Critical Analysis of Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Paulo Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1968. The excerpt in our textbook is one

chapter from his book that discusses the value and theory of dialogical teaching. Freire makes a case for

dialogue between those in power (oppressors) and those not in power (oppressed) for change, learning,

and general function in society.

Effective dialogue, according to Freire, has the power to transform the world. Freire determines

that dialogue is a back and forth discourse but in order to be transforming, requires both parties to act,

reflect, and act again. No one person can hold the true word or close the dialogue by believing their view

is the only one. The discourse must be even, mutual and human so it may also be powerful for

transformation.

This chapter discusses Freires theory of dialogical teaching, but extends the theory beyond

education to all of society. In the context of education, Freire describes two kinds of educators: banking

teachers and problem posing teachers. A banking educator is one who views students as an empty

account, where bits of information [is] to be deposited in the students (p. 160). This kind of educator

does not hold discourse with her/his students but expects students to come to him/her to be filled with

knowledge. Freires description echoes Eisners criticism of the limiting effect of curricular objectives on

students (p. 111) where learning is capped because the educator attends to the prescribed outcomes

instead of learning for the sake of liberation or changing a learners idea of the world.

Problem-posing teachers, according to Freire, are teachers who embrace and utilize dialogue to

seek the liberation of the oppressed, in this case, the student. In Freires description of this methodology,

teachers use an organized, systematized, and developed re-presentation to individuals of the things

about which they want to know more. (p. 160). A teacher can only employ this methodology if she/he

follows the pedagogical approach of Montessori who noted the role of the teacher as a scientific observer;

to understand the learner in order to guide learning. The understanding Freire describes does not come
from idle observation, as Montessori may have alluded to, but rather through dialogue of action and

reflection between oppressors and the oppressed.

Because Freires philosophy can extend to a broader context than education, he doesnt ever

define specific oppressors or those oppressed. I think there is a hierarchy of dominance in society, and

certainly education. It exists in the sense that in the classroom, banker teachers are the oppressors of the

students, but within the school, administrators and educational leaders may be the oppressors of teachers.

Freire notes that dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one persons depositing ideas in another,

norideas to be consumed by the discussants. (p. 158). For teachers, the liberation from oppression

comes from understanding the purpose of learning and a teachers role in liberating students rather than

idly waiting for instructions on how and what to instruct. In this case, the action and hope are removed

and no dialogue can be carried on in a climate of hopelessness. (p. 159). For teachers to engage in

professional dialogue about learning and curriculum, they must feel hope that something will come of

their efforts or be reduced to empty, sterile, bureaucratic, and tedious encounters. (p. 159).

Criticisms

Freires philosophy of dialogical teaching in education is solid in theory but to not offer criticism,

would remove the reflection from the dialogue that he described as so imperative. There are many

contradictions within Freires theory that are subject to criticism. The active and reflective dialogue

between the oppressor and oppressed is essential. In education, for this kind of dialogue to exist, it would

mean that the individuals participating in the discourse are equal, open minded, and free of dominance.

The reality is that this is impossible. Even in the team atmosphere that might allow for discourse, in the

end there is still going to be dominating leaders and those individuals who sit back and wait for the

prescriptive orders according to which theyll teach or lead. Also, if all dialoguing individuals were equal

in terms of activism and reflection, it is plausible that no change would happen as the dialogue itself

would be deadlocked during the push and pull of the idea exchange.
 I imagine a dialogue between teachers and administrators on the essential course offerings for a

subsequent school year. While the dialogue itself remains professional and each side has the chance to

speak, listen, and reflect, ultimately the decision for the course offerings will be that of administration.

We do not live in the classless society on which this theory is based. To even suggest or impose such a

society would be to take the role of the oppressor.

Humility and humanization within the dialogue are also essential for transformation of a

situation, according to Freire. To be human is to have thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, as a function of our

situation and experience. Freire also notes that many political and educational plans have failed because

their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, (p. 160). On the one hand,

Freire wants dialogue to include an understanding of our reality while, at the same time, leaving our

biased, personal view of reality out of the dialogue. He probably intends to mean that all members of the

dialogue need to put aside their personal and political agendas when making decisions for and within a

system, but we are human and as objective as we may try to be, its not always entirely possible. Freire

makes a case for dialogue participants to be hopeful that something will come of their efforts and to not

idly and silently wait for action (p. 159) but if we are not driven by our personal views of reality, we

would become the idle and silent waiters.

Discussion Items

In the spirit of Freires pedagogical notion of dialogue, educators must liberate themselves

through discourse about the learning of their students. Is the creation of the new ELA curriculum a form

of dialogue where teachers actively implement the principles through problem-based learning and reflect

on the learning of students? Is there no longer a box of binders delivered containing 56 specific outcomes

that cap the learning of the oppressed with the intention of forcing teachers to understand their students

situations and then guide them to learn what is relevant and impending to shape their own reality? If this

is the case, is the curriculum as much about student learning as it is about shifting the educational

paradigm and teaching philosophy by removing the oppression of teachers? Can a teachers oppression
and ignorance be lifted if they build the curriculum from the ground up instead of it being forced from the

top down and have it be successful because they are learning the why at the same time as the how?

Lastly, is the pilot unveiling of the new ELA curriculum the praxis, the active and reflective dialogue,

between the political oppressors and the educationally oppressed?

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Flinders, D.J.; & Thornton, S.J. (Eds.), (2013). The

curriculum studies reader (pp. 157-167). New York: Routledge.