Pedagogy of the Oppressed

In the final chapter of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire analyzes the opposing theories of cultural action that develop from the oppressor and revolutionary perspectives. The oppressor employs various tactics in the cultural sphere to sustain his dominance; the revolutionary counters these tactics with forms of action that promote the liberation of the oppressed. Revolution requires a theory of action that gives the oppressed a fundamental role in the process of achieving liberation. The leaders of the revolution must allow the oppressed to take full responsibility in the struggle, and this entails that the people’s praxis necessarily involves their critical reflection as well as action. The dominant elite also employ a theory of cultural action to preserve their dominance and prevent the oppressed from challenging it.

Freire defines cultural action as a “systematic form of action which operates upon the social structure . . . with the objective of preserving that structure or of transforming it” (179). The oppressor’s need to conquer others underlies all the forms of his cultural action. The oppressor’s action is “antidialogical,” since by means of it the dominant elite impose their will upon the weak in the effort to reduce them to silent submission and acceptance of the social order.

The cultural conquest of the oppressed takes several forms. Subjugating the oppressed, the oppressor imposes his image upon them, projecting his dominant presence. Internalizing this image, the oppressed become conflicted, ambiguous beings with divided loyalties. The oppressor inoculates the vanquished with myths designed to present the world and the oppressed’s place within it as natural, a given to which they must adapt, rather than problems to be addressed. These myths include the beliefs that the oppressive order is a free society that respects human rights; that all individuals are equal in the eyes of the law; that the dominant elite have been heroic in defending civilizations that are Western and Christian against materialism that is godless; that rebellion can and should be viewed as a sin, and so on. All these myths serve to keep the oppressed passive and preserve the status quo.

Oppressive action also employs the age-old technique of divide and conquer. The unification and organization of the oppressed presents a serious threat to the hegemony of the dominant elite and therefore must be prevented. Alienation is one tactic the oppressor employs to accomplish this. Social problems are seen and addressed in isolation and at the local level, rather than as dimensions of a larger picture (e.g., a region, nation, or continent). The more such problems are viewed as local, the more the alienation of people (particularly the rural poor) is intensified, keeping them isolated from the problems of the oppressed in other areas. Other divisive tactics include interfering with the organization of labor unions, selecting and promoting favored leaders among the poor, and suppressing class consciousness among the oppressed.

When the oppressed begin to become aware of themselves as oppressed, seeing through the oppressor’s myths, the dominant elites resort to more sophisticated forms of manipulation. One tactic is to present themselves as a model of the material ‘success’ to which the oppressed should aspire. This requires the oppressed accept the bourgeoisie’s image of itself as a meritocracy in which personal successand social ascent is possible for all. Similarly, the oppressor tries to manipulate the oppressed through inauthentic forms of organization and social welfare programs that distract “the oppressed from the true causes of their problems and from the concrete solution of those problems” (152).

Finally, the oppressor attempts to dominate the oppressed through invasion of culture. Like his other manipulative and divisive tactics, this serves the ends of conquest. “Whether urbane or harsh,” Freire asserts, “cultural invasion . . . is always an act of violence against the persons of the invaded culture, who lose their originality or face the threat of losing it” (152). Invasion is a form of economic and cultural domination; it attempts to impose the values and standards of the invader upon the vanquished. Making the invaded feel intrinsically inferior delegitimizes their culture. The invaded come to feel ever more alienated from themselves and their culture, and adopt the ways, manners, and behavior of the ‘superior’ invader in the effort to be more like him. This adhesion to the oppressor and adoption of his culture blinds the oppressed to the concrete reality of their oppression. Only by breaking this adhesion, through distancing themselves from the oppressor, can the oppressed realize the violence of the invader’s action and its dehumanizing consequences.

The revolutionary leadership must counter the oppressor’s tactics with a theory of dialogical cultural action. This consists of four elements: cooperation, unity for liberation, organization, and cultural synthesis.As the oppressor’s cultural action is an expression of his domineering, anti-dialogicalnature, the forms of revolutionary cultural action all embody the spirit of loving dialogue that Freire insists is the ground of the struggle for liberation.

Cooperation is the essential attitude of the revolutionary through which people meet and communicate to transform the world. Cooperation is based on dialogue, and dialogue presupposes respect for human freedom and the rights of others. While the revolutionary leaders must trust the people, the oppressed’s fear of freedom may initially lead them to reject the leaders of the struggle. Freire remarks that to win the people’s trust, the revolutionary must embrace genuine communion with them and identify himself with their oppression. The fusion of the oppressed and their leaders only takes place “if revolutionary action is really human, empathetic, loving, communicative, and humble, in order to be liberating” (171).

Similarly, theunification of the oppressed, and of the oppressed with their leaders, is essential in the struggle for liberation. The oppressor attempts to divide and conquer; the revolutionary must thwart this by an untiring dedication to unifying the people. This involves both promoting solidarity among the oppressed by encouraging class consciousness, and healing the self-division that afflicts the individual as a result of cultural invasion and submersion in the oppressive situation. Unity among the oppressed becomes possible when the psychological ties that bind them to the world of oppression are cut by conscientização. The revolutionary’s task as to de-ideologize, to present the myths of the oppressor as problems so the people can recognize their inherent contradictions and begin to emerge from their own false consciousness.

Organization is a natural development of the people’s unity. It requires, first of all, that the revolutionary bear humble witness among them that “the struggle for liberation is a common task” (176). To organize the oppressed effectively, the revolutionary leaders must have a critical knowledge of the current historical situation, of the worldview held by the people, and of the most important contradictions of society. In addition, the leaders must display ethical and moral character—consistency, boldness, radicalism, the courage to love, and faith in the people. The authority of the revolutionary leadership is grounded in these attributes. Organization requires both authority and freedom in order for the leaders to avoid the danger of authoritarianism, on the one hand, and disorder on the other.

Finally, cultural synthesis is a form of revolutionary action that opposes the cultural invasion of the oppressor. The dominant elite attempt to superimpose their own values and ideology onto the subjugated people’s culture in an invasive act. By contrast, the revolutionary leaders come to the people to learn about their world with them. This co-investigation of the people’s reality, mediated through dialogue, establishes a cooperative “climate of creativity” that energizes the further stages of the revolution (181). In this cooperation, a cultural synthesis occurs: “the more sophisticated knowledge of the leaders is remade in the empirical knowledge of the people, while the latter is refined by the former” (181).

Freire concludes by noting that while cultural synthesis engages the people as full participants in the revolution, it cannot dispense with the sophisticated understanding and worldview of the revolutionary leadership. The leaders of the struggle must respect the people’s demands, but also question the significance of those demands, extending their investigation into further dimensions of the oppressive situation.