people function as instruments of oppression,
which have historically obstructed the expansion, development, and self-
governance of oppressed communities—who exist under the shadow of
dependency, the absolutizing of ignorance, and an interpellated view of genetic
and cultural deficiency.

Antidialogical cultural action

The antidialogical … aims at conquering … increasingly and by every means,
from the toughest to the most refined, from the most repressive to the most
solicitous (paternalism).

Of concern to Freire, within the context of revolutionary praxis, is the

importance of a theory of revolution that arises from the lived histories of the
oppressed, which can unveil the antidialogical nature of oppression. Freire
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 143

contends, there do not exist oppressive conditions that are not, at their root,
also antidialogical; just as there is no antidialogue in which the oppressors do
not untiringly dedicate themselves to the constant conquest of the oppressed.
Freire goes on to discuss further what he means by antidialogical actions by
presenting major pillars that bolster the structures of antidialogical action—
namely, conquest, divide and rule, manipulation, and cultural invasion.

Conquest implies an inherently antidialogical relationship; where one group

conquers and another is conquered. In this manifestation of the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction, the vanquished colonized become the possession
of the colonizer. Freire notes the symbiotic nature of antidialogical and
oppressive sensibilities, which the oppressor simultaneous enacts in the world
to preserve both their social and material domination. In fact, Freire maintains
that once conditions of conquest are established, antidialogical action is the
means by which these are preserved. Freire also notes how the fabrication of
myths are employed to present the world as fixed and immutable, to which
the colonized as passive spectators must simply adapt. This internalization of
deposited myths across the society is indispensable to perpetuating the culture
of domination. Freire notes several debilitating myths,10—including the myth of
the natural inferiority of the latter and the superiority of the former—which may
vary historically but are essential to a politics of subjugation and repression.
Permeating, overtly and covertly, the landscape of society, Freire notes, the
perniciousness of these myths reflect the necrophilic passion to oppress.

Divide and Rule signals intolerance for the unification of the oppressed, an act
perceived as a serious threat to the dominant class. As a minority in number,
the ruling class deems the struggle for liberation as a potential danger. In an
effort to disrupt and silence the voices and participation of the people, the
oppressor utilizes a variety of hegemonic strategies to isolate and alienate the

10
A few other myths Freire includes:
that the dominant elites, “recognizing their duties,” promote the advancement of the people, so
that the people in a gesture of gratitude should accept the words of the elites and be conformed to
them; the myth that rebellion is a sin against God; the myth of private property as fundamental to
personal human development (so long as oppressors are the only true human beings); the myth
of the industriousness of the oppressors and the laziness and dishonesty of the oppressed.
144 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

oppressed or to garner their consensus. One strategy entails a focalized view of

problems, which fails to go to the root cause, masking its totality. This focalized
approach reinforces alienation, by making it more difficult to perceive the
situation critically and, thus, keeping people with the same problems from
coming together. Freire contends, the more alienated people are the easier is to
divide and keep them divided. Hence, an underlying purpose of divide and rule
is both to preserve social class inequities and obscure class conflict. Freire also
illustrates how the oppressor-oppressed contradiction is steeped in a mode of
production that perpetuates class divisions and racialized oppression.

Manipulation functions to bring the oppressed into hegemonic conformity

with the interest of the ruling class. Freire signals the manner in which a
deceptive myth that proclaims all people can ascent to the ruling class shrouds
the structural nature of oppression. Often pacts that emerge between the
dominant class and the dominated, particularly within historical moments
of uprising, create a false impression of dialogue and change. In fact, such
manipulative pacts often result in inauthentic organizations that compromise
the dialogical necessity of revolutionary change. Hence, manipulation
functions to deepen the submersion of the people into the oppressed-
oppressor contradiction, leaving the structures of domination and exploitation
untouched. Freire contends, moreover, that the paternalism of populist
campaigns is rooted in anesthetic forms of manipulation that distract people
from the true causes of their problem.

Cultural Invasion is the antidialogical phenomenon where the culture of the

colonized is invaded and overrun by the colonizing culture. At the heart of
cultural invasion is the dehumanizing and violent politics of conquest, which
seeks to subjugate, socially and materially, the worldview of the oppressed,
as a means to inhibit the creativity of the invaded by curbing their expression.
In the process, the inferiority of the colonized is reinforced and the duality
of oppressor-oppressed contradiction solidified, as the oppressed are forced
into an inauthentic existence at the service of the dominant culture. Freire
contends that cultural invasion serves as both an instrument of domination and
the result of domination. As such all public and private institutions across the
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 145

dominant society are implicated in its perpetuation, either through preparing

future invaders or through schemes of false generosity that demand the
assimilation of colonized populations. He points to the danger of assimilated
or neocolonial professionals who, naively or astutely, perpetuate the interests
of the dominant class by managing and containing the oppressed. However,
Freire also reminds us that when the people have internalized the worldview
of the oppressor, often heightened ambiguity and fear of freedom can stall
revolutionary action.

Dialogical cultural action

Dialogical action is indispensable to the revolutionary …

In response to antidialogical principles, Freire posits a set of dialogical

principles, anchored in the ideas discussed in earlier chapters related to
dialectical thinking and dialogical praxis. The four dialogical principles
discussed are cooperation, unity for liberation, organization, and cultural
synthesis. These principles represent the cornerstones of a revolutionary praxis,
which support the making of cultural revolution as a living praxis.

Cooperation speaks to the relationship of revolutionary leaders and the

people, as they work together for social change. Freire, more specifically,
draws on Martin Buber’s notion of “I and Thou” to describe cooperation as
a dialogical relationship, where the coming together of I and Thou (Not-I)
affirms our existence in the world. This dialectical sensibility of “I am because
we are” also works to counter the trenchant individualism, competiveness, and
objectification of the banking concept of pedagogical relationships. Cooperation
creates the space where all can meet to name the world collectively, guided by
a shared vision of societal transformation. This space also provides the people
a place for problematizing conditions of oppression; and, by so doing, fulfill
[our] vocation as subjects of our world. Within the dynamic of revolutionary
cooperation, leaders do not own the people but rather exist as comrades and
coauthors of struggle, working together in community to unveil and challenge
structures of alienation. As such, cooperation is rooted in qualities of love,
faith, trust, and communion, rooted in a life affirming revolutionary process.
146 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Unity for Liberation is essential to dialogical cultural action, in that

transformation without unity between leaders and the people, as revolutionary
partners, is impossible. This process of establishing unity requires a break from
the divisive adhesion to the dominant culture, as we confront the structures of
dehumanization that plague our communities. Freire affirms here, dialectically,
a key understanding: as we move toward greater unity and solidarity, we
also, simultaneously, become true individuals, in that we shed our false
identification with the oppressor. In other words, as we unveil the oppressor-
oppressed contradiction and authentically move beyond it, our capacity for
unity flourishes; in that we develop a deeper dialectical sense of autonomy and
responsibility in our relationship with self and others. This sense of unity also
entails an emergence of class-consciousness, where former contradictions and
blindness to our alienation are overcome. With this in mind, Freire argues, in
order for the oppressed to unite, [we] must first cut the umbilical cord of magic
and myth which binds [us] to the world of oppression, in that the unity that now
connects us must be fundamentally of a liberatory nature.

Organization, according to Freire, is a natural outcome of unity, where the

struggle for liberation is our common task. Here, he speaks to the revolutionary
necessity of historical witness in the process of organization. The task of being
witness to our liberation constitutes, for Freire, one of the principal expressions
of the cultural and pedagogical dimensions of revolution, in that it encompasses
the spirit of consistency, boldness, radicalization, courage to love, and faith
in the people—indispensable qualities to our labor as historical subjects.
Witnessing, as a form of organizational expression, also requires the maturity
to risk and to enact patience, in that the process of revolutionary change
exists as an ongoing historical phenomenon. As such, Freire suggests that our
organization with the people must be built on a long view of history; one that
negates oppressive manipulation based on false calls to urgency and, instead,
embraces the totality of our situation and revolutionary struggle. Within this
revolutionary paradigm of organization, discipline does not equal rigidity or
regimentation. Instead, the objective here is to create conditions of organization
that support the development of our individual and collective consciousness—a
consciousness rooted in our naming the world together. Here, Freire offers us
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 147

another important axiom of his pedagogy of the oppressed: There is no freedom

without authority, but there is also no authority without freedom. It is this
powerful dialectic in the context of communal organization and leadership
that distinguishes emancipatory authority from authoritarianism.

Cultural Synthesis is the result of dialogical cultural action. Freire reminds

us, however, that cultural action can function both in the interest of
domination or liberation. Freire draws on Bergson’s ideas here to note that
the crosscurrents of antidialogical and dialogical cultural actions create an
ongoing human condition of both permanence and change. With respect to
cultural synthesis, dialogical cultural action seeks to preserve this antagonistic
contradiction, since the underlying purpose of dialogue is to courageously
engage the human creative tensions at work in the process of forging a
liberatory society. In the context of cultural synthesis, when revolutionary
leaders engage with the people, they cannot do so as invaders, but rather as
revolutionary partners who seek to learn together. Hence, this opens the way
to confronting cultural actions that betray our humanity, so that we may move
away from antidialogical actions of domination and toward liberating actions
in the world. Freire’s notion of cultural synthesis, moreover, challenges the
passivity and invasiveness of imposed or prescribed models. Instead, he calls
for cultural action and educational programs that are inextricably linked to
the realities of the “here and now,” which are inherently produced by subjects
within the historical process. This initiates conditions for new knowledge
and new actions that arise directly with the people as active participants—
rather than as subjects of an alienating and hidden curriculum that stifles
life. Moreover, cultural synthesis does not deny cultural differences among
the people; rather, differences are integral to the process of transformation—
affirming the undeniable support each brings to the other. As such, knowledge
of the totality is indispensable to cultural revolution and the formation of
collective consciousness across communities and societies.

Cultural revolution as living praxis

As the cultural revolution deepens conscientização in the creative praxis of the
new society, people will begin to perceive why mythical remnants of the old
148 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

society survive in the new. And they will then be able to free themselves more
rapidly of these specters …

Cultural revolution embodies a humanizing praxis of conscious transformation,

carried out through communion with the people—a politically dynamic sphere
for people to learn and grow together as subjects of history and cultural
citizens of the world. And, it is, indeed, through the expression of unshakeable
solidarity and labor with the people that, Freire maintains, revolutionary
leaders are authenticated in their praxis. However, he does acknowledge that
there are those who would judge such faith and commitment in the people as
naively and subjectively idealistic. Yet, he refutes this notion, by affirming that
there is nothing more real or concrete than human beings presently engaged
in dialogue; and, inversely, nothing more deadening and antagonistic to
dialogue than the verticalization of social and material power perpetuated and
reinforced by the dichotomous contradiction of the oppressor class.
Freire argues the road to revolution can only be paved through the plenitude
of our praxis. This speaks to a living revolutionary praxis that both makes and is
made through the power of our collective consciousness and cultural actions,
where our shared critical engagement assists us to interrogate oppressive
myths, beliefs and practices, as we organize our thinking and knowledge in
ways that bring us closer to the concrete reality of our lives. Within Freirean
thought, the evolution of our living praxis is also linked to the process of our
radicalization—where through the development of critical consciousness,
the oppressed emerge from the oppressor-oppressed contradiction to refute
prescriptions issued by the dominant class and, instead, embrace the struggle
for our humanity.
In bringing this discussion to a close, it is worth recalling that revolutionary
liberation and the cultural revolution Freire advocates necessitates a living
praxis of revolutionary leadership—a humanizing approach that communally
extricates the oppressed from the false generosity, manipulation, and
paternalism of banking models of leadership. Essential to this revolutionary
praxis is a powerful move away from thinking about the people to thinking
with the people—whether within communities, schools, labor organizations,
religious institutions, universities, or other entities of society. It is not surprising
 Major Themes, Chapter-by-Chapter 149

then that Freire ends his seminal tome by asserting: Only in the encounter of
the people with revolutionary leaders—in their communion, in their praxis—can
this theory be built.

