Pedagogy Of The Oppressed By Paulo Feire

Freire begins Chapter 2 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by stating his interpretation of the educational system between teacher and student, focusing primarily on the “banking” system, which is exceptionally biased due to oppressive teachers who direct their own misguided inquiries upon their oppressed students. Freire continues on by maintaining “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those

In the 1997 article, “On The Uses of a Liberal Education: As a Weapon In the Hands of the Restless Poor,” published by Harper’s Magazine, the social critic Earl Shorris described how political power could be achieved by a rather non-vocational educational discipline, the humanities. He emphasizes on how the knowledge of a liberal Education can be used as a form of weapon within the lives for the poor.

In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Brazilian educator, philosopher, and author, Paulo Freire, informs us, the readers, of the difference between an oppressive education system and a libertarian system. Freire first published this book in Portuguese in 1968, just four years after his imprisonment and exile on the charge of spreading revolutionist teachings. He uses verbose language to further emphasize the importance of learning and a passionate tone to show his anguish at the loss of knowledge and education. In his lament for the awakening of his people, Freire’s effective use of the rhetorical situation persuades his audience to reject their country’s current oppressive system and to fight their oppressors who refuse them the right of free thought.

In Paulo Freire’s “Banking Concept of Education”, he explains his view of the educational system, and the faults within it. Freire describes the educational system as being “banking education”, which he explains to be the wrong method, and proposes a new method of “problem-posing” education which he believes to be more effective and just.

Freire and Rodriguez would not agree that the process of education has to be certain way. Freire believes that banking education oppresses the students and to be free of oppression we, “must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it with” problem-posing education (323). On the other hand, Rodriguez’s father saw that education, even banking, “could enable a person to escape from a life of mere labor” (Rodriguez 522). Rodriguez embraced the deposits of information from his teachers. “Any book they told me to read, I read – then waited for them to tell me which books I enjoyed” (Rodriguez 518-19). Rodriguez was so into the banking concept of education that not only did he let the teachers deposit information in him, but also feelings. This type of learning may have made it take longer for Rodriguez to think critically; however, banking education did give him skills that

Chapter 2 of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed discusses a failed teaching method between the student and teacher. It’s a common mistake for teachers to treat the teaching process as a “banking concept”. Freire discusses how this concept takes away creativity from students by forcing them to memorize facts as the teacher “deposits” them into their minds. It’s not expected of the student to comprehend what they’re learning. It’s expected of them to take what the teacher is saying as fact without critically thinking about the meaning behind it. Freire explains,

Philosopher and educator Paulo Freire once said, “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” In Freire’s work of “the Banking Concept of Concept”, he describes how the education system is failing to help student find success in the real world as well as it provides a framework for the “teachers” to oppress the “students” through the distribution of power.

Some people believe education enslaves us and other people believe education liberates us. The education that students receive is both boring and incorrect; in the Oxford dictionary it defined education, “a process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university”. I strongly believe education enslaves us. Schools don’t educate, they only teach people to follow orders. Sherman Alexie tackles his own process of education, one that includes a voracious hunger for the written word. His experience with education was one of autonomy, and his relationship to learning led him to future success. On the other hand, John Taylor Gatto also suggests for a more unrestricted learning experience, a complete opposite from the regimented factory-like settings of compulsory mass education. Arguing against the harm that public school creates, Gatto suggests promoting learning instead of “schooling”.

The greatest thing about humans is that they have the ability to think. Thinking is what differs people from each other and makes people who they are. Freire understands the importance of thinking and wants to start a discussion on the school systems attempt to restrict thinking. This is what he tries to do in his article, something that he does pretty well. He believes the school system solely cares about facts and numbers. The teachers feed their students information and expect them to memorize it, and spit it back on paper. “The reason the banking system continues to thrive is to serve the purpose of the authority, whose peace of mind rests on how well the oppressed fit in the world created by the oppressors, and how little they question it (Freire, page 219). Educators have to understand that the classroom is a leveled playing field, teaching and learning simultaneously through discussions with each other.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed Paulo Freire mentions the teacher-student contradiction. The contradiction is when students are controlled by teachers. The teachers have the authority over the students, which puts the students in a position that lacks freedom to experience their identity as humans. This contradiction exists due to the banking concept of education. Freire states that the banking concept encourages the contradiction between teachers and students. The banking concept rejects students as individuals and sees them as objects. As a result of the rejection as individuals, students are unable to speak or act upon their own

Only in the end of his essay does Freire focus more on his own system, and explain its privileges without resorting to the faults of the currents system, but even then he uses the latter tactic several times. The essay ends on a political note, calling the new revolutionaries to realize what the name they call themselves means, and to change the current ways not only on the outside, as they have done before, but also internally to make radical changes to their philosophy and their ideas about education. This concluding device stirs up some doubts as to the point of the whole essay. It might seem from the author’s concluding point that the underlying purpose of the essay was not to expand on the more beneficial ways of education, but to criticize the ways of political leaders in his, or some other country. Nevertheless, the rest of the essay shows little evidence of such a plot, and this point is at best marginal.

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

In “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education,” from the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Revised Edition, Paulo Freire discusses two different types of education: “banking” and problem-posing. The banking concept of education is when teachers “make deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat” (318), and ‘problem posing’ is when the teachers and students are equal. Instead of being treated as human beings that have their own thoughts and ideas, students are treated as containers that are simply filled by a powerful being, a teacher. In school, teachers are dominants that provide knowledge to the students, the subordinates; the knowledge that students learn are limited to what they’re taught by teachers. Similarly, in Kurt Wimmer’s ‘Equilibrium’, Librians are treated as reservoirs for knowledge.

Bowles and Gintis felt it was important to write this article, because they believe that the politics of education are better understood in terms of the need for social control in an unequal and rapidly changing economic order. This point is illustrated on page 396 when the authors say, “The unequal

Our class has been extremely beneficial to my education, and I credit that completely to the structure of the class, one in which Freire would consider a step in the right direction: the direction of a problem-posing education. This course greatly exceeded any expectations I could have had. In the past, and recently, I have experienced a number of classes that use the banking concept of education. I find it extremely difficult to learn in an environment where I am solely a receptacle of the information thrown at me. In “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education,” Freire describes this depository concept as one where “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (217). I strongly believe this class did not represent that. There is always some form of discussion, and each side appears to be learning something new. The professor does indeed know more than the students, but my opinion and analyzation is always