Reply to comment

After reading the entirety of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, there were two different distinctions that Freire raises in separate parts of the text that I wished he had been more explicit about. The first is the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness in the process of oppressing and being oppressed.  Throughout the text, Freire employs active language when referring to oppressors. The work that oppressors engage is in calculating and intentional for the purpose of creating, maintaining, and perpetuating the status quo. To me, then, it would seem that Freire is arguing that the act of oppression is conscious. Freire’s description of the oppressed (prior to dialogue, revolution, and liberation), on the other hand, is that of an unconscious pawn who has barred from seeing the truth of their situation and subsequently unable to liberate themselves/their oppressors. While the oppressed do gain a level of consciousness when this truth is illuminated, it is not without a sense of danger: that they will become the oppressor, that they will come to fear liberation. Freire does allow that oppressors can occupy an unconscious-oppressive role when they inherit their status of oppression, however, this caveat does not seem fully developed. My main question is how Freire would account for an intersection between consciousness and unconsciousness, for the idea of consciousness and unconsciousness cannot be untangled. This question could partly come from the fact that Freire speaks in dichotomous terms, as we acknowledged last class, and therefore the interplay between consciousness/unconsciousness may not be central to the text.

The second distinction that I wish Freire dedicated more space to addressing directly is the distinction between focalized and localized. This is less because I had questions about Freire’s separation between of these two concepts, and more because I think this distinction is often tricky to balance in teaching. Ultimately, what I get from this distinction is that it is necessary to see both the trees and the forest; that both the big picture and the little details are important, but that it is the connection between the two that is necessary above all else. While it is important to tailor education to the community that you are working with, education should not be confined to teaching students to understand/function within that community alone.