Questions for reflection and dialogue

1. Describe the four pillars of antidialogical cultural action and what

conditions do these engender with respect to the relationship of leaders to
the people?
2. Describe what Freire means by a revolutionary praxis of leadership and
how is this directly linked to dialogical cultural action?
3. Within the context of cultural revolution, how are leaders authenticated?
In what ways is this essential to liberatory struggle?
4. What is the central purpose of a pedagogy of the oppressed and how does
this purpose inform a living praxis of revolutionary leadership?
 4

Impact, Influences, and Legacy: An Interview

with Ana Maria Araújo Freire

The spirit that guides this book is very much connected with a desire to
provide insights into Paulo Freire: the educational philosopher, international
dignitary, revolutionary humanist, teacher, comrade, and friend. Underlying
this commitment is also the realization that we make very specific choices in
how we tell the story, for all books are, to one extent or another, the telling of
a story—with the same characteristics of everyday stories, including what we
focus on and what we do not; what voices are centered and what voices are not;
stories filled with the humanity of our fuzzy memories and contradictions, as

Figure 4.1 Ana Maria Araújo and Paulo Freire, circa 1990s.
152 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

well as our insights and brilliance. With this in mind, this chapter presents an
interview conducted in Brazil with Ana Maria Araújo Freire—or Nita, as she is
known to friends—in May 2016.1 From the following, I hope the reader will glean
insights into Paulo’s lasting influence and relevance, as well as a more intimate
portrayal of the man from Recife, who would spark the imaginations and
revolutionary dreams of educators around the globe for more than fifty years.

Paulo’s background

A/D2: Can you tell us some things that you think were key in Paulo’s background?

Nita: Paulo came to live in Jaboatão at an early age. In Recife, he lived in a big
house, played in the backyard, and went to school, and had few friends. He
lived primarily within the sphere of his family. But when he arrives to Jaboatão,
he comes into conditions of a very poor child, an impoverished boy and he
begins to share experiences with the children of the factory and farm workers,
and to learn about this new reality from them. He also begins to realize how
people, like his grandmother and friends of the family, would call the people
“riffraff ” (essa gentinha). It was said as if to condemn them, as if they were
nothing but trash. In other words, as if the common people were not worth
anything and could be exploited and subjugated. Essa gentinha was then used
disparagingly to refer to the poor, as if they were the lowest level of people,
in every sense. This did not strike Paulo right. So, he would ask, “But why?
They are exactly like me. These boys are just like me. What is the difference?
What is the difference between the factory worker’s son and me in the world?”
He was not able to understand why people said such things. Paulo would tell
me, “I had a sensitive awareness of injustice as a child, but only at the level of
my feeling and sensations; not on a rational level, not at a level of conscious
reflection.” Paulo could not understand the reason for such injustices in the

1
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to my comrade, colleague, and friend, Donaldo Macedo—considered
to be the foremost translator of Paulo Freire’s work—for his most generous assistance with this
interview. This interview would not have been possible without his kindness, patience, and
bountiful spirit of solidarity. Also many thanks to Alexandre Oliveira for his excellent translation of
the recorded interview material.
2
A/D refers to Antonia and Donaldo.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 153

world. So, by the age of twelve, he began to concern himself more seriously
with knowing the reason for such things beings as they are and understanding
social phenomena. This, of knowing the reason for being or why something
is this way and not that, all of this was an important preoccupation for him.

A/D: When did Paulo begin to gain awareness of the circumstances of his life?

Nita: As I said, Paulo grew up in Jaboatão, which was an important hub of

the railway in the Northeast of Brazil. At that time, Brazil had an excellent
railroad system controlled by the English. Their operations center was located
in Jaboatão historic center, near the house where Paulo lived as a teenager.
At the time, this area was actually called “Little Moscow” because there were
many communists and communist leaders living in the district. Through
their organizing efforts, they begin to influence the working classes in the
Northeast. Paulo lived among them as an adolescent and it was in association
with them that Paulo began to reflect more deeply on his concern related to the
differences in how people are treated.
Many of the workers who were considered more intellectually gifted were
sent to the Soviet Union for political and intellectual formation. They would
spend three to four years studying Russian; and after Russian, they would
spend another three to four years studying Marxism. When they finally
returned home, they were a little like fish out of water, completely disassociated
from the Brazilian reality. They did not know how to address the people. When
they held meetings with the workers, meetings would empty out, because they
talked about things that had nothing to do with Brazilian everyday life. This
is where Paulo’s idea of starting from the given reality of the people begins for
him. This is when he experienced this important realization.
Paulo also noticed, “The organizers had great theories that worked well in
Russia, but the people here did not accept them.” It made him wonder, “Are
the people in Brazil less smart? Are our people less prepared? Aren’t we all
prepared to improve our own lives? What is the reason for the disinterest?”
Then, Paulo began to think about conditions related to human submission.
The organizers wanted to bring understanding to the people but under the
guise of saving Brazilian workers. The organizers, in a sense, wanted to be the
saviors of the people. But, that was impossible! The people were not accepting
154 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

the ideas that were being transmitted. So this made Paulo begin to think more
deeply about what people needed and wanted to improve their lives. With
this what I want to say is that the deepest historic roots of Paulo’s intellectual
formation are connected to his constant questioning and realizations gained
living within the northeastern reality in Brazil. It’s here when he begins to
think about the why and how of education and society Where he begins to ask,
“In favor of what or whom? Is it against what or whom?” These became the
fundamental questions of Paulo’s epistemology—which cannot be separated
from the historical context in which he grew-up and lived his life.

Impact of Paulo’s work

A/D: What was the initial impact of Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Brazil?

Nita: Pedagogy of the Oppressed was published in the United States in 1970.
The book was published in English even before it was published in Portuguese.
And why was this? We, in Brazil, were in the heights of a dictatorship, back
in the days of General Emilio Garrastazu Medici and it was impossible for
the book to be published in Brazil. In fact, Paulo’s name could not be spoken
in public spaces, at the time. It was forbidden. If one wrote his name in any
periodical, a newspaper, or magazine, you would have to justify this before the
authorities that often employed torture on the people. So, Paulo’s name was
not mentioned. For that reason, it was first published in the US, even before
Brazil.
Fernando Gasparian from Paz e Terra publishers did have copies of the
original manuscript of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. How did the manuscript
make its way to Brazil? Paulo had met a Swiss congressman at the University
of Geneva. The congressman offered to take the manuscripts to Brazil, since he
knew his luggage would not be opened. He was a foreign government official,
who could enter and leave Brazil without being searched. He brought the
copies and got them to Gasparian. But at that time, Gasparian said there was
no possible way to publish the book in Brazil. At the universities, Paulo’s work
could not be discussed, as it was prohibited. It was forbidden in schools as well,
and it was forbidden in the mainstream media.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 155

Nevertheless, Pedagogy of the Oppressed did manage to find its way to

a restricted audience of readers, and it became possible for the book to be
published in 1974. Before then, however, some people had read copies of the
English edition, and it had also come out in Spanish, Italian, and French. People
did have copies of those editions, which had been smuggled into Brazil and
read by them. After being published in 1974, the book became better circulated
in Brazil. But it still had a restricted number of readers. The first edition in
Portuguese was not the resounding hit it had been in the United States—where
within a few weeks the entire first printing, which was expected to last a year,
was sold out. So there was not that type of success in Brazil; especially because
there was still fear and a very conservative society, as well as one of our cultural
flaws—the tendency not to value what Brazilians accomplish, do, and say.
When Paulo first returned, there was an extremely positive reaction to
his return, all came out to celebrate his return. At that time, Paulo began to
reengage in a certain way, in a different manner than before he was exiled. He
reengaged historically in a different manner with the popular movements. The
grassroots education movement was eliminated by the military regime but the
work was reemerging actively through the church, but no longer with literacy
as the central goal. Nevertheless, there was within it, camouflaged, Paulo’s
idea of conscientization built into its pedagogical practices. Later, however,
some intellectuals become aware of the shallow nature of their own theories.
This is an issue that cannot be missed, even though Paulo seldom spoke of it;
although Darcy Ribeiro3 spoke a great deal about the issue—there was certain
anger on the part of intellectuals related to Paulo’s resounding reputation and
the knowledge that he continued to develop during his years in exile. So, they
began to accuse Paulo of never truly caring about Brazil; that he had enjoyed
“the good life” abroad and now had come back to Brazil, wanting to impose his
views and ideas. Paulo, however, never sought to impose his views. He would
say that he might try to persuade others, but never to impose his ideas upon
others.

3
Darcy Ribeiro is the Brazilian author, anthropologist, and politician, whole ideas of Latin American
identity influenced later scholars of Latin American studies. As Minister of Education of Brazil he
carried out wide reforms, which brought him invitations to participate in university reforms in
Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and Uruguay, after his exile from Brazil after the 1964 coup d’état.
156 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

In the 1980s, there was widespread dissemination of Paulo’s ideas in Brazil,

but where they had the most influence was not in the academic world. Paulo’s
ideas had the most impact among impoverished and oppressed communities,
which were influenced by reading his books. Much of this happened through
the creation of progressive Christian-based communities, which embraced
Paulo’s ideas. Another venue was through movements for popular education
and a new understanding of popular education began to emerge during that
period. Through Paulo’s ideas, a more democratic understanding of popular
education emerged, which was not focused on keeping the impoverished class
in a position of inferiority. Rather, these movements worked for an education
that supported workers to learn more than just how to carry out their craft;
such, that they could gain the power of their own knowledge and also acquire
scientific knowledge that could serve them as individuals and society. That was
the new direction that popular education began to take; unlike the past, where
the education of the workers was solely focused on teaching a trade or craft.
So, with Paulo’s permanent return in 1980, he began to have a great deal
of influence in Brazil. However, Paulo’s return destabilized certain common
beliefs among some notable intellectuals, considered advocates of Paulo’s
ideas in Brazil. When Paulo returned, he had no intention of humiliating
them. He had no pretentions of being more than who he was, in that Paulo
never thought one person is more or better than another; he believed that one
person could simply be different from another. It is this attitude that, I believe,
helped him to make greater contributions with his work. But I do think there
was an atmosphere of envy, to such an extent that some intellectuals actually
set out to put an end to Paulo’s prominence in the field. They accused him of
having spent the tough years of the military regime abroad, away from Brazil
and, now, returning full of glory and privileges, to bask in the spotlight.
It did not matter that Paulo had not chosen to go into exile or that he had
not wanted to leave Brazil. Paulo was forced to leave. He was forced to go into
exile or be killed by the military regime. Paulo was one of the main targets
of the military regime, in that the regime understood the power of his ideas.
The mobilization Paulo was working to bring about among the impoverished
classes was going to change relations of power in Brazil through literacy
education; for in Brazil, in order to vote people had to be literate. They had to
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 157

show they could read and write. The literacy campaign at the time of Paulo’s
exile was working to bring literacy programs to three million Brazilians—this
was the goal for the National Literacy Program of 1964. It only existed briefly,
but there had been much preliminary work done, prior to 1964; extensive
development work with literacy workers had been in progress. The decree
was issued in March, but by April the program had been eliminated. It was
believed that among the three million people who would have been served by
the literacy program, the great majority would have joined with leftist forces
to change the rule of power. That, of course, was the regime’s greatest fear; you
see, and it is the same to this day. The powerful elite did not want to lose their
hierarchy of power. The 2016 coup is the same. The 1964 coup was absolutely
necessary from the standpoint of the right elite, “the heirs to the big house”
where the slaves had not been entitled to literacy. So, a great fear persisted (and
persists) that the impoverished masses could become literate and rebel against
the status quo.
Paulo was very celebrated in the US. His concept of critical pedagogy, of
an education that is not mere reproduction of something memorized, where
one makes students repeat what has already been said. Rather, his pedagogy
encourages the creativity and autonomy of individuals. Critical education is,
above all, about that. It started in the US, but has spread through a large part
of the world. Now, the concern with the term “critical pedagogy” is that it is
very North American, and it is very much the same case in Spain as well. Here
in Brazil, when one mentions Freirean Pedagogy, the idea that it is critical is
understood. There isn’t as much of an emphasis on “criticalness,” as there seems
to be in the US. It is a given here that you cannot have authentic education
that is not critical. You are not educating for repetition and memorization;
we are instead educating ourselves and other men and women for our critical
participation in society.

