From history of dehumanization. There is a possibility in

               From Paolo Freire’s point of view,
literacy can be termed as a tool or  weapon for social change. To him, Education is
the perfect avenue by which people can perceive, interpret, criticize and
finally transform the world that they are in. Freire’s attack on the “culture
of silence” occupied by the massive numbers of illiterate peasants in Brazil’s
poorest areas contributed in an extraordinary way to the development of a sense
of purpose and identity among the oppressed and demoralized majority.  The entirety of his work came out of a
process of reflection in the midst of a scuffle to create a new social order.
He became the authentic voice of the “third world”, but his methodology and
philosophy were also important in the industrialized countries where a new
culture of silence threatened to dominate an overconsuming and over managed
population, where education too often meant merely socialization. Of all those
writing and thinking about education over the past several decades, Freire may
well be finally the most influential. 
Speaking from and for the “third world”, and implicitly for all
underprivileged people, he proposes a view of education as something positive
and also hazardous, a means of liberating people and enabling them to
participate in the historical process.

             Freire recognized that the greatest
problem mankind was facing was humanization. In his concern for humanization he
recognizes dehumanization as well. Dehumanization, does not only refer to those
individuals whose humanity has been stolen but also to those who have stolen
it. To those who have stolen it distorts their calling or vocation to be fully
human. There is a struggle for emancipation from this history of
dehumanization. There is a possibility in fighting from this unjust social
order the oppressed turns to become the oppressor of the oppressed. If this
happens humanity is still distorted and the struggle becomes meaningless. The
humanity of both parties must be restored. The struggle for, freedom, for the
overcoming of alienation, complete change from this dehumanized state, and for
the affirmation of men and women as persons would be not be worth it. This
struggle is possible only because this dehumanization is not cast in stone,
even though it is a historical fact it exists just before a section of the
society have decided to oppress another section. The excesses of this
oppression affects both the oppressor and the oppressed. This dehumanization
takes away from the oppressed their sense of being fully  human. This feeling of being less humans
catches up with them and this fuels the need to struggle and fight the
oppressors. In order for this struggle to have meaning and achieve the main
purpose , the oppressed must not in any way become oppressors in their quest to
reclaim their humanity. They should strive to reclaim the humanity of both
parties that is the oppressed and the oppressor. The is the task the oppressed
is charged to achieve. The oppressors, who oppress and exploit because of the
power they have  cannot find the  strength to liberate the oppressed themselves
.Only power that emanates from the weakness of the oppressed will be
sufficiently strong to free both.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

             As individuals or as peoples, by
fighting for the restoration of their humanity they will be attempting the
restoration of true generosity. The people that were once oppressed are better
prepared to understand the oppressed society. Who are better prepared than the
oppressed to understand the importance of liberation. This freedom or
liberation will not  happen by sheer
coincidence but through a conscious effort and the acknowledgement of there
being a cause to fight for. Given the ultimate purpose for this fight,it should
be necessitate acts of love because of the purpose given it by the oppressed,
will actually constitute an act of love. Their ideal is to be men; but for
them, to be men somehow automatically means to be oppressors. This is what they
think humanity should be. At a certain moment of their life, adopt an attitude
of “adhesion” to the oppressor. They see their situation as what is normal .
This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are
downtrodden. But their sensitivity to what is going on and how they see
themselves is compromised by their submersion in the reality the system has
created for them. This
bring rise to the need of pedagogy of the oppressed . the masses that is the
oppressed must know their power. It must lead to a dialogue that will in turn
bring a complete transformation to them. It has to be achieved through
educational projects because the oppressors control the education system.
Pedagogy must be humanist not humanitarian that is  it should not be charity work but involving
them to liberate themselves.

