Pedagogy of the Oppressed

*takes out gun and sticks it in mouth*

BAM!

X-x

Here:

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-1.html

If anyone wants to read that and see if they don't feel the same way, then I say you are very courageous. All I have to say is welcome to English 101 - Academic Writing and Research.

I know that not much time has passed since I posted this, but at least I know that all of you that are on right now are cowards! 8D Here is what I wrote in response to the text (as was my assignment):

As a first note, the author mentions the learning process in regards to students listening to what they are taught about, but not understanding the meaning. This part is being mentioned in this response because the words the author spews continuously relates to that in several aspects. Whether it is the pointless repetition, perhaps done for emphasis of importance, or the ridiculously scholastic vocabulary, all of it comes to naught.

The author writes about two sides: the oppressed and the oppressors. Both are very much different in consciousness and ways of thinking, but essentially they are the same: dehumanized parties that are in need of regaining their full and complete humanity through a difficult, almost idealistic way. It is pounded into the reader that this relationship between oppressed and those who oppress is a tangled net that must be straightened equally by both sides, for they cannot liberate themselves, note that both are trapped, and others cannot liberate them. They can only liberate each other. There are things that keep both sides from achieving this mutual freedom, however. For the oppressed, they think of themselves as weak and inferior after being told so by the oppressors. I find this similar to the way children hammer at each other's self-esteem to the breaking point in which a child truly believes that he or she is a disposable unit, though it might not be that severe. At least they have people they can go to like parents or teachers. The oppressed have no one, or least that is what they believe. The oppressors seem to be possessed by greed, or possessed by wanting to possess, in other words. They are the ones with power, money, resources, and what have you, so why not use them to expand their collection of assets?

With both sides plagued by their own inhibitions, one might wonder how they are to escape. The author proposes, for the oppressed, that they see weakness in the oppressors and find strength within themselves by casting away the facade put into place by the oppressors. They must have extreme trust in each other, and they most certainly cannot forget the things they went through and how horrible they were, for it is with these memories that they can prevent themselves from creating a malevolent cycle of oppressors being replaced by the oppressed, only to have the old oppressed become the new oppressors. Revenge must be thrown out the window, though it isn't mentioned in the work. On the other hand, the oppressors must throw away their own materialistic ways and realize that they are just as dehumanized as the oppressed. If they cannot do that, then they will just continue to utilize their resources to exploit the oppressed. Both sides must work in their own ways to become human again. Completely human.

In this tangled mess of a work, a real truth can be found. This complexity does not merely exist in societies in which the classes are vastly separated or a tyrant dictates a nation. It can be found everywhere. There are always those with power, and then there are always those that wish they had it, and because they don't, they find themselves at the mercy of those who do, at their own willingness. That is crucial as it relates to the author's mentioning of having to break free of this false image. However, one cannot but wonder why this is so. Are we unable to throw away all who we are to become all that we should be? Would breaking free of these restraints, from the perception of either side, mean tossing away what makes us individuals? This individual has power, and that individual does not. Does that not sound better than all individuals being the same? If everyone makes it to equal standings, then there is no such thing as individualism. It is strange that we ethically search for ways to make all humans equal, but why has it taken so long? If equality is such a magnificently important issue, why have we not already tackled it head-on and acquired the results that we all supposedly desire?

The author appears to think that we know not of his idealistic proposal, but I believe we do know, yet do not wish to enforce it. Though harsh may it be, those possessing wealth beyond one's wildest dreams subjugating those who search valiantly for pennies in the cold dirt may just be the very definition of humanity. Who is to say that his view is not but an optimistic one while the truth remains hidden behind a veil of our own creation, that we are all perhaps too human in regards to the fact that we allow separation and segregation to dominate our society. We are all oppressed. We are all oppressors. The only ones we have to liberate ourselves from are, in fact, ourselves.

I sound pretty smart, right? XD

Well, luckily, if you had the text book, it wasn't as severe as that, but I didn't have mine yet, so I went ahead and looked it up online. I'm kinda glad I did though because it actually got me thinking about stuff, though I missed the class in which the discussion concerning this work took place. X-x

You missed a class already!?

You're a bad boy Masq. xD

Hey, I had some important things to take care of like paying the deposit on my lights...which turns out wasn't due until August 30. > > Though the people that work in the office at my apartment building were waiting on my account number with Progress Energy and I HAD to take care of that payment on Monday which is when I was able to cash my financial aid refund check. SO, it just had to be done. By the time I got to the university, the class was already halfway through and I didn't want to disturb them, so I just took the absence on the chin. I would have been absent anyway because in that class, if you're more than 15 minutes late, you're absent regardless. X-x

And disturbing a class half-way through isn't a smart thing to do.

Did you at least tell your professor why you were absent?

Better. I told her that I was either going to be late or absent beforehand and the reason why that was so.

Also, I would like to recommend reading this essay called "On Seeing England for the First Time" by Jamaica Kincaid. It's a simple read, but it has some valid points and there are quite a few funny things in it, even though it is supposed to be a serious account.

Well, your writing style's similar to everyone else that reads there responses out loud in class. Sounds like you typed up your response only to get the work done, even though I have no doubt you are interested in the subject at hand.

I personally like throwing a sarcastic-aggressive tone in my writing(possibly some satire), and see how the teacher reacts(as they often comment on papers dully to everyone else). Needless to say, my teachers find my writings rather humorous and interesting.

Going the extra mile and amplifying your writer's voice isn't as rewarding as I'd like it to be, but it makes the writing itself less painful to type up. Sometimes it feels like an eternity when I type up essays. X.X I gotta throw in some voice to let the teacher know I absolutely despise the assignment. ^ ^

You're pretty much right. I was just doing it to get it done until about the last two paragraphs, which was my actual response to the piece. I had actually started thinking there, and it was only then that I became interested in the subject matter. Beforehand was just a boring summary of a boring work, at least, that's what I was thinking when I was writing it.

As you can tell, I tend to boldy display my dislike of a piece or criticism of a piece somewhere in the essay, at which times I take on a pretty condescending tone, though the guy who wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed probably has a vocabulary that transcends my own. It wasn't about that. It was just a bunch of repition and long-windedness and that's what made it uninteresting. 99% of the people who picked up this work probably put it right back down. And I definitely don't blame them. However, I'll stand by the fact that the theory or idea behind the piece is fantastic.

I hated the reading, too, and yes, repetition was a problem for the piece, but the part that I hated it something that makes me hate all literary works.

That is, the way the author writes merges his/her vocabulary with their style in such a way that I have to read it over several time to have a solid grasp on what they say. T.T I tend to think I'm the only one who has this problem, and it's soooo frustrating because I have an excellent vocabulary.