Intellectual influences

A/D: Who were the intellectuals that influenced Paulo’s ideas in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed?
158 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Nita: First, let me repeat, historically, Paulo’s early experiences of poverty

in the Northeast of Brazil were the greatest influence on the development of
his ideas. It was not the most famous and competent authors who provoked
Paulo to write Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It was the suffering he had lived and
seen; his sensibility to injustice, which he felt with his entire body. It was the
conditions he saw and experienced, in terms of the injustices of northeastern
society that fueled his desire to change the world. That is the historical moment
when he begins to think and say, “Only my ideas, my realization, my Christian
spirit, my seeing in every oppressed person the semblance of Christ, that can
lead me to understand and to find possibilities for changing the conditions
of the oppressed.” That is, then, when he begins to read other famous or not
famous authors from all ideological currents in the world that he had access to.
From there, I would begin with the African authors. African authors like
Amilcar Cabral, who was a leader referred to as a revolutionary pedagogue,
who has a whole body of work about revolution. He starts by looking at the
cultural revolution and writing a whole treatise on how to come to power
through arms, which was the only means for fighting the Portuguese colonizer,
at that point in history. So, I would include Amilcar Cabral, Frantz Fanon,
and Albert Memmi. Paulo was greatly influenced by them because they
dealt with the issue of the colonizer-colonized relationship, before Paulo
did. They presented ideas that benefitted Paulo a great deal in his scientific
comprehension of oppression.
He wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed from the starting point of realizations
he came to in Brazil and later confirmed and further developed in Chile. In
1969, President Eduardo Frei [Montalvo] accused Paulo of having written a
work against the Chilean government, against the Chilean people, and against
the Chilean president. With that indictment, Paulo decided the time had come
for him to leave Chile. Paulo left Chile in 1969 with invitations to various
posts. In fact, the World Council of Churches in Geneva created a department
specifically to invite Paulo, so that he could be brought on board. It was the
Education Department. Paulo went to Harvard and stayed there for nine
months, and then, from there, he went to Geneva.
In addition to the African authors mentioned, I would say, the
existentialists also influenced his perspective. He read Sartre. I have reading
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 159

flashcards that Paulo would write out. There are many on Erich Fromm,
whom he met in Mexico. He was with him in Mexico. Paulo was greatly
influenced by Erich Fromm. The idea of biophilia and necrophilia is very
present in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He brought aspects to his work from
Fromm. He was in the tradition of radical German thought. Then with the
problem of the war, he had to leave Germany. For Paulo, Erich Fromm is one
of the most important intellectuals of that time. With the advent of the war,
Jews and progressive thinkers that did not endorse Nazism had to escape
Germany. Many of them went to the United States, and some went to Mexico.
Erich Fromm went to Mexico, and when he meets Paulo he says, “Paulo,
Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a book I wanted to see, dealing with the issue of
necrophilia and biophilia in educational terms, in educative terms.” Fromm
always acknowledged Paulo’s work.
Phenomenology, I must say, is another strand of thought that influenced
Paulo’s thinking. There is the issue of humanism from Emmanuel Mounier.
Above all from Mounier comes the issue of humanism, the necessity of
treating the other as one wants to be treated. It is the issue that every human
being, every human experience, every living thing must be respected. Paulo
even loved rocks; he had a collection of rocks. Some, then, say he was an
ecologist. No, Paulo was a humanist; and from there comes his attachment to
all beings, above all living beings, and his deep value for life. For Paulo, it is this
comprehension of humanism that supports an ethics of life; when today, ethics
is the ethics of the marketplace—an ethics of that permeates all discourse and
interpretations of society and the world. So, the humanist authors he read
influenced Paulo’s ethics; and always ethics for him was an ethics of life—
where life must prevail over economic interests.
Paulo was both influenced and also had an influence on the development
of liberation theology. Paulo is considered by some to be one of the founders
of liberation theology. In fact, Friar Boff was once speaking about Paulo at
a conference and someone from the audience asked, “Are you saying that
Paulo Freire was a liberation theologist?” Boff responded, “Yes, I am saying
that Paulo Freire is a liberation theologist.” When liberation theology was
first emerging out of the praxis of Gustavo Gutiérrez … he was beginning
to outline the precepts for a liberation theology, following the meeting in
160 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Medellin,4 he sought Paulo out. He wanted Paulo to assist him in systematizing

liberation theology, since Gutiérrez felt that liberation theory had much to do
with the ideas Paulo had put forth in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. So, it can be said,
Paulo was the one who helped to pedagogically systematize liberation theology.
Paulo, of course, acknowledged the influence of the church on his thinking,
but he also critiqued the traditional church, which merely reproduces the fear
of God and intimidates and mistreats, castigates and punishes the people. He
also critiques the modernized church, where preachers can sing and gather
their followers to sing and pray out loud and ritualizes, but does not deal with
the essence of what it means to be in relationship with God. And then, for
Paulo, there was the testimony of the church, where the death of the old makes
way for the resurgence of a new comprehension of God as a magnanimous,
compassionate God; and where people are worthy simply because they exist.
I think this was Paulo’s lucid and clear interpretation about the importance of
the church and of religion in the daily lives of men and women. While that
traditional church said, “You shall suffer, but you shall know the kingdom of the
Lord. If you hunger for bread, you shall meet the Lord in the life after death.”
Paulo said, “No! I want to know God in this world … the people need a God that
is of this world, for them and with them … a Church that fights at their side.”

Epistemological sensibility

A/D: Something apparent about Paulo was his epistemological sensibility. Can
you speak to this aspect of his praxis?

Nita: I would say, perhaps immodest, because Paulo would never say this, but
Paulo was a genius. Paulo had a sensibility that helped him to anticipate facts

4
Here, the meeting that Nita is referring to is the Conference of Latin American Bishops held in
Medellin, Colombia, in 1968. At this conference, the bishops agreed that the church should take
“a preferential option for the poor.” The bishops decided to form Christian “base communities”
to teach the poor how to read by using the Bible. The expressed intent was to liberate the people
from the institutionalized violence of poverty, by informing the people that poverty and hunger
were preventable. They pronounced that the poor were the blessed people and that the church has
a duty to help them. The movement drew on the influence of Paulo, who was regarded as one of the
great literacy teacher of the region. The movement eventually became known as liberation theology
(discussed in Chapter 2).
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 161

and things. He had a profound capacity for guessing what tomorrow might
bring, in the sense of how people thought about issues. And, I believe, that was
due to his radicalness of thought … his radical sensibility in both experiencing
and making sense of the world. He used to say, “I plant my roots so firmly in
the present that I can make use of the past to foresee the future.” That’s why I
think of him always as a wise man. A wise man is in the present, but always
remembers the past to also think about what might be. Paulo had a wisdom
that was above the average person, not only the northeastern or Brazilian
sensibility, but a sensibility of the world. When, he would set out to study, he
used to say, “To me, just what I produce is not sufficient, my intuitions and
realizations. I need to also find the scientific, theoretical substantiation from
other authors.” Paulo was very open-minded in that way.
Paulo’s sensibilities may also be the question of culture. He was Latin
American. The North American academic culture, in comparison, is not much
given to certain sensibilities and to emotions; it does not value emotions in the
act of knowing. Paulo’s sensibility was one where he felt life and experiences
within his body. He was also very compassionate and could put himself in the
other’s shoes. He was able to say, “What is this other man or woman feeling
or experiencing?” It’s about the capacity to put oneself in the other’s place.
That was part of Paulo’s sensibility. A human sensibility that could value and
take into account, as an important category of knowledge production, feelings,
being emotional, experiencing indignation, facing up to it. For Paulo, those
are necessary conditions for sharpening our sensibility and, therefore, our
intellect. If a poor person on the street … for example, like a group of boys
who killed an Indian man, and when asked about it said, “Oh, but he was
just a beggar.” Their actions showed no sensibility toward the man they killed,
toward his condition. In their mind, he was a beggar … a thing.
Even here in Brazil, these days, many people do not want to consider the
question of sensibility with respect to actions in the world that shock them,
that frighten them, that causes them to be perplexed. To Paulo, it made him
perplexed to see people making a living by working day and night, always
barefoot, not even owning shoes. I remember downtown Recife, when people
from the lower classes never wore shoes; they would have to walk around
barefoot. They worked on their bare feet, even in the urban centers. So much
162 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

so that, today, the popular classes are quite fanatical about buying shoes. A
most profitable business in Recife is then shoe stores, which, I believe, comes
from this legacy of not being able to own shoes. They have lots and lots of
shoes, as if to make up for the time when their parents and grandparents went
barefoot. Situations like this caused Paulo to wonder, “Why is it that I need
shoes? I could not go out on the streets, tripping over on things, as my bare
feet are not adept at walking on the ground and over rocks and poorly made
sidewalks. How can they do this without shame or embarrassment?” It was
because they were subjected to conditions of poverty; they had to adapt to it to
survive; in a sense, they were educated since birth not to have shoes. This is an
example of the way class difference deeply touched Paulo’s sensibility. The issue
of hunger, for example, was a major concern for him. Why is it that they have
nothing to eat, and many don’t complain. They are forced to live in conditions
of starvation.
There is a poem by João Cabral de Melo Neto, a great northeastern poet,
which says they die each day. And what do they die of? They die from being
politically and economically ambushed before thirty, and they die of hunger.
These conditions of poverty caused Paulo great pain and puzzlement. This
again was part of his sensibility; the sensibility to recognize the things that
are real in one’s own reality … around a person, without fantasies, without
camouflage, without justifications, “Oh, they are poor, but they revel in
carnival; they are poor, but they have the religious festivals.” In other words,
Paulo did not romanticize poverty and misery. Instead, for Paulo, his sensibility
caused him to notice that, in spite of hunger, in spite of their conditions of
submission and homelessness and no sanitation, no clean water, they could
make music of the best quality, and they could create and participate in
carnival. Not because conditions of poverty did not have an impact on them
or cause them suffering, but because they have an impetus for living that many
in the middle class simply lack, even with their affluence. So, for Paulo, it was
important to realize such things … to be aware of the humanity of the poor.
This was Paulo’s sensibility to others and to the world. But Paulo’s sensibility
did not end there. He did not simply stop and cry over those who suffered.
He set out to find epistemological resonances in philosophers and historians
and sociologists and linguists, people from other sciences, to help him explain
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 163

more profoundly, more scientifically, what his sensibility stirred him to see and
experience in the world.

A/D: Nita, this seems to be an aspect of Paulo’s epistemological or cultural

approach that is seldom grasped. Would you say this is an aspect of Paulo not
well understood?

Nita: Yes! I think it is a dimension that North American people do not

understand. You hit it on the head; it is a question of culture. North Americans
seem culturally quite superficial in this respect, that is, very mechanized, and
to expect them to think at such a deep level of sensibility about what they
experience seems very hard. They are taught to distance themselves from the
world, in order to know it. This is the opposite of what Paulo lived. So, when
students think, “Why should I worry about the poor? I’m not poor. My family is
not poor.” … this reflects an extremely individualistic approach to society and
to life. Such individualism justifies a lack of social sensibility for others. That’s
something Paulo had, as a result of shared experience … through playing soccer,
playing games, singing with others, listening to the radio news, participating
in some way, critiquing the problem of war and violence. Through all those
experiences, Paulo learned how to develop the sensibility of perception. Now,
it is very funny because North Americans can be very courteous. When they
greet you as you visit their homes, they are very welcoming, offering a glass of
water or some wine. But really knowing them … having a sense of how they
experience or feel about the world and how this impacts the way they see the
world is not so easy or apparent, especially in academic places. We, Brazilians
do not tend to be so polite, shall we say [laughter], and don’t usually take the
same care to be courteous … as in saying, “Excuse me” or “I’m sorry,” but we do
place a high value on sensing, more deeply what is happening … it’s almost like
a cultural reflex that effects our way of knowing the world … our epistemology,
which is different than North Americans and Northern Europeans.
I think that part of this difference is due to a sort of positivism, which has
impregnated the North American intellectual context. But, there is also here in
Brazil, intellectuals who say that Paulo’s work has no value because he was too
tied to the issue of sensibility. But Paulo did not stop at the level of sensibility.
His ideas go beyond; in ways that his sensibility fuels his ideas … his intellect.
164 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

While in the United States, it seems that such level of sensibility has become
dormant, in what is a positivist and reductive epistemological approach. So
these human sensibilities are present but they tend to become latent due to
the structure of the way they think. Paulo believed that it is up to teachers to
awaken in their students this human sensibility that we all have; a sensibility that
helps us develop a more profound concern for life … for the “the other,” for the
society, for the country in which we live, for the world. How is it possible that a
young adult, for example, not know about the many forms of North American
exploitation that have been carried out around the world … pillaging wealth
and forbidding the self-determination of other countries … imposing upon
them self-serving rules and regulations. How could this not have an impact on
how a young person is educated? For Paulo, he felt that teacher must work with
students so that they can begin to ask, “How can all this take place around the
world, and still we say we are a democratic country that teaches democracy?”
Another thing about this question of epistemology, Paulo would often
say, “We must never be too sure of our certainty. Our certainties must always
be put in check; we must always question our certainties.” He believed that
questioning is how we evolve and can contribute to social transformation. And
this requires that we not ever be too sure of our certainties. That’s why Paulo
never said he was sure; he would, at best, say, “I am somewhat sure …” It’s a
kind of certain/uncertainty … a way of rejecting the need to be absolutely
certain that something is either right or not. This reflects, again, Paulo’s open-
mindedness that he believed we needed for dialogue and to not reproduce
oppression in schools and in the society.