                  Chapter two borders on the educational system
or process.  In chapter two  Freire is totally against the teacher student
relationship where the student is like a vessel and the teacher just pours into
it. The teacher narrates to the students and they in turn memorise it and
reproduce it during a test most often than not to be forgotten. To him
education was just an act of depositing, in where the students are the
depositories and the teacher is the depositor. He termed it the ‘ banking’
concept of education concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed
to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the
deposits. Students are made to believe they are ignorant and dumb hence the
purpose of the teacher feeding them with knowledge.  Students store this knowledge deposited in
them by the teacher and somehow makes the unable to develop their own critical
consciousness. Their inability to be critically conscious will strip them of
their power to be transform their world. The world.  As they continue to accept the passive role
imposed on them, they adapt  to the
conventions of the world and accept its views and traditions hook,line and
sinker. The banking concept of education dulls or eliminates the creative power
of him, the oppressor is only interested in “changing the
consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them” indeed
the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the
oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them” they rather teach you to
adjust instead of making a change. The 
more the oppressed is satisfied with the situation in which they are in,
the easier it is to dominate them. They are made to think they are receiving
the better end of the deal. True knowledge calls for  invention and re-invention through restless,
impatient, continuing and hopeful inquiry which men pursue in the world, with
the world and with each other. Freire believes    Teachers and students must, in fact, become
simultaneously both teachers and students; we must have teacher-student and
student-teacher. Such adaptation is dehumanizing and leads to control and
domination by the oppressor. The teacher for liberation must be a joint partner
of the students engaged in motivating critical thinking in this students. As
against education (by the oppressors) for domination, we have education for
liberation. This liberation  seeks to get
men to take action and transform their world. Liberating education is not
simply depositing knowledge but of knowing and understanding reality. This is
known as problem posing education. The teacher makes the materials available to
the students for their consideration; she in turn reconsiders her earlier
consideration as the students now express their views,points or findings.

 Through this process they see the world as not
static but capable of dynamism and change. Humans must be also dialogical in
order to promote inquiry and further the process of humanization.  Violence can birth forth if this enquiry is
prevented. Problem-posing education therefore fundamentally theorizes that men
who are under any form of  domination
must fight for liberation.  It must push
the agenda  towards revolution. It must
promote the drive towards revolutionary change. The students are  no longer passive listeners but are now
involved co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. The teacher presents
the material to the students for their consideration, and re-considers her
earlier considerations as the students express their own. While banking
education and impedes creative power, problem-posing education involves a
constant unveiling of reality. Banking education attempts to maintain the
submersion of consciousness; whereas problem posing education pushes for the rise
of consciousness and critical intervention. Day in day out as problems that
have a relationship with the world that this Students are in, are  presented to them they have no choice than to
feel challenged and be compelled to  to
do something about this problems. They must be revolutionary that is to say
dialogical from the outset.

             Chapter three speaks on the need
for dialogue.Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love
for the world and for people in it. Love is the very foundation of dialogue and.
It is thus necessarily the task of responsible Subjects and cannot exist in a
relation of domination. Dialogue.

Domination reveals the pathology of love:
sadism in the dominator and masochism in the dominated. Because love is an act
of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to others. No Dialogue is an
encounter with men mediated by the word in order to name the world. Therefore
dialogue cannot occur between those who deny the right to speak and those who
are denied.  Dialogue is a creative act,
not a means of domination. Dialogue has to be based ultimately on the love of
mankind and the world.  It demands an act
of courage which involves commitment to other men and the generating of acts of
freedom. Therefore, without this love for the world, life and men, there can be
no dialogue. Dialogue has to be based on humility, thus pride must not come
anywhere near.  It cannot be conducted
with arrogance.  At the point of
encounter in a dialogue, there are neither utter ignoramuses nor perfect
sages.  There are only men attempting
together to learn more than they now know. Dialogue has to be based on an
intense faith in man, his power to make and remake, to create and recreate, in
his vocation to be fully human.  It
requires a faith that this power can be reborn even when men are thwarted and
suppressed by alienation, that is, when men are made to feel that their very
handiwork, because of their lack of control over it, is something which is
alien, hostile and dehumanizing. This love, humility and faith goes a long way
to create trust between both parties. Dialogue must also be based on hope,
which stems from the people knowing full well their incompleteness as human
beings. This knowledge drives them to search for this completeness with the
help of other men. The fact that dehumanization exists in an unjust social
order is not a cause to despair and give up but rather to give hope which must
lead men to the constant pursuit of the humanity denied to them by this unjust
social order.  Hope does not mean just
waiting for something good to happen “As long as I fight, I am moved by hope,
and if I fight with hope, then I can wait.” True dialogue also requires that
parties involved engage in critical thinking . they take comfort in the reality
that the world and mankind are united  It
“perceives reality as process, as transformation, rather than as a static
unity”. “The universe is revealed to me not as space, imposing a massive
presence to which I can adapt, but as a scope, a domain which takes shape as I
act upon it.”  Thus, the dialogical
character of education, which must therefore mean the practice of freedom,
demands what the dialogue will be about and this leads us to the programme
content of education.  The concerns of
man are presented to them and they have to solve it using educative process of
dialogue. This sparks them to take action to face their limitations , transform
and create.

