Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?

Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated.

Implicit in the banking concept [of education] is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others…In this view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside.

https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf

  • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s reactionary in every configuration I’ve seen.

    “They’re going to suffer” is supremely individualistic, and by extension blames the oppressed more than the oppressor because the oppressor’s children won’t be the ones suffering

    “Too many people” in the absence of a world order that responds to need is misanthropic Malthusian nonsense. It implies that our elite is somehow innate to humanity, once again blaming the powerless and excusing the people and system responsible for ecological devastation

    And “I just don’t like them, they’re annoying and they don’t know anything” is just depressingly small-minded and nihilistic

    Kids good.