Freire's Argument Against Oppression

By shifting the perception of oppression from an objective reality to a limiting situation which can be transformed, the oppressed can realize what needs to be transformed in order to break free from the oppressive system. Similarly to the process of realization for the oppressed, the oppressor can find solidarity by regarding the oppressed as people who have been facing oppression and not as mere means to their ends. After this realization, the oppressor must do something tangible and not rationalize the facts as a defense mechanism, which would lead to a false perception of the reality of oppression. In the same light, the oppressed must confront reality critically and appreciate both the objective and subjective reality at hand to perceive …show more content…
Freire seems to be contradictorily stating that although people are all the same in their truth of humanization, and that oppression is the negation of humanization, namely, dehumanization; the oppressors are not capable in leading the organization of the transformation. However, through appreciating the full implications of his argument, the reasoning for why the oppressed ought to be leaders of the transformation becomes apparent. Because of the importance of the experience of the oppressed in leading them to the unveiling of the truth, they are the only ones that should organize the transformation and the pedagogy. However, Freire points out that after oppression is no longer actively invalidating humanization, the pedagogy is for all people, which can include those who were previously oppressors. Furthermore, the oppressors can take an active role as an ally in supporting the oppressed in their actions and validation of the perception. It can be derived that to be a true leader in the real societal contexts of transformation, one must fully understand the experience of what causes the social contexts. In the case of oppression, the oppressed are those who can fully understand the causes of