       Finally chapter four talks about Dialogical
and Anti Dialogical  action. Genuine
revolutionary action demands a revolutionary reflection which ensures that
people are not merely activists but  they
go ahead to put into practice their resolutions in communion with their
leaders. The leaders will co ordinate but obviously nothing will be done
without the input of the people. In this process there is communication between
the people and the oppressed.This process must not be static but dynamic,
educational and dynamic. It should also be a cultural process and not give room
to a counter beauracratic revolution. The anti dialogical action  uses 
conquest,divide and rule, manipulation, culture invasion  whereas dialogical action employs co
operation, unity for liberation, authentic organization and cultural synthesis.
revolutionary action demands a revolutionary praxis which ensures that people
are not merely activists but that they proceed to carry out their revolutionary
tasks through the process of action and reflection in communion with the
leaders.  The leaders will of course be
in a position to co-ordinate and at times direct the action, but they cannot
proceed to do so without the praxis of others involved. Therefore there can be
no room for manipulation, sloganizing, suppression, laying down rules, etc., by
the leaders who have to live with the people and not within them by
domination.  Hence dialogue is essential
for authentic revolution because man cannot be truly human without
communication.  In the action of
liberation, we have not just actors per se, but actors in communication with
one another.  The revolution  is not done by the individual parties in
isolation but both parties that is the leaders and the people acting in
solidarity. What is very real about the human condition is that men are in the
world and with other men – and that some men are against others, that is,
oppressing and oppressed classes. Authentic revolution seeks to change this
dehumanizing state of affairs.  In this
sense there is only the history of man made by men and in turn making
them.  Therefore the objective of any
true revolution requires that people act as well as reflect upon their real
condition which they seek to transform. Where there is domination and
oppression, there is no room for the people’s critical thinking.  Leaders of a dominating and oppressing class
cannot think with the people or let the people think for themselves.  They may think about the people but they
cannot think with the people.  Thus, in
the process of authentic revolution, men liberate themselves in communion.  Both oppressors and the real liberators make
use of science and technology – the former to reduce men to the status of things,
the latter to promote humanization. The oppressor believes in the myth of the
ignorance of the people, and is always out to exercise power, to order and
command. The scientific and humanist leaders on the other hand, although their
level of revolutionary knowledge may be higher than that of the people, must
dialogue with the people.  This will
enable critical knowledge of reality possessed by the revolutionary leaders to
strengthen and nourish that knowledge of reality which the people have acquired
on a different level through their daily experience. The revolutionary process
has to be a dynamic one, educational and dialogical, and therefore a cultural
process which must not be allowed to be overcome by reaction, bureaucratic
power or counter-revolution.

ANTI-DIALOGICAL 1. Conquest.  This demands that men be subjugated, kept
passive and made to adapt, and therefore remain oppressed. 2. Divide and
rule.  This aims at preserving the status
quo.  People’s problems are here not
looked upon as part of a totality but focalized into problems of local
areas.  This prevents the people from
having a proper understanding of their real condition, and militates against
the process of the oppressed people’s unification and united action on their
part. 3. Manipulation.  This is achieved
by means of myths propagated by the oppressors. 
This prevents people from thinking critically and also the emergence of
an authentic organization of the people for their real liberation. 4. Cultural
invasion.  By this process, the oppressors
impose their views of the world and inhibit the creativity of the invaded by
curbing their expression and also be creating in them a sense of inferiority.

DIALOGICAL 1. Co-operation.  This is based on the communion between
leaders and the people and promoted the process of liberation. 2. Unity for
liberation.  This must necessarily be
based on cultural action on the part of leaders and the people, which permeates
all spheres of living and is based on a real understanding of their total

3. Authentic organization.  This involves the process by which real unity
is forged for the common task of liberation.

4. Cultural synthesis.  This is achieved through continuous dialogue
between the leaders and the people, thereby enabling them to create their own
guidelines for the action they take eventually