On class struggle

A/D: Pedagogy of the Oppressed seems to provide an understanding of class

struggle, which is summarily denied in the US. In what ways does this dimension
of the book continue to have relevance?

Nita: Sometimes, in the US, this denial of class struggle makes contending with
problems faced by impoverished people more difficult than even in Brazil. It’s
as if many people in the US don’t want to see that class struggle is everywhere.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 165

Here, in Brazil, a large segment of the population sees the problem of class;
but in the US you cannot readily find people dealing with class struggle … I
mean, you do find individuals here and there who think about and challenge
this problem, but the collective population, for the most part, seems oblivious
and too certain that class is not the problem. Here, in Brazil, with very, very
rare exceptions, recognizing class struggle … recognizing that there exist class
divisions, antagonism is expected in academic thesis and dissertation work.
However, as Paulo would say, “The dominant class truly hates the poor. It’s as if
the poor were to blame for their poverty.” Instead, he said social and material
domination is to blame for human oppression in Brazil, North America, and
other places in the world.

A/D: What did Paulo think about neoliberalism, relative to what is happening in
education now in Brazil?

Nita: In Under the Shade of the Mango Tree [published in the United States as
Pedagogy of Hope], a most beautiful book, Paulo precisely makes a condemnation
of neoliberalism. He links capitalism to the history of human oppression
and refers to neoliberalism as how it exists today. For Paulo, neoliberalism
decrees the death of history. It decrees the end of class struggle. That we are all
supposedly equals and can move around the world with no borders. However,
current conditions are the exact opposite! In fact, class struggle has hardened;
the concentration of wealth has increased in all countries of the world, and
poverty continues to grow. The impoverished are still more illiterate; illiteracy
has grown in some parts of the world; hunger is increasing around the world;
unemployment is growing around the world; and all that is taking place as a
result of neoliberalism. Paulo used to say that neoliberalism is the antithesis
of any possibility for an egalitarian society. Neoliberalism, with its false face as
bringer of benefits, in fact brings social and material poverty to the world; so,
in many ways, the world is becoming more miserably poor.
In Pedagogy of Hope, Paulo deals above all with the manner in which
neoliberalism leaves no other way out than the poverty of many; that such is
the world and that we must cut jobs for the benefit of the economy, even if it
leaves so many in poverty. Paulo would say, “That is so only when it results
in gain for the dominant classes.” There is a discourse of the inevitability of
166 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

neoliberalism. But from the standpoint of the rights of workers and the rights
of the oppressed, none of that is inevitable. The message of neoliberalism is that
“Things cannot change and must indeed be as they are.” This implies a double
standard that in all circumstances favors the powerful and wealthy. There is
no chance for a fairer society with the canvas of neoliberalism, which is what
imperialist countries impose on us—the formerly termed “Third World” now
called “developing countries.”
Brazil is among these nations, so-called in process of becoming developed.
Yet, Brazil was until recently the eighth economy in the world. However, it will
likely suffer a setback—a lowering of its economic standing in the world—not
as a result of our incompetence, but as a preordained consequence of adopting
the neoliberal model. The neoliberal discourse camouflages reality; it deceives
and seems quite plausible and fair to the unwary. They have hope in what
the government we have now, which is becoming more intently neoliberal or
something worse, imposing an unfair political economy in the people of Brazil.
This is a government geared toward the external economic interests that now
dominate the world. I believe we can term it a neoliberal government, which it
seems to be; although it presents itself as democratic one, while it closes down
democratic possibilities for the participation by the people in the decision-
making and management of domestic policy.
This democratic participation by the people is what horrifies the dominant
classes in Brazil—a certain autonomy that was being created for policy decision-
making by the subordinate classes. This phenomenon stirred the arrogant
dominant class into frenzy. Paulo used to often wonder when we would put
an end to such injustice in the world. Today, reactionary conservatives find
new pretexts to attack progressive state officials. They are trying to find so-
called crimes committed by the president [Dilma Rouseff],5 while the greatest,
fairest jurists in Brazil say they have found no responsibility for any crimes
on her part. Even so, they have caused the Congress, as it is compromised
5
Dilma Rouseff, a progressive Brazilian economist, was president from 2011 until her impeachment,
where she was found guilty of breaking budget laws and was removed from office in August 2016,
three months after this interview was conducted. As a socialist activist during the dictatorship,
Rouseff was captured, tortured, and jailed from 1970 to 1972. However, some of her political stances
(i.e., anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, neoliberal initiatives) were considered rather contradictory
to her constituency, which may have been one of the reason that conservative groups in Brazil found
space and opportunity to launch an assault on her presidency.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 167

by neoliberalism, and by their utmost shamelessness, as Paulo called it, to go

along, against the popular classes and against a government [Rouseff ’s] that
proposed and carried out important national initiatives for the benefit of the
country’s dispossessed population. I want to believe that, possibly, the days
of neoliberalism are numbered, given the greedy manner that capitalists have
moved toward the appropriation of such great wealth by a very few. It seems
only a matter of time when neoliberalism will no longer be able to sustain its
grip on the world. The danger is that this may usher in a new more authoritarian
form of imperialist capitalism capable of massacring the world’s population, of
violating the human rights of the majority of the world’s population.
If we see what has happened over the last thirty years, I would say Paulo was
not mistaken to put a great emphasis on class struggle. It is also important to
understand that, although many in North America read him, Paulo did not write
for Americans. Paulo wrote about the conditions and phenomenon of human
oppression, of people oppressed in all sorts of manner—sexism, racism, religion
discrimination, sexuality—but above all for Paulo was the issue of class struggle,
which he believed affected every other form of oppression. Class struggle is being
waged all over the world and encompasses the struggle of women—this morbid
and perverse antagonism of men against women. Men who batter and kill
women with ease and impunity … in Brazil it continues to be so. However, the
question of class struggle is at work in every form of oppression. This Brazilian
coup of 2016 [against Rouseff] must be understood as a class coup, where other
issues were effectively used to camouflage this. It is the upper class, the class that
enriches itself from the assets of the state and is allowed to do so, with impunity.
Now, if a member of the popular classes were to steal a can of sardines, and that
is a fact, they will go to jail! A judge recently convicted a man for stealing a can
of sardines! But those who rob the people of their rights to a decent livelihood,
their dignity, and at times their lives are allowed free reign.

Paulo’s enduring legacy

A/D: Paulo died almost twenty years ago; what has remained? What is his
legacy?
168 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Nita: The Christian-based communities continue to be vigorously at work

today, always seeking out Paulo’s praxis as example for their work with the
people. In communities focused on health, there is great emphasis placed on the
preparation of health educators, who are taking Paulo’s words and approach to
education and life to the poor, to the popular classes to teach and support the
conscientization of mothers, in the most basic aspects of their lives, in the care
and education of their children; teaching them how to heal them, with prayer,
if they like, but always also through care that is scientific. For example, when
treating children with stomach ailments, in the old days, a mother seeing her
child going through bouts of diarrhea would stop giving the child water. They
thought the child had excess water because they were putting out so much
water. In fact, there is a simple formula for rehydrating that combines water
with sugar and salt. It is something very simple that anyone can have access to.
It came from the work of Zilda Arns, sister of Cardinal Dom Paulo Evaristo
Arns [of São Paulo], who put into practice Paulo’s ideas in the area of health
education with the poor and working classes. That is, we should always start
from the concrete realities of communities, from the concrete conditions of
their lives. One should not begin by talking about high cost treatments, which
cannot be accessed by impoverished populations, or may not be accessed in
time. In some instances, a child can die in two days, if there is no intervention.
Starting from what resources are available to them has been the secret. I say
this way to thinking about health education in the poor communities of Brazil
are an example of how Paulo’s pedagogical legacy persists.
Paulo’s legacy also continues to have great influence, today, among popular
movements, in the Landless Workers Movement (MST).6 At all their schools,
the teachers, generally women, read Paulo’s books. I have cleared it with

6
Nita is speaking here of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST): a mass social
movement, formed by rural workers and those who want to fight for land reform and against
injustice and social inequality in rural areas. The MST was born through a process of occupying
latifundios (large landed estates), becoming a national movement in 1984. The movement has led
more than 2,500 land occupations, with about 370,000 families—families that today settled on 7.5
million hectares of land that they won as a result of the occupations. Through their organizing, these
families continue to push for schools, credit for agricultural production and cooperatives, and access
to health care. Currently, there are approximately 900 encampment holding 150,000 landless families
in Brazil. Those camped, as well as those already settled, remain mobilized, ready to exercise their
full citizenship, by fighting for the realization of their political, social economic, environmental and
cultural rights. See: Friends of the MST website for more information: http://www.mstbrazil.org/.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 169

the publisher to give them permission to publish Paulo’s writings, but with
introductions written by them, as a way of providing the theoretical base for
their pedagogical practice among the people. Therefore, this movement, MST
as we call it, has all its political educational practice based on Paulo’s work.
They often honor Paulo; I am often invited. They have debates about the work.
I mean he is a name that is not forgotten, in any way. João Pedro Stédile, who is
the head of the movement, exercises an effective form of democratic leadership.
He is a man who came from the impoverished classes of Rio Grande do Sul,
and he is a most capable economist, as well. He is a very intelligent man, and
a very good man. He sustains that movement, by maintaining its status as a
large organization capable of facing the great inequities that exist in Brazil, the
wide gaps in having, knowing, and being able to do. They are always geared to
mobilize … the media calls their actions invasions but Paulo used to say that
it is not invasions. What they are doing is occupying lands that have been kept
unproductive till now.
These days, I see that the reach of Paulo’s work is widening to include spaces
we would never have imagined. One of Paulo’s books was translated last year
in Israel, into the Hebrew language. I think this is an important and positive
fact. With all the difficulties in the region, it is good to know there are people
in Israel who care about building a spirit of tolerance. Also, Paulo’s books are
being read in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and India. Educators
in these countries are embracing Paulo’s ideas. Yes, sometimes only in small
areas, but there are groups, even if small ones, that are working to combat the
status quo in those national states and they are looking toward Paulo’s insights
as a starting point for their work in communities, in combination with their
own intellectuals. It is good to see that in those countries where citizens still
experience repression, there remains an interest in liberation, an interest
in social transformation. Brazil in 1997 after Paulo’s death, for example,
coincided with a very turbulent political period in Brazil. During that time,
there was greater demand for Paulo’s books. In difficult years, like then and
in this period now, from 2012 to now, Paulo’ books are again being read more
widely in Brazil. And, of course, his books continue to sell around the world.
About Paulo’s legacy, what I can say is that there is just one Paulo. The one
who started out with Education as Practice for Freedom, and already he was
170 The Student Guide to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed

asking, “Whose freedom?” Even if not named, it was that of the oppressed.
But, above all, starting from the publishing of Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
Paulo’s work is one and the same; it has been consistent in its commitment to
the poor; commitment to social transformation … this remained with Paulo
to the day of his death. I was able to live that with him with great intensity.
Some say I am too in love with him. Yes, I am very much in love with him,
but all that subjective passion never got in the way of my objective analysis of
Paulo’s stance before the world, of what Paulo wrote, and what Paulo practiced.
I do not look upon Paulo with benevolent eyes, so as to establish that he was a
great man. I indeed knew I had a great man by my side!
It is a great pleasure and honor to have been able to participate in life with
Paulo, but I would like readers to see Paulo as a man able to bring light to the
darkest and most hidden recesses of human degradation. Paulo’s ideas are
able to illuminate us, so that we can see the nefarious impact of domination.
It is important to see how Paulo thought about and dealt with difficult societal
problems, without rancor, without hate, and without meanness. No one can
truthfully accuse Paulo of being of bad temperament, of being envious, or of not
being a serious intellectual or revolutionary. He lived his politics. He denounced
oppression with a great spirit and announced justice with great hope for
transformation and change. I would like readers to find this in his writings and
to experience, even if only a little, Paulo’s enormous capacity for feeling and
experiencing the world, which led him to reflection deeply about liberation.
Paulo used to say, “I don’t think with my head; I think with my whole body.”
I think that is what was so fantastic about him! He would say, “I think with my
desires, with my frustrations, with my emotions, with my virtues. I think with
everything that fits into my body. It is my conscious body that tells me to focus
my reflection upon this or that.” Again, I think that is fantastic! He would say,

I don’t think with my head. I think with my whole body. How do I think
with my whole body? When my hairs go up, it is my body telling me there is
something I should look at, to reflect upon. When my heartbeat accelerates
to tachycardia, it is because some phenomenon is calling to me, to my
attention, but doing so through my body and not only my head. My body is
conscious. My whole body, my sensibility, comes before my head. It precedes
my ability to engage in reflection. It comes before.
 An Interview with Ana Maria Araújo Freire 171

This is why Paulo would say that his intuition never left him on the road.
About this, Paulo would say,

Intuition leads me to experience those symptoms. When I look at something

or someone many times, it is because something is being said to me and my
body has picked up on it. Once my body realizes that, then, I can tell myself
to focus and reflect upon that which is bothering or provoking me, that
which is disquieting me. When I get restless, I have to focus my thinking,
my reason, never disconnected from my emotions and my feelings.

