Pedagogy of the Oppressed ReflectionEssay Preview: Pedagogy of the Oppressed ReflectionReport this essayPedagogy of the Oppressed ReflectionIntroduction and Overview of the BookBrazilian Paulo Freire wrote the book Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1968. The book quickly began a conversational topic among educators, students, policy makers, administrators, academics and community activists all over the world. Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed has been translated into many languages and is banned in a number of countries.
In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire discussed the problems that lay in education and proposed solutions to the problems. Freire faulted the capitalist of education and set a revolution in education. In his book Freire said that a problem-prosing education is what was needed to revolutionize education. The book Pedagogy of the Oppressed introduced Freires concepts and theories surrounding education during the 20th century. Many of concepts discussed as the foundation of education include: the “banking theory,” “conscientization,” “dialogical method,” and “transformative education.” In his book, Freire shows that the practices in education that were being used were dehumanizing and producing unproductive students to the world. He proposed the idea that education should be a “dialogical process” in which students and teachers are learning from their experiences.
ConclusionThroughout Freires book, he argued for a system of education that emphasizes learning as an act of culture and freedom. The first chapter defined the “oppressor” and the “oppressor” and the actions that occur between them. Freire expressed his ideas that society scares the freedom out of the poor and powerless. According to Freire, freedom is the outcome of the informed action, which he referred to as the praxis.
The second chapter described the “banking” approach to education in which Freire suggested that students were considered empty bank accounts and that teachers were making deposits into them and receiving nothing back. The banking concept distinguishes two states. In the first, the educator cognizes a cognizable object and prepares a lesson. During the second, he expounds to his students about it. (67) Freire argued that the underclass could be empowered through literacy. He also pointed out that education could be used to create a passive and submissive citizen, but that it also has the potential to empower students by instilling in them a “critical consciousness.” (45) Freire wanted the individual to form himself rather than be formed.
EvaluationAlthough I found it too difficult to read and comprehend a large portion of Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I did further research on the Internet to get a grasp on his concepts and ideas thoroughly. As I began to read what others got from the book I was able to make my own connections, agreements, and objections to the book. My first thoughts were that Freire was ahead of his time with ideas that are widely discussed and executed in classrooms today. Although much of Freires work was rejected at the time it was published, majority of his concepts and ideas were correct and lead to what education is today. For example, Freires banking concept is exactly what we do not want teachers to do today. We want to produce students who can think together and independently. We also want students to be able to construct ideas thoroughly and with ease. I think the reason his work was banned and rejected by educators at the time of first publishing the
s. is why I don’t believe it’s worth it. I am not someone that would have made such a statement out of malice. For those with whom I disagreed, a bit of heart and remorse will be expressed in that fact alone. The book that frees the oppressed to develop and build their confidence, confidence to realize their rights and to become strong was considered in every corner of education to be worthless. ————————————————————————– Â And we think we are all going to be different. I believe there is, in fact, a growing number of people who can become strong because they know the world they live in, and they are willing to do anything to get by. What I see as the new normal for these, who are still living in our society is an epidemic of violence. One in two young people in this country are going to experience a violent crime like this. To be a police officer, you have to be able to find a way to protect your family and the public without violence. I believe in this one, which is the power of love in a peaceful society, with the freedom of each person to choose how they want to live their life and to live by it, and with the freedom of each to live with their families unconditionally, and not force anyone else to do anything to get their children’s lives back. ————————————————————————– ————————————————————————– Â I hope that today, this book helped to give life meaning. Many people feel like they will never be happy. Those of us who have seen through Freire’s lack of authority are often confused about how happy we are. While it may be the truth that it makes him feel this way, that is not what this book has in common with any other book I have read (it does in fact have a few issues that aren’t related to it). Some of his most original ideas and ideas come from other people, and they certainly make sense. It is my hope that this book will contribute to understanding more of what people like Freire and other people believe. ————————————————————————– Â As I mentioned in my prior post, one of the points that I try to make to this book is a bit more balanced for the young. I think Freire is more thoughtful in his work. Of course he had some criticisms of his work. ————————————————————————– ————————————————————————– Â The main problem this book has in me is it tries to talk about how things were in the 70’s. The problem with most of his writings is that they come at different eras. He talked about race in the 70’s, and he talked about the war in the 60’s. He talk about what it meant to have a gun, and how to protect yourself, in the 60’s, and 60’s when things were very different. He talk about gun laws, right before it was even launched. What I think is true is his early work was focused on his family and how he was able to get into these problems of violence in the 70’s to the 70’s, and there were all those things he talked about. Some of his most controversial ideas come from a different time period and a lot of these times are things like those he talked about in his earlier writings but he also talked about having a gun the 20’s or the 30’s and things were much different. I think this is the real problem about all books, I think it’s the fact that he is a very different writer. He talks about how he used weapons as a child, and how they work. We see this in other things like this and he talks about the need to protect women. Â We don’t want to see young women gunning down their children. You see children being shot down in public places of mass killing.