Pedagogy of the Oppressed, chapters three and four, discuss the depth of the oppressed and the oppressors, the importance of dialogue, and how this quality is portrayed in revolutionary leaders. Freire discusses the contrasting theories between the dominant elites and the revolutionary leaders to help explain that anti-dialogical dominant elites conquer the minds and freedom of the oppressed in different ways. Contrastingly, the revolutionary leaders prioritize the people, and focus on allowing them to critically think independently. In this essay, I will be highlighting the concept of dialogue, the characteristics the oppressive elites have in comparison to the revolutionary leaders, as well as, the processes necessary to release the oppressed
…show more content…
Freire allows his readers to understand this notion by describing the importance of reflection, action and critical thinking. True dialogue is not simply allowing one party (the oppressors) to instill their values and ideas onto another party (the oppressed) – rather, true dialogue is characterized by six attributes: love, humility, faith in man, mutual trust, hope and critical thinking (Freire,1970). In the context of education, the banking method of education lacks with these six attributes as educators in this system see students as objects that cannot analyze and reflect, ultimately, having no sense of love, humility, faith, hope or trust in them. Contrastingly, the problem-posing educational system are immersed in these characteristics as teachers are equally as dependent to grow and learn as the students. Freire describes this horizontal relationship as authentic education because two parties are working with each other, nor for or about each other (Freire, 1970). Additionally, under the same distinction between the banking method of education and the problem posing method of education, Freire describes the distinction between the dominant elites and the humanists. He describes how dominant elites simply take advantage of the oppressed being refrained from thinking by reinforcing their own morals and values; whereas, the humanists known as the revolutionary leaders, make the oppressed …show more content…
In this context, the anti-dialogical elites desire to eradicate any context of self, individual, and freedom that the oppressed may have by providing them the illusion that they have the opportunity to control their life, and make decisions. In terms of education, Freire discusses how children begin to discover that their home and school environment reflect one another, and they realize that “success” and “satisfaction” will come to them when they follow the instructions told by professionals (i.e. parents and teachers) (Freire, 1970). Hence, children begin to internalize their parents and teachers values and beliefs, without questioning, reflecting, or critically thinking about it. The revolutionary leaders contrary constitute of the elements of cooperation, unity for liberation, organization, and cultural synthesis. For these leaders, the importance of being with the people, discussing, and critically analyzing their environments together is essential, as soon the communion will turn into cooperation which will ultimately lead to liberation (Freire,
Freire allows his readers to understand this notion by describing the importance of reflection, action and critical thinking. True dialogue is not simply allowing one party (the oppressors) to instill their values and ideas onto another party (the oppressed) – rather, true dialogue is characterized by six attributes: love, humility, faith in man, mutual trust, hope and critical thinking (Freire,1970). In the context of education, the banking method of education lacks with these six attributes as educators in this system see students as objects that cannot analyze and reflect, ultimately, having no sense of love, humility, faith, hope or trust in them. Contrastingly, the problem-posing educational system are immersed in these characteristics as teachers are equally as dependent to grow and learn as the students. Freire describes this horizontal relationship as authentic education because two parties are working with each other, nor for or about each other (Freire, 1970). Additionally, under the same distinction between the banking method of education and the problem posing method of education, Freire describes the distinction between the dominant elites and the humanists. He describes how dominant elites simply take advantage of the oppressed being refrained from thinking by reinforcing their own morals and values; whereas, the humanists known as the revolutionary leaders, make the oppressed …show more content…
In this context, the anti-dialogical elites desire to eradicate any context of self, individual, and freedom that the oppressed may have by providing them the illusion that they have the opportunity to control their life, and make decisions. In terms of education, Freire discusses how children begin to discover that their home and school environment reflect one another, and they realize that “success” and “satisfaction” will come to them when they follow the instructions told by professionals (i.e. parents and teachers) (Freire, 1970). Hence, children begin to internalize their parents and teachers values and beliefs, without questioning, reflecting, or critically thinking about it. The revolutionary leaders contrary constitute of the elements of cooperation, unity for liberation, organization, and cultural synthesis. For these leaders, the importance of being with the people, discussing, and critically analyzing their environments together is essential, as soon the communion will turn into cooperation which will ultimately lead to liberation (Freire,