In so many ways, this embodiment of Paulo is so important to understand

him as an intellectual, revolutionary, and a man of the people. One of Paulo’s
greatest legacies is that he was not afraid to feel, experience, and know life with
all of his being. It was also this that he brought to his writing, at every stage of
his life. My hope is that readers will discover Paulo, the living, loving, and also
indignant man, through his words.
 Bibliography

Abreu, A. A. (1975), Nationalisme et action politique au Brésil: une étude sur l’ISEB.
Tese (Doutorado). Paris, France: Universidade de Paris.
Adorno T. (1973a), Prisms. London: Neville Spearman.
Adorno, T. W. (1973b), Negative Dialectics. New York: Continuum.
Adorno, T. W. (1991), The Culture Industry. London, UK: Routledge.
Allen Jr., J. L. (2012), “Remembering the Women of Vatican II,” National Catholic
Reporter. See: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/remembering-women-
vatican-ii
Allensandrini, A. C. (2014), Frantz Fanon and the Future of Cultural Politics. London,
UK: Lexington Books.
Althusser, L. (1967), Pour Marx. Le Landreau, France: Editions François Maspero.
Althusser, L. (1969), For Marx. New York: Penguin Press.
Althusser, L. (2001), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Trans. Ben Brewster.
New York: Monthly Review.
Almeida, C. Mendes de (1966), Momentos dos Vivos: A Esquerda Católica no Brasil.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Tempo Brasilero.
Alvarado, Arias M. (2007), “José Martí y Paulo Freire: aproximaciones para una
lectura de la pedagogía crítica,” Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa,
9(1): 1–19. See: https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/157
Anzaldúa, G. (1989), Borderlands: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute.
Arrupe, P., S. J. (1973), “Men for Others,” In C. E. Meirose, SJ (Compiler) (1994),
Foundations, 1–40. Washington, DC: Jesuit Secondary Education Association.
Austin, R. (2003), The State, Literacy, and Popular Education in Chile, 1964–1990.
London, UK: Lexington Books.
Bakan, M. (1983), “Karel Kosik’s Phenomenological Heritage,” In W. L. McBride and
C. O. Schrag (eds.), Phenomenology in a Pluralistic Context, 9. New York: SUNY
Press.
Balut, J. M. (1993), The Colonizer’s Model of the World. New York/London: The
Guilford Press.
Beauvoir, S. de (1955), Le Pensée de Droite, Aujourd’hui. Paris: Gallimard.
Benade, L. (2015), “Bits, Bytes, and Dinosaurs: Using Levinas and Freire to Address
the Concept of ‘Twenty-first Century Learning’,” Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 47(9): 935–948.
 Bibliography 173

Bergson, H. (1911), Creative Evolutio. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Bhattacharya, A. (2011), Paulo Freire: Rousseau of the Twentieth Century. Berlin,
Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Boff, L. (2011), “The Influence of Freire on Scholars: A Select List,” In J. Kirylo (eds.),
Paulo Freire: The Man from Recife, 235–269. New York: Peter Lang.
Brady, J. (1994), “Critical Literacy, Feminism, and a Politics of Representation,” In
P. McLaren and C. Lankshear (eds.), Politics of Liberation, 142–152. New York:
Routledge.
Bruneau, T. C. (1974), Catolicismo Brasilero em época de transição. São Paulo: Loyola.
Buber, M. (1958), I and Thou. New York: Free Press.
Burston, D. (1985), The Legacy of Erich Fromm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Cammarota, J. and A. Romero (2014), Raza Studies: The Public Option for Educational
Revolution. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Cassirer, T. and M. Twomey (1973), “Introduction to A. Memmi’s The Impossible Life
of Frantz Fanon,” The Massachusetts Review, 14(1): 9–39.
Cesaire, A. (1955), Discours sur le colonialism. Paris: Présence Africaine.
Cherki, A. (2006), Frantz Fanon: A Portrait. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press.
Chubbuck, S. (2007), “Socially Just Teaching and the Complementarity of Ignatian
Pedagogy and Critical Pedagogy,” Christian Higher Education, 6(3): 239–265.
Chubbuck, S. M. and R. Lorentz (2006), “Critical Pedagogy and Ignatian Pedagogy:
Piecing Together the Why, the What, and the How of Teaching for Social Justice,”
Paper presented at Commitment to Justice Conference, Marquette University.
Clare, R. (2006), “Paulo Freire,” La Mirada, CA: Talbot School of Theology, Biola
University. See: http://www.talbot.edu/ce20/educators/catholic/paulo_freire/
Cortesão, L. (2011), “Paulo Freire and Amilcar Cabral: Convergences”, Journal for
Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(2): 260–296.
Cross W. E. (1978), “The Thomas and Cross Models on Psychological Nigrescence: A
Literature Review.” Journal of Black Psychology 4: pp. 13-31.
Darder, A. (2012), Culture and Power in the Classroom. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Darder, A. (2015), Freire and Education. New York: Routledge.
Darder, A., R. D. Torres, and M. P. Baltodano (2017), Critical Pedagogy Reader (3rd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Davidson, M. (2012), “Albert Memmi and Audre Lorde: Gender, Race, and the
Rhetorical Uses of Anger,” Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy—Revue
de la philosophie française et de langue française, 20(1): 87–100.
deAnda D. (1984), “Bicultural Socialization: Factors Affecting the Minority
Experience.” Social Work 2: pp. 101-07.
174 Bibliography

Debray, R. (1967), Revolution in the Revolution?: Armed Struggle and Political Struggle
in Latin America. New York: Penguin Books.
Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
Dixon V., and Foster B. (1971), Beyond Black or White. Boston: Little Brown.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903), Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
Dufrenne, M. (1953), Phénoménologie de l’expérience esthétique. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Dufrenne, M. (1968), Pour L’Homme. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.
Dussel, E. (2013), Ethics of Liberation: In the Age of Globalization and Exclusion.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Elias, J. L. (1994), Paulo Freire: Pedagogue of Liberation. Malabar, FL: Kreiger
Publishing Company.
Elie, P. (2007), “A Man for all Reasons,” The Atlantic, (November). Retrieved
from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-man-for-all-
reasons/306337/
Facundo, B. (1984), “Freire-inspired Programs in the United States and Puerto Rico”.
Retrieved from: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Facundo/Facundo.
html
Fanon, F. (1952), Peau Noire Masques Blancs. Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.
Fanon, F. (1963), Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, F. (1965), A Dying Colonialism. New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, F. (1967), Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.
Felluga, D.F. (2015), Critical Theory: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Finlayson, L. (2016), An Introduction to Feminism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Fonseca, M. (2016), Gramsci’s Critique of Civil Society. New York: Routledge.
Forester, J. (1987), Critical Theory and Public Life. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Foy, R. (1971), “Review of Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Educational Studies
(October).
Freire, A. M. A. and D. Macedo (eds.) (1998), The Paulo Freire Reader. New York:
Continuum.
Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Freire, P. (1970b), Pedagogia do Oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Edicões Paz e Terra.
Freire, P. (1978), “A Alfabetização de adultos: é ela um quefazer neutro?,” Educação
and Sociedade (Campinas, Brazil), 1(1): 64–70.
Freire, P. (1985), “Caminhos de Paulo Freire. Entrevisita a J. Chasin et al.,” Ensaio:
revista da UFPb (João Pessoa, Brazil), (14).
Freire, P. (1991), Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum.
 Bibliography 175

Freire, P. (1994), Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Freire, P. (1996), Letters to Christina: Reflections on My Life and Work. New York:
Routledge.
Freire, P. (1997), Pedagogy of the Heart. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1998), Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Freire, P., and S. Guimarães (1987), Aprendendo com a própria história. Rio de
Janeiro: Editora Paz e Terra.
Freire, P. and D. Macedo (1987), Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Freud, S. (1949), The Ego and the Id. London, UK: The Hogarth Press Ltd.
Freud, S. (2002), Civilization and Its Discontent. London, UK: Penguin.
Freud, S. (2010), The Ego and the Id. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Freyer, H. (1958), Teoria de la Epoca Actual. Mexico: Fondo de Cultural Economica.
Friedman, L. J. and A. Schreiber (2014), The Lives of Erich Fromm: Love’s Prophet.
Cambridge, MA: Colombia University Press.
Fromm, E. (1941), Escape from Freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Fromm, E. (1955), The Sane Society. New York: Routledge.
Fromm, E. (1956), The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and Row.
Fromm, E. (1964), The Heart of Man. New York: Harper and Row.
Fromm, E. (1966), The Heart of Man. New York: Harper and Row.
Fromm, E. (1973), The Anatomy of Destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Furter, P. (1966), Eduçacão e Vida. Rio de Janeiro: Voces.
Gadotti, M. (1994), Reading Paulo Freire: His Life and Work. New York: SUNY Press.
Garcia, J. and M. Vargas (2013), “Latin American Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/latin-american-
philosophy/
Gerhardt, H. (1993), “Paulo Freire (1921–97),” Prospects: the quarterly review of
comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education),
XXIII (3/4): 439–58.
Gibson, R. (1994), “The Promethean Literacy: Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of Reading,
Praxis, and Liberation,” Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved
from: https://lbsu300s12.wikispaces.com/file/view/Paulo+Freire+(2).pdf
Giroux, H. (1981), Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Giroux, H. (1983), Theory and Resistance in Education. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
176 Bibliography

Gitlin, T. (1994), “Prime Time Ideology: The Hegemonic Process in Television

Entertainment,” In H. Newcomb (ed.) (1994), Television: The Critical View—Fifth
Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldmann, L. (1968), “Is There a Marxist Sociology?,” International Socialism, See:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no034/goldmann.htm
Goldmann, L. (1969), The Human Sciences and Philosophy. London, UK: Jonathon
Cape.
Gomez, M. V. (2009), “Emmanual Levinas and Paulo Freire: The Ethics of
Responsibility for the Face-to-Face Interaction in the Virtual World,” International
Journal of Instruction, 2(1): 27–58.
Gorner, P. (2007), Heidegger’s Being and Time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New
York: International Publishers.
Grollios, G. (2015), Paulo Freire and the Curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Guevara, E. (1969), Venceremos—The Speeches and Writings of Che Guevara, in J.
Gerassi (ed.), New York: Ocean Press.
Gunter, P. (1995), “Bergson’s Philosophy of Education,” Educational Theory, 65(3):
379–394.
Gutiérrez, G. (1973), A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Habermas, J. (1987), The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. F. G. Lawrence.
Cambridge: Polity.
Harnett SJ, D. F. (2009), Transformative Education in the Jesuit Tradition. Chicago, IL:
Loyola University, Chicago.
Hedges, C. (2017), “Antonio Gramsci and the Battle Against Fascism,” Truthout. See:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/antonio_gramsci_and_the_battle_against_
fascism_20170604
Heidegger, M. (1962), Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row.
Held, D. (1980), Introduction to Critical Theory. London: Heinemann.
Heywood, A. (1994), Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction. London:
Macmillan.
Holst, J. (2006), “Paulo Freire in Chile, 1964–1969,” Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Its
Sociopolitical Economic Context, Harvard Educational Review, 76 (2): 243–270.
Horkheimer, M. (1972), Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Herder and Herder.
Hsu F. (1971), The Challenge of the American Dream: The Chinese in the United States.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Husserl, E. (1954), The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental
Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
 Bibliography 177

