Who is Paulo Freire?

Background

Freire first became a grammar teacher in high school, interested in understanding his students’ educational needs from a dialogical point of view. He married Elza Maia Costa de Oliveira, an elementary school teacher, in 1944 who encouraged him to pursue his studies in education. In 1946, he was appointed as Director of Education at SESI which helped to educate workers and their families. During his time at SESI, Freire noticed more of the discrepancy between working class people and the current elitist methods of education. He would criticize this disconnection and also write about these issues in places such as his Ph.D. thesis (Bentley, 1999). This led to Freire being imprisoned in 1964 for 70 days in Brazil for being a “traitor” to the state. Afterwards, Freire continued work on multiple projects and writings across Latin America to improve literacy and aid oppressed groups, such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Education as the Practice of Freedom, Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea-Bissau, and many other works. In 1988, he was appointed as Minister of Education for São Paulo and implemented policies, literacy training, and the Paulo Freire Institute to encourage gathering of scholars interested in his pedagogy (Bentley, 1999).

Pedagogy of the Oppressed

One term Freire introduces in his book is the concept of “praxis”, which he breaks down into the two components of “reflection” and “action”. Reflection involves gaining more critical knowledge about the social reality in which the oppressed live, while action is taking steps to improve this reality, such as through protest, education, advocacy, or other counterhegemonic routes. Freire pieces these elements together as he overall describes praxis as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (1970, p.51). To achieve the goal of praxis, the oppressed must engage in both critical thought about the reality which seeks to hegemonize them, but also act upon this knowledge in order to create liberating change to their situation. One without the other cannot enact true liberation for the oppressed. Hence, praxis becomes a tool to combat the “culture of silence” where the economic, social, and political systems of paternalistic hegemony submerge its people into lethargy and ignorance and make it impossible for them to gain critical awareness of their oppression (1970, p.30). Praxis encourages a break of the silence; it disrupts complacency and encourages the masses to be actively involved in their own liberation.

Freire’s theory of dialogue as a never-ending process of learning and knowing between different parties (1970, p.18) also ties back into praxis. Through open-ended dialogue and a reciprocity of mutual trust, empathy, and respect, the typical oppressor and oppressed may come together to understand each other’s perspectives and gain critical insight on their needs. Dialogue is a venue by which reflection can be achieved, and action can also bring about the opportunity to access spaces of dialogue. Trusting the oppressed’s ability to reason and represent themselves is key to initiating dialogue, reflection, and efficient communication.

Connections to Ecuador

Freire’s theories about the pedagogy of the oppressed are highly relevant to the recent protests from Indigenous groups in Ecuador. The mobilization of Indigenous peoples under CONAIE is an example of how praxis was achieved amongst Ecuador’s Indigenous Peoples against the hegemonic actions of the government to raise fuel prices and expand oil mining onto their territories. The organization, representing 14 Indigenous groups in Ecuador, gathered over 14,000 protestors who had engaged in critical reflection over the government’s mistreatment of their rights, and acted upon their thoughts with protests and blocking roads for the transportation of oil. They could not remain complacent in a culture of silence as President Lasso’s administration seeks to take more of their land away from them, breaking Ecuador’s Constitution to displace and disrespect Indigenous ways of life, which in turn increases the rate of poverty and unemployment of these groups in the country.

The work of CONAIE and other activist groups were largely ignored by the government until the mobilization of protestors causing losses in oil exports, complications with road blockages, and gaining international attention pressured Lasso into engaging in dialogue with the leaders of CONAIE. From these discussions between government officials and the CONAIE leaders, a somewhat satisfactory agreement was reached to limit oil exploration and mining on protected lands, as well as a reduction in fuel prices and increases in health and education budgets for Ecuadorians. Hence, the collective praxis of CONAIE members and allies effectively brought about social transformations from their efforts. The protests helped to bring greater awareness and education of these issues to Ecuadorians, hence increasing the education and reflection about Indigenous rights in these communities. They then continued to spur actions from their advocacy, mass protests and road blockages which ultimately led to a government response of taking the concerns of Indigenous people more into consideration when passing policies.