These past few days I have been reading (listening by way of audiobook) to Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968). It is a Marxist work aimed at revolution through co-education. The idea is that there are people who oppress and other people who are oppressed. The oppressed, together with a teacher or on their own, must come to realize their state of oppression. They must have their consciousness raised. They need to gain critical consciousness – conscientização – in order to become aware of their state of being oppressed. That is the intellectual precondition of revolution.
The book is essentially aimed at the potential teacher or the oppressed person who is self-taught and happens upon this book. The strong caution is that any teacher or revolutionary leader must not forget to collaborate with the oppressed people and make them agents in their own liberation. While it warns the teacher or the revolutionary leader not to become oppressors themselves by short-cutting the process of including 'the people' in the intellectual and planning processes, it is a bit short on recognizing that most oppressed people are also, themselves oppressors of a lower-still class.
As with much Marxist literature, it simplifies social structure into just that: a class of oppressors and a class of oppressed. Reality, of course, is more complex. An effort to approach reality is to view a situation from as many sides as we can, or at least as many sides as it practicable. Also, as with much Marxist literature, the work is steeped in Marxist jargon, which makes it difficult for the non-Marxist to wade through. It is aimed narrowly at the professional Marxist revolutionary-intellectual, and thus seems to partially defeat its own purpose of educating the lay reader.
Below the fold, I hope to look at the book from multiple angles without falling into the trap of using my own jargon as too much of a shorthand, thus oppressing you as the reader in the way that Freire oppresses the non-Marxist reader. The point of doing so is to exercise the analytical muscle – using the four perspectives of political science, economics, sociology, and cultural anthropology – in order to strengthen that muscle. Furthermore, those who want to put such a pedagogy into 'praxis' can be helped by having a more targeted understanding of the barriers to liberation. Employing the four different perspectives help with acquiring the right target.
Other side of the same coin
In an oppressor-oppressed relationship, one can look at that relationship from both the point of view of the oppressed as well as from that of the oppressor. Looking at both sides of the coin is the first-blush easiest way to do so, and that already yields some interesting findings. The fact is, that there are few individuals who are purely oppressors or oppressed. Jefferson (in his 1785 letter to Charles Bellini) said that in France every man was either the hammer or the anvil. That was blatantly wrong: most people are simultaneously both hammer and anvil. Jefferson, as a colonial American, was oppressed (somewhat, more or less) by the British crown. He was, of course, himself a slave owner, and therefore an oppressor in a much more profound way.
To be a hypocrite is generally a fundamental human condition. That's not to excuse hypocrisy, but to recognize that it is a condition into which all-or-most people are born. As a child, you are subject to your parents' whims, and sometimes parent cut corners in order to give themselves peace of mind. In cutting those corners, they oppress – even if mildly – their children. Children, too, are sometimes 'ty-runts' (a phrase my father used – regarding my sister) who oppress their parents. Of course, the central friction is the child's lack of understanding of the pressures on the parent and their inability to clearly communicate with their parents. So, even in just this basic primordial relationship, both parties are both oppressor and oppressed.
From coin to ladder
Zooming this out to a wider society, people are involved multiple relationships – with those above and below them; Jefferson being situated below the British crown, but above his slaves. Instead of looking at both sides of the same coin, one looks at a stack of coins, or – to use a more apt metaphor – a ladder. The ladder implies multiple levels of oppressive relationships. That is highlighted by a history (Isenberg, 2016) that I recently read about poor whites. It reminded me of the statement by Lyndon Johnson telling his aide Bill Moyers:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." (
Many people are conservative about changing a structure of oppression because they may lose their own status, even if that status is only marginally above the very bottom. In fact, being so near the dreaded bottom may make the oppressed person even more conservative. If the workers unite, they may lose their chains, but since most revolutions fail, they're more likely to lose their livelihoods than their chains.
in an intricate tapestry of oppression and oppressedness. Upper, middle, and lower management and workers, not to mention the relationship with customers, clients, or investors and regulators. Principals, teachers, students and parents. Voters, elected officials, and bureaucrats. Organization in society implies direction, and having total communicative relationships, such as that which Freire advocates, is simply unrealistic. There will always be that point at which the boss/teacher/elected official says: "don't ask; just do what I say." It is much harder for a person to get their own back through the back-channels of the society's organization – where the worker is the voter who can hold the elected official to account to remind the bureaucrat to regulate the capitalist for whom the worker works, or the teacher can convince the parents at the PTA to change the mind of the principal.
More dimensions
Again, that is the simple view: one that just looks at relationships of purposeful coercion – i.e. a conscious effort to make someone do something that they would otherwise not do. These are political relationships. There are also relationships that are sociological (reflexive relationships of inclusion/exclusion), economic (purposeful relationships of exchange) and cultural (reflexive relationships of sharing meaning).
Taking conscientização seriously
Freire touches on the socio-cultural element, in that people are taught – through the pre-revolutionary pedagogy of the oppressed by their oppressors – that their state of being oppressed is right and proper. As such, people's actions and notions are reflexive – they act and cogitate without truly consciously and self-consciously thinking. Freire's objective is to provide a handbook to the professional Marxist revolutionary to help the oppressed gain a critical consciousness – conscientização – so that their condition of reflexive action and cogitation into patterns that sustain their oppressedness can be turned around. He also induces the teacher and/or revolutionary leader to be self-conscious, but doesn't much touch on how to make 'the people' self-conscious as well. His conscientização only goes so far.