Husserl, E. (2012), Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. New York:

Routledge.
Illich, I. (1971), Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row.
International Commission on the Apostolate of Jesuit Education (1993), “Ignatian
pedagogy: A practical Approach,” In C. E. Meirose, SJ (Compiler), (1994).
Foundations, 237–269. Washington, DC: Jesuit Secondary Education Association.
Irwin, J. (2012), Paulo Freire's Philosophy of Education. New York: Continuum.
Jadallah, D. (2012), “The Shibboleths within Albert Memmi’s Universalism,” Jadaliyya
(October 8). http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2829/the-shibboleths-within-
albert-memmis-universalism
Jaspers, K. (1953), The Origin and Goal of History, in M. Bullock, Michael (Tr.) (1st
English ed.). London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Jaspers, K. (1954), The Way of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Jaspers, K. (2010), Man in the Modern Age. New York: Routledge.
Jay, M. (1973), The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the
Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Jeria, J. (1986), “Vagabond of the Obvious: A Bibliography of Paulo Freire,” Vitae
Scholastica, 5(1): 1–126.
Jessup, B. and S. Ngai-Ling (2001), “Pre-disciplinary and Post-Disciplinary
Perspectives,” New Political Economy, 6(1): 80–101.
Joldersma, C. M. (2001), “The Tension between Justice and Freedom in Paulo Freire’s
Faith-Full Pedagogy,” Journal of Educational Thought, 35(2): 129–148.
Kahn, R. (2010), Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, and Planetary Crisis. New York: Peter
Lang.
Kahn, R. and G. F. Kellner (2007), “Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: Technology, Politics
and the Reconstruction of Education,” Policy Futures in Education, 5(4). Retrieved
from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.4.431
Kain, P. J. (2005), Hegel and the Other: A Study of the Phenomenology of Spirit. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Katsiaficas, G. (2011), “Eros and Revolution,” Paper delivered for the Critical Refusals
Conference of the International Herbert Marcuse Society, Philadelphia. See:
http://www.eroseffect.com/articles/ErosandRevolution.htm
Kierkegaard, S. (1949), The Present Age and Two Minor Ethico-Religious Treatises.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (2000), The Essential Kierkegaard, in H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong
(eds.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
178 Bibliography

Kimmerle, H. (2014), “Hegel’s Eurocentric Concept of Philosophy,” Confluence, 1:

99–117. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/
confluence/article/view/524
Kirylo, J. D. (2011), Paulo Freire: The Man from Recife. New York: Peter Lang.
Kirylo, J. D. and D. Boyd (2017), Paulo Freire: His Faith, Spirituality, and Theology.
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kitano H. (1969), Japanese-Americans: The Evolution of a Subculture. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kosik, K. (1967), Dialética de lo Concreto. Mexico: Editorial Crijalbo.
Kosik, K. (1974), Dialectics of the Concrete. Holland/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Lacan, J. (1977), Écrits: A Selection. New York: Norton.
Larraín, J. (2000), Identity and Modernity in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Polity;
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lawlor, L. and V. M. Leonard (2016), “Henri Bergson,” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/
Leach, T. (1982), “Paulo Freire,” International Journal of Lifelong Education, 1(3):
182–201.
Lernoux, P. (1980), Cry of the people: The Struggle for Human Rights in Latin America.
New York: Penguin Books.
Lévinas, E. (1979), Totality and Infinity. London, UK: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Libano, J. B., trans. by F. McDonagh (2017), “St. Ignatius and Liberation.” Retrieved
from: www.theway.org.uk/Back/s070Libanio.pdf
Lieberman, L. (2007), “Albert Memmi’s About-Face,” Michigan Quarterly Review, 46 (3).
Lukács, G. (1967), Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat. London, UK:
Merlin Press.
Lukács, G. (1972), History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luxembourg, R. (1905), “The Political Leader of the German Working Classes:
Collected Works 2.” See: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rosa_
Luxemburg
Luxembourg, R. (1906), Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions. See:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/
Luxembourg, R. (2006), Reform or Revolution and Other Writings. Mineola, NY:
Dover Publications.
Luxembourg, R. (2007), The Essential Rosa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution and The
Mass Strike, in H. Scott (ed.). Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Mackie, R. (1981), Literacy and Revolution: The Pedagogy of Paulo Freire. New York:
Continuum.
 Bibliography 179

Madero SJ, C. (2015), “Theological Dynamics of Paulo Freire’s Educational Theory:

An Essay to Assist the Work of Catholic Educators,” International Studies in
Catholic Education, 7(2): 122–133.
Mainwaring, S. (1987), “Grassroots Catholic Groups and Politics in Brazil, 1964–
1985,” Working Paper #98. Kellogg Institute, Retrieved from: https://www3.
nd.edu/~kellogg/publications/workingpapers/WPS/098.pdf
Mandel, M. S. (2014), Muslim and Jews in France: History of Conflict. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Mannheim, K. (1952), “The Problem of Generations,” In P. Keeskemeti (ed.), Karl
Mannheim; Essays. New York: Routledge.
Marcel, G. (1949), The Philosophy of Existence. New York: Philosophical Library.
Marcuse, H. (1955), Eros and Civilization. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, H. (1964), One Dimensional Man. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Mariategui, J. C. (1971), Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. Austin, TX:
University Texas Press.
Marti, O. (2009), “Early Critics of Positivism,” In S. Muccetelli, O. Schutte, and O.
Bueno (eds.), A Companion to Latin American Philosophy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Martínez Gómez, G. I. (2015), “La filosofía de la educación de Paulo Freire,” Revista
Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social (RIEJS), 4(1): 55–70.
Marx, K. (1844), “Estranged Labour,” Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844. See: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/
labour.htm
Marx, K. (1866), “The First Congress of the International in Geneva.” See: https://www.
marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm
Marx, K. (1871), “Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political
Action,” International Workingmen’s Association. See: https://www.marxists.org/
archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm
Marx, K. (1933), Karl Marx: Selected Works, Vol. I. New York: International
Publishers.
Marx, K. (1990), Capital: Volume I. New York: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1998), Communist Manifesto. London, UK: Merlin Press.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1848), “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Retrieved from:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1972), The German Ideology. New York: International
Publishers.
180 Bibliography

Marx, K. and F. Engels (1996), Collected Works: Capital, vol. 1. New York:
International Publishers.
Mayo, P. (2010), Gramsci and Educational Thought. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McLaren, P. (1989), Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy and the
Foundations of Education. New York: Longman.
McLaren, P. (2002), “A Legacy of Hope and Struggle: Afterword,” In A. Darder (ed.),
Reinventing Paulo Freire: A Pedagogy of Love. Boulder, CO: Westview.
McLaren, P. and P. Leonard (1993), Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter. New York:
Routledge.
McLennan, G. (1989), Marxism, Pluralism and Beyond: Classic Debates and New
Departures. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Memmi, A. (1957), The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Memmi, A. (1973), “The Impossible Life of Frantz Fanon,” The Massachusetts Review,
14(1): 9–39.
Memmi, A. (2006), Decolonization and the Decolonized. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Mignolo, W. (2000), “Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation: Ethics and the Geopolitics of
Knowledge,” In L. M. Alcoff and E. Mendieta (eds.), Thinking from the Underside
of History, 27–50. Lannham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Mignolo, W. D. (2007), “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of
Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality,” Cultural Studies, 21(2): 449–514.
Moine, A. (1965), Cristianos y Marxista despues del Concilio. Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Arandu.
Morrow, R.A. and C.A. Torres (2002), Reading Freire and Habermas: Critical
Pedagogy and Transformative Social Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mounier, E. (1970), O Personalismo. Lisboa: Moraes.
Mullarkey, J. C. (1995), “Bergson’s Method of Multiplicity,” Metaphilosophy, 28(3):
230–259.
Mussett, S. M. and W. S. Wilkerson (2012), Beauvoir and Western Thought from Plato
to Butler. New York: SUNY Press.
Nicolaï, A. (1960), Comportment Économique et Structures Sociales. Paris: Presses
Universitaire France.
Niebuhr, R. (1960), Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics.
New York: Scribner.
Nowacek, R. S. and S. M. Mountin (2012), “Reflections in Action: A Signature
Ignatian Pedagogy for the 21st Century,” In N. L. Chick, et al. (eds.), Exploring
More Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of the Mind,
129–142. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
 Bibliography 181

Ohliger, J. (1995), Critical Views of Paulo Freire’s Work. Madison, WI: Basic Choices.
Oliveira, P. A. Ribeiro (2007), “‘Libertação’: idéia-força da ‘Esquerda Católica,’” In L.
A. Gpmez de Souza (org.), Relativismo e transcendência, 31–45. Rio de Janeiro:
EDUSC.
Orbe, M. P. (2009), “Phenomenology,” In S. Littlejohn, and K. Foss (eds.),
Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, 749–751. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Paiva, V. P. (1979), “Sobre a Influência de Mannheim na Pedagogia de P. Freire,”
Síntese Politica Econômica Social (SPES), 14: 43–64. Retrieved from: http://acervo.
paulofreire.org:8080/xmlui/handle/7891/1612
Paiva, V. P. (1980), “Estado, Sociedade e Educação no Brasil,” Encontros com a
Civilização Brasileira, No. 22 (abril).
Paraskeva, J. (2011), Conflicts in Curriculum Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Patzi-Paco, Felix (2004), Sistema Comunal. Una Propuesta Alternativa al Sistema
Liberal. La Paz, Bolivia: Comunidad de Estudios Alternativos.
Paul, R. (1993), Critical Thinking (3rd ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical
Thinking.
Peterson, C. F. (2007), Dubois, Fanon, Cabral: The Margins of Elite Anti-colonial
Leadership. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Petrović, G. (1964), “Why Praxis?,” In Praxis. Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.
org/subject/praxis/issue-01/why-praxis.htm
Petruzzi, A. P. (1998), “Between Conventions and Critical Thinking: The Concept
of ‘Limit-Situations’ in Critical Literacy and Pedagogy,” JAC: Journal of Rhetoric,
Culture, and Politics, 18(2): 309–332.
Petruzzi, A. P. (2001), “Kairotic Rhetoric in Freire’s Liberatory Pedagogy,” JAC:
Journal of Rhetoric, Culture, and Politics, 21(2): 350–381.
Pinto, A. V. (1960), Consciencia e Realidade Nacional. Rio de Janeiro: MEC/ISEB.
Planas, R. (2014), “Why ‘Book Ban’ is the Right Term for What Arizona did to
Mexican American Studies,” Huntington Post (September 26). Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/arizona-book-ban_n_5887926.html
Postone, M. (1996), Time, Labor, and Social Domination. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Prado, J. C. (1969), The Colonial Background of Modern Brazil. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Quijano, A. (2000), “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,”
Napantla: Views from the South, 1(3): 533–580. Retrieved from http://iss.sagepub.
com/content/15/2/215.short?rss=1andssource=mfr
182 Bibliography

