PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED
Chapter 1
The justification for a pedagogy of the
oppressed; the contradiction
between the oppressors and the oppressed, and
how it is overcome;
oppression and the oppressors; oppression and
the oppressed;
liberation: not a gift, not a self-achievement,
but a mutual process.
While
the problem of humanization has always, from an
axiological point of view, been humankind's central problem, it now takes on the character of an
inescapable concern.l Concern for humanization leads at once to the
recognition of dehumanization, not only
as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality And as an individual
perceives the extent of dehumanization, he or she rtiay ask if humanization is
a viable possibility.
Within history^
in concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a
person as an uncompleted being conscious
of their incompletion.
But
while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives, only the
first is the people's vocation. This vocation is constantly negated, yet it is
affirmed by that very negation. It is thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression,
and the violence of the oppressors; it
is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed for freedom and justice, and by
their struggle to recover their lost humanity.
Dehumanization, which marks not only
those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way)
those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully
human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not an historical
vocation. Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as an historical vocation would
lead either to cynicism or total despair. The struggle for humanization, for
the emancipation of labor, for the overcoming of alienation, for the
affirmation of men and women as persons would be meaningless. This struggle is
possible only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact, is
not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence
in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed.
Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later
being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them
so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in
seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn
oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.
This,
then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate
themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit,
and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to
liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the
weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both. Any attempt to "soften"
the power of the oppressor in deference to the weakness of the oppressed almost
always manifests itself in the form of false generosity; indeed, the attempt
never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express
their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well.
An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this "generosity,"
which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispensers
of false generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source.
True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which
nourish false charity. False charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the
"rejects of life," to extend their trembling hands. True generosity
lies in striving so that these hands—whether of individuals or entire
peoples—need be extended less and less in supplication, so that more and more
they become human hands which work and, working, transform the world.
This
lesson and this apprenticeship must come, however, from the oppressed
themselves and from those who are truly solidary with them. As individuals or
as peoples, by fighting for the restoration of their humanity they will be attempting
the restoration of true generosity. Who are better prepared than the oppressed
to understand the terrible significance of an oppressive society? Who suffer the
effects of oppression more than the oppressed? Who can better understand the
necessity of liberation? They will not gain this liberation by chance but
through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the
necessity to fight for it. And this fight, because of the purpose given it by
the oppressed, will actually constitute an act of love opposing the lovelessness
which lies at the heart of the oppressors violence, lovelessness even when
clothed in false generosity.
But almost always, during the initial stage of
the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend
themselves to become oppressors, or "sub-oppressors." The very
structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the
concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their ideal is to be
men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of
humanity. This phenomenon derives from the fact that the oppressed, at a
certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of
"adhesion" to the oppressor. Under these circumstances they cannot
"consider" him sufficiently clearly to objectivize him—to discover
him "outside" themselves. This does not necessarily mean that the
oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden.
But their perception of themselves as oppressed
is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression. At this level,
their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not
yetsignify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole
aspires not to liberation, but to identification with its opposite pole.
In this situation the oppressed do not see the
"new man" as the person to be born from the resolution of this
contradiction, as oppression gives way to liberation. For them, the new man or
woman themselves become oppressors. Their vision of the new man or woman is
individualistic; because of their identification with the oppressor, they have
no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class.
It is not to become free that they want agrarian reform, but in order to
acquire land and thus become landowners—or, more precisely, bosses over other
workers. It is a rare peasant who, once "promoted" to overseer, does
not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the owner himself.
This is because the context of the peasant's situation, that is, oppression,
remains unchanged. In this example, the overseer, in order to make sure of his
job, must be as tough as the owner—and more so. Thus is illustrated our previous
assertion that during the initial stage of their struggle the oppressed find in
the oppressor their model of "manhood."
Even revolution, which transforms a concrete
situation of oppression by establishing the process of liberation, must
confront this phenomenon. Many of the oppressed who directly or indirectly
participate in revolution intend—conditioned by the myths of the old order—to
make it their private revolution. The shadow of their former oppressor is still
cast over them.
The
"fear of freedom" which afflicts the oppressed,3 a fear which may
equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role
of oppressed, should be examined. One of the basic elements of the relationship
between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition
of one individual's choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the
person prescribed to into one that conforms with the preservers consciousness.
Thus, the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior, following as it
does the guidelines of the oppressor.
The oppressed, having internalized the image of
the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would
require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.
Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and
responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea
which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for
human completion.
To
surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize
its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new
situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully
human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation.
Although the situation of oppression is a
dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those
whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage
for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself
dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle.
However, the oppressed, who have adapted to the
structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to
it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they feel
incapable of running the risks it requires. Moreover, their struggle for freedom threatens not only
the oppressor, but also their own oppressed comrades who are fearful of still
greater repression.
When
they discover within themselves the yearning to be free, they perceive that
this yearning can be transformed into reality only when the same yearning is
aroused in their comrades. But while dominated by the fear of freedom they
refuse to appeal to others, or to listen to the appeals of others, or even to
the appeals of their own conscience. They prefer gregariousness to authentic
comradeship; they prefer the security of conformity with their state of
unfreedom to the creative communion produced by freedom and even the very
pursuit of freedom