I dislike the adjective 'socio-cultural' since it is so often used by people who do not have a way to distinguish between them. My idea is that both the social and the cultural indicate 'reflexive' behavior. Reflexive behavior is doing what seems appropriate without too consciously thinking through of what norms are being employed by that appropriateness, where those norms come from, and what sort of function those norms may serve. In some sense appropriateness is to norms what truthiness is to truth. Those norms may be embedded in official rules of an organization, or they may just be what seems right, fair, fit and proper to an individual. At any rate, appropriateness is the immediate application of a person's notion of the norms.
I have already written about sociological dynamics vs. cultural dynamics in my post on culture and identity. There is room for expanding on that further, and for right now I can say that I'm inspired by Ruth Benedict's (1946) contrast between guilt and shame from The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, which was referenced in King's Gods of the Upper Air (2019). It contrasts cultures that privilege guilt to those that privilege shame. Guilt regards the transgression of absolute moralities, whereas shame regards the transgression of relationships with other people. It strikes me that this should be reframed in which the idea of absolute moralities are embedded in culture, whereas the idea of relationships (and their transgression) regards societies. More on this when I have had the chance to read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.
In the context of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, oppression is social if this regards oppression because of identity, ie. group membership. It may be thought of as cultural if someone who is oppressed is being so oppressed because they are being punished for transgressing an absolute norm of morality – people being oppressed because they're bad people. It does not take much consciousness on the part of an oppressor to wreak such sort of wrath and justify oppression. It may take more effort on the part of an oppressed person to become conscious if their subconscious has been brainwashed by the ideas that they are part of an underclass that has a natural status in society, or that they are a bad person who deserves their lot.
Taking the economic seriously
Ultimately, the aim is to undo oppression and to put people on equal footing. As awful as it probably sounds to reflexive Marxists, economics (properly understood) holds the key. Economics is about purposeful relationships of voluntary exchange, in which actors are conscious of what they are doing, and both benefit substantially. Since this is not a categorical exercise but one of a spectrum, it is well to keep in mind that the more balanced the benefits are, the more sustainable (and less oppressive) the exchange becomes. “I will let you live” is not an equitable exchange.
Having a job in the modern economy is generally not quite the economic ideal. Most workers sell their time (ie. life) in return for a wage and benefits. Relatively enlightened bosses and employers make their workers feel enfranchised by consulting their opinions and having relatively equitable wage and benefit packages. It is a bigger step up when the mission of the organization (be that company or public-sector institution) is one that is thoroughly embraced by the worker, so that they feel that their life is going towards a higher purpose. The more these conditions are met, the less the workers are alienated from their labors.
Teaching the oppressor
Teaching the oppressed is an attempt to make the oppressed conscious of their state of being oppressed. They must unearth from their subconscious reflexive mind the notion that they are of a group that deserves to be treated in a certain way (ie. not being oppressed). They must be made conscious. What Feira underplays, however, is that it is easier to become aware of being oppressed than being confronted by the notion that one is also an oppressor. One wants to be conscious of being oppressed, giving one cause for grievance. One doesn't necessarily want to be made self-conscious of being an oppressor, giving one cause for guilt and shame.
In order to undo the brainwashing (if we want to alter the social or cultural norms) we need to be able to identify their nature. Having an awareness of needing to undo guilt (culture) or shame (social structure) is therefore a big help. Another factor is about recognizing that instigating a revolution may easily run into resistance by those who may want to be liberated themselves, but do not necessarily want their own oppressees to be liberated from them. Returning to Jefferson, he was aware of his situation when he wrote in an 1820 letter to John Holmes:
"we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
What is greatly needed is a pedagogy of the oppressor, that aims to help the oppressor let go and enlist the oppressed against the overarching system of oppression. It is not in the lowest white man's interest to empty his pockets just so that he can feel better than the best colored man. That is always the losing proposition.
Conclusion
This essay was a first-blush reaction to Paulo Feire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and brings together in a form of intellectual field notes of the readings and writings that I have been engaged in. It offered a compressed notion of what the book is about and highlighted that a big problem is the bifurcation into oppressors and oppressed, without the understanding that most oppressed people are themselves also oppressors. It further was a rudimentary exercise of employing the four social-science discipline perspectives – economics, political science, sociology and cultural anthropology – into a broader understanding of the topic.
The central understanding is that Pedagogy of the Oppressed is about helping people to become conscious of their oppression, but that it should be expanded to help them become self-conscious of their simultaneous role as oppressors. By fully raising consciousness – conscientização totalmente – we take further steps to make our society more wholesome. That means that we become conscious of what is subconscious and what sorts of norms – cultural and/or social – operate at a subconscious reflexive level. In terms of the oppressed, what sorts of guilt and/or shame keep people oppressed in their minds. In terms of the oppressors, what sorts of guilt and or shame can be leveraged to help them let go.
In the end, the desirable outcome is the economic one, but not the facile economics of wage slavery. The desired outcome is organized labor in which workers work towards goals they can believe, in which they have meaningful participation, and for wages and benefits that sustain them sustainably. We have a long way to go, but Feire's book is an interesting provocation towards helping us think in that direction.
Works Cited
Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: An investigation of the pattern of Japanese culture which suggests a program for a new understanding among nations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Freire, P. (1968/2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Saybrook, CT. Tantor Media.
Isenberg, N. (2016). White trash: the 400-year untold history of class in America. Saybrook, CT. Tantor Media.
King, C. (2019). Gods of the upper air: How a circle of renegade anthropologists reinvented race, sex, and gender in the twentieth century. New York: Doubleday.
No comments:
Post a Comment