Ramirez M., and Castañeda A. (1974), Cultural Democracy: Bicognitive Development

and Education. New York: Academic Press.
Rashid H. (1981), “Early Childhood Education as a Cultural Transition for African-
American Children.” Educational Research Quarterly 6: pp. 55-63.
Red J. Horse, et al. (1981), “Family Behavior of Urban American Indians.” In R. Dana,
ed., Human Services for Cultural Minorities. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Reynolds, W. (2013), “Liberation Theology and Paulo Freire: On the Side of the Poor,”
In R. Lake and T. Kress (eds.), Paulo Freire’s Intellectual Roots, 127–144. New York:
Bloomsbury.
Roberts, P. (2000), Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the Work of
Paulo Freire. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Roberts, P. (2003), “Knowledge, Dialogue and Humanization: Exploring Freire’s
Philosophy,” In M. Peters, C. Lankshear and M. Olssen (eds.), Critical Theory and
the Human Condition: Founders and Praxis, 168–183. New York: Peter Lang.
Rooke, M. (1998), “Commodity Fetishism and Reification,” Common Sense, No. 23.
See: https://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-and-reification-mike-rooke
Rosiska, D. O. and P. Domonice (1974), Freire and Illich: The Pedagogical
Debate. Geneva: IDAC Group. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/
ThePedagogyOfTheOppressed-FreireAndIllich
Sabastjan, L. and P. McLaren (2010), “Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy: The Struggle
against the Oppression of Neoliberalism—A Conversation with Peter McLaren,”
In S. L. Macrine, P. McLaren, and D. Hill (eds.), Revolutionizing Pedagogy:
Education for Social Justice Within and Beyond Global Neo-Liberalism, 87–117.
London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Sagarin, E. and R. J. Kelly (1970), “Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Knowledge,”
Salmagundi, No. 10/11: 292–302.
Santos, B. de Sousa (2007), “Beyond abyssal thinking,” Eurozine. See: http://www.
eurozine.com/pdf/2007-06-29-santos-en.pdf
Santos, B de Sousa (2014), Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide.
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Sartre, J. (1946), L’Existentialisme est un humanism. Paris: Éditions Nagel.
Sartre, J. (1970), “Intentionality: A Fundamental Idea of Husserl’s Phenomenology,”
Journal of British Society for Phenomenology, 1(2): 4–5.
Sayer, A. (1999), “Long live Postdisciplinary Studies! Sociology and the Curse
of Disciplinary Parochialism/Imperialism,” Paper presented to the British
Sociological Association Conference. Glasgow, UK (April). Published by the
Department of Sociology, Lancaster University.
Schugurensky, D. (2014), Paulo Freire. London: Bloomsbury.
 Bibliography 183

Sharpley-Whiting, T. D. (1998), Frantz Fanon: Conflict and Feminisms. Oxford, UK:

Rowman and Littlefield.
Shaull, R. (1970), Foreword for P. Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Seabury.
Shin, J. (2012), “Althusser’s Social Theory: In Light of Overdetermination,” Daijin
University. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/243225206/Shin-
Jo-Young-Althusser-s-Social-Theory-In-Light-of-Overdetermination-pdf
Shohat, E. and R. Stam (2014), Unthinking Eurocentrism. New York: Routledge.
Shor, I., and P. Freire (1987), Pedagogy of Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming
Education. Westport, CN: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Smith, A. (2015), “Between Facts and Myth: Karl Jaspers and the Actuality of the
Axial Age,” International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 76(4).
Smith, N. H. (2008), “Levinas, Habermas and Modernity,” Philosophy and Social
Criticism, 34(6): 643–664.
Solis A. (1980), “Theory of Biculturality.” Calmecac de Aztlan en Los 1: pp. 7-12.
Stalin, J. V. (2013), Dialectical and Historical Materialism. New York: Prism Key Press.
Stehn, A. (2017), “Latin American Philosophy,” Internet of Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/latin-am/
Stern, S. (2009), “Pedagogy of the Oppressor: Another Reason Why U.S. Ed Schools
Are So Awful: The On-Going Influence of Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire,” City
Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.city-°©‐journal.org/2009/19_2_freirian-°©‐
pedagogy.html
Stevens, R. (2008), Sigmund Freud: Examining the Essence of his Contributions. New
York: Palgrave.
Stirk, P. (1992), Max Horkheimer. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Suchocki, M. (1985), “Theological Education as a Theological Problem III,”
Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, No. 40. Retrieved
from: https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/view/3295/2908
Sue S., and Sue D. W. (1978), “Chinese-American Personality and Mental Health.”
Amerasia Journal 1: pp. 36-49.
Taylor, C. (2012), “What was the Axial Revolution?,” In R. Bellah and H. Joas (eds.),
The Axial Age and Its Consequences, 30–46. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Teilhard de Chardon, P. (1959), The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and
Borther.
Thomas, P. (1996), “Locating Freire in Africa Today: Problems and Possibilities,”
African Media Review, 10(1): 21–30.
Thornhill, C. (2011), “Karl Jaspers,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers
184 Bibliography

Tillich, P. (1951), Systematic Theology, I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tillich, P. (1954), Love, Power, and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tobin, M. L. (1986), “Women in the Church since Vatican II,” America: The Jesuit
Review. See: http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/100/women-church-vatican-ii
Torres, C. A. (1993), “From the Pedagogy of the Oppressed to a Luta Continua: The
Political Pedagogy of Paulo Freire,” In P. McLaren and P. Leonard (eds.), Paulo
Freire: A Critical Encounter, 119–145. New York: Routledge.
Torres, C. A. (2014), First Freire: Early Writing in Social Justice. New York: Teachers
College.
Tlostanova, M. V. and W. Mignolo (2009), Global Coloniality and the Decolonial
Option. Kult 6: Special Issue on Epistemologies of Transformation. Department of
Culture and Identity. Roskilde University, 130–147.
Tse-Tung, M. (1964), Little Red Book. New York: Free Press.
Tse-Tung, M. (1965), Selected Works of Mao-Tse-Tung. Peking: Foreign Languages
Press.
Valentine C. (1971), “Deficit, Difference, and Bicultural Models of Afro-American
Behavior.” Harvard Educational Review 41: pp. 137-57.
Walters, M. (2006), Feminism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Warren, S. (1984), The Emergence of Dialectical Theory. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weiffert, F. (1967), Politico e Revolução Social no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Wellington, T. S. (2011), “Esquerda Catolica Brasileira,” Revista Nures, 8(18): 83–96.
Willette, J. (2013), “Post-colonial Theory (Part One: Historical Context),” Key Series:
Racism, Racist Ideologies and Capitalism. Heathwood Institute and Press. Retrieved
from: http://www.heathwoodpress.com/post-colonial-theory-historical-context/
Williams, P. (2015), Operation Gladio: The Unholly Alliance between the Vatican, the
CIA and the Mafia. New York: Prometheus Books.
Wolin, R. (2017), “Emmanuel Lévinas. Encylopedia Britannica.” Retrieved from:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emmanuel-Levinas#ref930024
Woodruff (2007), Husserl. London: Routledge.
Wright R. N. (1953), The Outsider. New York: Harper & Row.
 Index

Note: Page references with letter ‘n’ followed by locators denote note numbers.

Adorno, Theodor 65, 68–9 Bergson, Henri 86–7, 147

culture industry 69 writings on education 87
universalism of the Enlightenment 68 Betto, Frei 26
adult education/literacy programs 11–13, Black Skin White Masks (Fanon) 79
17–18 Boff, Leonardo 26, 28
agnostic relativism 35 bourgeois identity 25, 34, 52, 54, 58, 63,
agrarian reforms 14 65, 70
Algerian Revolution 81 Buber, Martin 35, 40–1
Algerian War of Independence 78–81
alienation 7, 51–2, 55–6, 63–4, 72–4, 80, Cabral, Amilcar 17, 158
95, 97–9, 101–2, 108–9, 111, 116, Câmara, Dom Hélder 26
118–23, 129, 131, 133, 137, 144–6 Camus, Albert 35, 86
Almeida, Cândido Mendes de 25 capitalism 34, 49, 51–2, 56, 65, 67–9, 72,
Althusser, Louis 53, 96–7, 99, 104, 142 75, 79, 165, 167
notion of interpellation 62 Cardonnel, Thomas
view on ideology 60–3 concept of “established disorder” 25
Amor y Pedagogía (Love and Pedagogy, Castro, Fidel 32
Unamuno) 33 Catholic Action Movement 8, 24
Amoroso Lima, Alceu de 25 Catholic radicals 25–6
antidialogical cultural action 142–5 Catholic revolutionary movement 25
antidialogical practices vs. dialogical Cerutti-Guldberg, Horacio 31
practices 94, 124, 138–9, 142–5, 147 Cesaire, Aime
Apartheid government of South Africa 16 notion of negritude 81
Araújo, Aluizio Pessoa de 7, 19 Christian Democratic Agrarian Reform
Art of Loving, The (Fromm) 72 Movement 14
authoritarianism 63, 67, 75, 97, 122, 147 Colégio Oswaldo Cruz 7, 9, 19
autonomy 28, 56, 70, 103, 122–3, 126, 146, collective consciousness 40, 146–8
157, 166 colonial matrix of power 34
awareness process theory 41 colonialism 79, 81–3, 85, 104
axiom 34 coloniality of power ix, xiii, 30, 45, 78
Colonizer and the Colonized (Memmi) 82
banking education 15, 29, 35, 93, 108–10, Comportment Économique et Structures
112, 116, 118–19, 132, 137 Sociales (Nicolaï) 63
Barbosa, Rui 23 conquest 33–4, 71, 121, 129, 138, 143–4
“Bare feet can also learn to read” conscientização 15, 112, 116, 118–19,
campaign 13 127–9, 131, 133, 136, 138, 141
Beauvoir, Simone de 39, 109 conservative ideology 8, 16, 18, 26, 30, 39,
being-in-the-world 46 66, 155, 166
Benjamin, Walter 65 Creative Evolution (Bergson) 87
186 Index

critical social theory 65, 67. See also Dufrenne, Mikel 39–40
critical theory Dussel, Enrique 31
critical theory 64–7, 70, 76 Dying Colonialism (Fanon) 81
cultural action 24, 94, 133, 137–40, 142,
145–9 Eduçacão e Vida (Furter) 90
Cultural Extension Service (SEC) 12 education. See also banking education
cultural invasion 35, 97, 137–8, 143–5 as alienation instrument 109–10
cultural revolution 142, 145, 147–8, 158 as practice of freedom 117–18
culture industry 69 problem posing 112–13
culture of silence 6, 15, 119–21 revolutionary praxis 104–8, 112–13,
115–16, 118–19, 122, 125, 133, 137,
Dasein 45 139–42, 145, 148
de Souza, Herbert Jose 25 teacher-student contradiction 110–12
de Tarso, Santos, Paul 13, 15 Education and Society (Dewey) 88
dehumanization 51, 70, 74, 83, 94–7, 101, education movements 1, 17–18
103, 111, 119–21, 130, 146 educators 8, 59, 87, 110, 112–13, 117,
dependency 80–1, 84, 97–8, 100, 142 122–3, 137, 152, 168–9
Descartes, Rene 34, 42, 47 Enlightenment rationality 65
Dewey, John 86–9 epistemological reflections 1, 25, 42, 44–5,
naturalist approach 88–9 62, 65, 76, 86–7, 101, 128, 160–4
views of education 89 Eros and Civilization (Marcuse) 70
Dialéctica de lo Concreto (Vásquez’ Ethics of Ambiguity, The (Beauvoir) 39
translation) 76 Eurocentrism 30
dialectical historicism 33 European colonization 2, 7, 12, 16–17
dialectical movement 42, 132 European labor movements 67
dialectics 47, 56, 63, 68, 80, 101–2, 114, existence of things in general (Seindes) 44
130 existentialism 33, 35–6. See also French
Dialectics of the Concrete (Kosik) 76 existentialism
dialogical cultural action 145–7 phenomenology 41
dialogical praxis 41, 93–4, 101, 104, 112–15
cooperation 145 faith 123–4
critical consciousness 94, 125–7 false generosity 99–101, 119, 127, 145, 148
cultural synthesis 147 Fanon, Frantz 6, 77–82, 85–6, 97, 99, 111,
of leadership 139–40 158
liberatory struggle 142, 147–9 on colonized and colonizer 79–80
limit-situations 130 Memmi comparison with 85–6
name the world 141 fascism 67, 83
organization 146–7 fatalism 25, 98–9, 109, 116–17, 119–20,
problem-posing pedagogy 112, 131–2 124, 131
unity for liberation 146 fear
untested feasibility 131 authentic existence 98
dialogue with people 41, 104–5, 119, freedom 98, 142, 145
134, 140. See also problem-posing Fear of Freedom, The (Fromm) 74
pedagogy feminism (French existentialism) 39
disempowerment 7, 97, 109, 127 First World War 66
divide and rule 138, 143–4 Food and Agriculture Organization of the
domestication 7, 70–1, 97–8, 111, 127 United Nations 14
 Index 187

