Abstract
Starting from a psychology of oppression influenced by psychotherapists like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Frantz Fanon, and Erich Fromm, Freire developed a “pedagogy of the oppressed.” With the spirit of the Enlightenment, he believed in education as a means to improve the human condition, confronting the effects of a psychology and a sociology of oppression, contributing ultimately to what Freire considered the ontological vocation of the human race: humanization. In the introduction to his highly acclaimed work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire states, “From these pages I hope my trust in the people is clear, my faith in men and women, and my faith in the creation of a world in which it will be easier to love” (Freire 1972:19; my translation).
For Freire, the notion of democratic education entails the notion of a democratic citizenship in which agents are active participants in the democratic process, able to choose their representatives as well as monitor their performance (Torres forthcoming). These are not only political but also pedagogical practices because the construction of the democratic citizen implies the construction of a pedagogic subject. Individuals are not, by nature, ready to participate in politics. They have to be educated in democratic politics in a number of ways, including normative grounding, ethical behavior, knowledge of the democratic process, and technical performance (Torres 1998). In this light, the construction of the pedagogic subject is a central conceptual problem, if you will, a dilemma of democracy. To put it simply, democracy implies a process of participation where all are considered equal. However, education involves a process whereby the “immature” are brought to identify with the principles and life forms of the “mature” members of society.
Thus, the process of construction of the democratic pedagogic subject is a process of cultural nurturing, involving cultivating principles of pedagogic and democratic socialization in subjects who are neither tabula rasa in cognitive or ethical terms nor yet fully equipped for the exercise of their democratic rights and obligations. Yet, in the construction of modern polities, the constitution of a pedagogical democratic subject is predicated on grounds that are, paradoxically, a precondition but also the result of previous experiences and policies of national solidarity (including citizenship, competence building, and collaboration) (O’Cadiz and Torres 1994; Torres 1997; O’Cadiz, Wong, and Torres 1998). This is one of the most fundamental contributions of Freire’s political philosophy of education and one that emerges as crucial in his famous book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
A second major contribution of Freire is his thesis, advanced in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and reiterated across his oeuvre, that the pedagogical subjects of the educational process are not homogeneous citizens but rather culturally diverse individuals. From his notion of cultural diversity, Freire identified the notion of crossing borders in education, intimating that there is an ethical imperative to cross borders if we attempt to educate for empowerment and not for oppression. Crossing the lines of difference is, indeed, a central dilemma of democracy, so well represented in the challenge that Pedagogy of the Oppressed posed for liberal democratic societies in late capitalism. As I said countless times, after Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in pedagogy today, we can be with Freire or against Freire, but not without Freire.