Franco, Francisco 66 political commitments 2–3, 5, 7, 9,

Frankfurt School 46, 64–9, 75 13–15, 17–20, 21
Frankfurt theorists 65 post-exile years 17–21
freedom 28, 34–5, 38–9, 46, 52, 55, 60–1, revolutionary perspectives 3, 9, 12,
64, 68, 70–1, 73–5, 77, 81, 84, 87 16–17, 20
fear of 98 SESI meeting 11
generosity and 100 subversive activities, allegation of 13
Freire, Araújo, Ana Maria (Nita) as UNESCO consultant 14
interview on Paulo’s life view on Marxist totality 95–6
background 152–4 work in the mocambos 11–12
enduring legacy 167–71 writings (see also Pedagogy of the
epistemological sensibility 160–4 Oppressed)
intellectual influences 157–60 Education as the Practice of
view on class struggle 164–7 Freedom 12, 15
work 154–7 Education for Critical Consciousness
Freire, Paulo. See also critical theory; 14
dialogical praxis; Freire, Araújo, Education of Adults and Marginal
Ana Maria (Nita), interview, on Populations: The Mocambos
Paulo’s life Problem 11
African efforts 16–17 Letters to Cristina 3
association with literary campaigns Pedagogy of the City 18
and educational movements 1–2 Pedagogy of Hope 165
in Chile 14–16 pedagogy of love 29
on concept of word 119–20 as a young man (1940s) 10
conscientização, concept of 15, 112, French existentialism 38–40
116, 118–19, 127–9, 131, 133, 136, Frente de Libertação de Moçambique 16
138, 141, 147 Freud, Sigmund 39
death 20 Fromm, Erich 65, 71–6, 98, 100, 103,
as director of the Department of 105–6, 109, 142, 159
Cultural Extension 12 idea of love 72–4
doctoris honoris causa 20 necrophilic phenomenon 74, 98, 109
early years 3–7 radical humanism 72
educational philosophy 2, 7 Furter, Pierre 86, 89–90, 126
Elza’s (first wife) death 19 on adult learning 90
in exile 14–17 andragogical approach 90–1
fight for liberation 106–7 as consultant for UNESCO 90
on human suffering 21
humanistic sensibilities 7 Gajardo, Marcela 15
incarceration 13 genuine dialogue 123–5
learning process in Chile 14–16 geopolitics 31
literacy efforts in Brazil, 8, 9, 12–13, German Communist Party (KPD) 66
15, 17–20 German imperial system 66
Marx and Marxist intellectuals, Giroux, Henry xv, 50, 57, 68
revolutionary influences of 46–64 Goldmann, Lucien 53
as Municipal Secretary of Education 17 opposition scientificity 63
naming of world 121–2 Golpe de 64 13, 35
pedagogical experiences 3, 6–9, 14–15, Goulart, João Belchior 13, 15
17–20 Gramsci, Antonio 53, 61, 66, 96
188 Index

educational themes 59–60 inauthentic human beings 45

notion of manufactured consent vs. indigenous rights 30
spontaneous’ consent 58–9 indivisible solidarity 124–5
philosophy of praxis 57 inequalities 7, 19
theory of hegemony 57–9 I-It relationship 41
Great Depression 5, 35, 40 Institute for Social Research (Das Institute
Great October Socialist Revolution of fur Sozialforshung) 64
1917 53 Institute of Cultural Action 16
Guevara, Ernesto (Che) 32, 105, 122 institutional violence 28
Gutiérrez, Gustavo 26–8, 159 Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasilieros
(ISEB) 35
Harvard University 16 intellectual history of Freire
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm 42–3, 45 on coloniality and political economy
idealist tendencies 47 34–5
modes of consciousness 42 ethics of liberation 24
slave-master dialectics 110 existentialist philosophy 35–6
view of history 43 of liberation theology 25–9
Heidegger, Martin 35, 76 transdisciplinary features 23
concepts related to time and being utopian belief 28–9
44–5 Western disciplinary approaches 23,
evolution of consciousness 46 31, 35
History and Class Consciousness (Lukács) International Council for Adult Education
55 20
Hitler, Adolf 13, 66 I-Thou relationship 41
Hitler-Stalin pact 66
holocaust 40 Jasperian split 116
hope 124 Jaspers, Karl Theodor
horizontal relationships, schools and axial period 37
communities 122–4 on limit situations 38
horizontal violence 99 Júnior, Prado Caio 31
Horkheimer, Max 64–5, 69–70, 75
on individualism of capitalist ideology Kant, Immanuel 42, 45, 47
70 Kierkegaard, Søren 35
human agency. See freedom on subjectivity and objectivity 36–7
human condition 38, 72, 95, 147 knowledge production 59, 113, 161
human existence as beings (Sein) 44 Kosik, Karel 76–7, 125
Human Sciences and Philosophy notion of dialectical disunity 77
(Goldmann) 63
human subjectivity 40, 102 La Pensee de Droite, Aujourd’hui (The
humanization 25, 94–5, 98, 119, 122, 126, Political Thought of the Right, Today,
141 Beauvoir) 39
humility 123 Landless Workers Movement (MST) 168
Husserl, Edmund 35, 43–4, 115 Latin American philosophy
on intuitive experience of phenomena political struggles 31–2
43 values and priorities 31
objects of consciousness 44 Lenin, Vladimir 53–4, 60, 140
 Index 189

organic intellectuals 53–4 modern philosophy 40, 42, 88

revolutionary theory 53–4 Montalvo, Eduardo Frei 14, 158
on Russian Social Democratic Party 54 moral atheism 35
Levinas, Immanuel 35 moral belief 35
liberation theology 26–9 Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study
limit-situations 31, 37–8, 106, 124, 127, in Ethics Politics (Niebuhr) 30
129–31, 135 Movement for Popular Culture (MCP) 12
Little Red Book (Mao Tse-Tung) 32 Movimento Popular Libertação de Angola
love 122–3 16
Lowenthal, Leo 65 Mussolini 13, 56, 66
Lukács, György 53, 55–6, 103
on reification 56 national consciousness 15–16
Luxembourg, Rosa 53, 55, 66 National Literacy Program, Brazil 13
notions of freedom and truth 55 nationalist movement 17
Nazism 65–7, 159
manipulation 67, 96, 123, 138, 143–4, 146, Negative Dialectics (Adorno) 68
148 Nicolaï, André 53, 63
Mannheim, Karl 35, 40–1 Nietzsche, Friedrich 35
on sociology of knowledge 40 nihilism 36
Marcuse, Herbert 65, 70–1, 95 Nyerere, Julius 16
view of ideology 70–1
Mariátegui, José Carlos objectivity/subjectivity, dialectics 102
Latin Americanism 32–3 Oliveira, Elza Maia Costa de 8
Maritain, Jacques 25 One Dimensional Man (Marcuse) 71
Martí, Jose one’s life (y Gasset) 34
inclusive Latin American identity 32 ontological process 25, 37, 44, 46, 65, 100,
Marx, Karl 34, 43, 46–53, 55, 57, 62, 64–6, 105–6, 108
116–17, 139 oppressor-oppressed
on capitalist mode of production 51 contradiction 82, 97, 101–4, 110–12,
class struggle of workers 52 115–16, 120, 123, 139, 141, 144, 148
commodity fetishism 50–1 duality 102–3
dialectical approach 47–9, 67 resolution of contradiction 103–4
Marxism 29, 46–53, 56–7, 63–4, 68–9, 71, Ortega y Gasset, José
76, 82, 97, 113, 153. See also Marx, limitations of idealism 33
Karl otherness 44
Marxists 14, 51, 55, 60, 78, 107
McLaren, Peter xv, 18, 32, 45, 89 Partido Africans para Independência da
Melo Neto, Cabral de 162 Guinea-Bissau e Cabo Verde 16
Memmi, Albert 77–80, 82–6, 97, 158 Partido dosTrabalhadores (Workers’ Party)
Fanon compared with 85–6 17
on linguistic dualism 85 patriarchy 30, 39, 75, 78
Usurper Role or Nero Complex 84 Pedagogy of the Oppressed
view on colonizer and colonized 82–3 anticolonial perspectives 77–8
Mexican Institute of Psychoanalysis 76 culture of domination 103–4, 125, 143
Mexican Revolution of 1910 31 English and Spanish translations 16
Ministry of Education, Chile 14 humanization of man 25
190 Index

Marxist theories in 53 radical theological influences of Freire

oppressor/oppressed contradiction Catholic childhood roots 24–5
43, 77 of liberation theology 25–8
reference of educational philosophers Momentos dos Vivos 25
86–91 religious moralism 35
reference to Althusser 61–2 revolutionary spirituality 28
reference to de Beauvoir 39 Ribeiro, Carneiro 23
reference to Fromm 76 Ribeiro, Darcy 31
revolutionary praxis 104–6, 108, Roig, Arturo Andrés 31
112–13, 115–16, 118, 122, 125, 133, ruling class 40, 49–52, 57–8, 61, 69, 94,
137, 139–42, 145, 148 96–7, 103, 143–4
transformation of concrete condition Russian revolution 66
105
Pernambuco Regional Commission report Santos, Boaventura de Souza ix, x, xi, xiv
11 n.5, 86
Peron, Juan 13 Sartre, Jean-Paul 35, 43, 83, 86, 118, 158
Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel) 42 digestive or nutritive education,
philosophy of life (Ortega y Gasset) 33 criticisms 110
Pinto, Alvaro Vieira 31 notion of existence 38
Political Leader of the German Working Second National Conference on Adult
Classes, The (Luxembourg) 55 Education in Rio de Janeiro (1958)
Pope John XIII 26 11
Pope Paul VI 26 Second Sex, The 39
portrait of the colonizer (Memmi) 83–4 second-wave of feminism 39
postmodernism 36 Second World War 35, 40, 86
Pour L’Homme (Dufrenne) 39 self-consciousness 37–8, 42, 56
poverty 2, 5–7, 100, 109, 158, 162, 165 Serviço Social da Indústria (SESI) 8, 9,
praxis 27, 53–4, 64, 77, 94, 104–6, 112, 11–12
114, 115, 121, 125, 147–9 Social Democratic Party (SPD) 66
of androgeny (Furter) 90 social relationships 42, 56, 67, 89
dialogical 125–7, 130–2, 141, 142 societal integration, universal concepts 42
philosophy of (Gramsci) 57 sociology of knowledge 40
revolutionary 82, 104, 112, 113, Stalin, Joseph 13, 29, 47, 55, 66
118–22, 133, 137 authoritarian right-wing philosophy 64
Praxis (journal) 63 subjectivity/objectivity, dialectics 102
Praxis School in Yugoslavia 61–4
Prison Notebooks (Gramsci) 56 teacher-student
Problem of Generation (Mannheim) 40 contradictions 110–12
problem-posing pedagogy 94, 101, 108, dialogical relationship 113
112–14, 116 qualities 28
progressive education movement 87 as revolutionary partner 114
Ptrovio, Gavrito “Gajo” 53, 63–4 Teilhard de Chardon, Pierre 30
Theology of Liberation (Gutiérrez) 27
Quesada, Francisco Miró theory
on forjadores (constructors) 33 alienation 63
anticolonial 77–8
racism 2, 5, 79, 83, 167 awareness process 41
radical Catholic thinkers 25–6 democratic personality 40
 Index 191

hegemony 57–8 Unamuno, Miguel de

historical materialism 48 conflicting human impulses 35
ideology 50 unjust system of domination 100
intentionality of consciousness 15–16
knowledge 88 Vatican II era (1962–1965) 26
liberation 160 Vaz, Henrique Lima 25
overdetermination 61–2 Vázquez, Adolfo Sánchez 31
and practice 48, 54, 56, 62, 88, 115, 139 Veloso, Raul 15
revolutionary 53, 56, 140, 142 violence 2, 28, 30–1, 79–81, 83, 95–6,
true generosity 100 99–101, 112, 160, 163
trust 124
Tunisian National Movement 78 Weiffert, Francisco 32
What Is to Be Done? (Lenin) 53
ultimate situations 38 Women’s Movement, first wave 39
UNAM (the Mexican National word, concept 110–20
Autonomous University) in Mexico World Council of Churches 16
City 76 Wretched of the Earth (Fanon) 79