We may first understand praxis by identifying its antithesis: the inversion of praxis is the social reality produced by humankind, such as the conditioning of an abliest objectivity imposed upon individual subjectivities as previously described in relation to thematic universes (Freire PO ch. 1 par. 23). However, if the disabled body possesses the ontological possibility of docility by virtue of dehumanization, then it necessarily has the capacity to humanize itself through praxis. If critical perception is embodied in action (Freire PO ch. 3, par. 30), then there is an inextricable link between the body and mind as a site of revolutionary praxis. The power which springs from the disabled body is thus the only source strong enough to liberate both the oppressed and their oppressors. The disabled body is thus required to engage in a praxis of struggle in order to engage in limit acts and attain essential elements of critical consciousness and dialogism.

Praxis is transformative reflection and action. It begins with an emerging consciousness aware of our own ontological incompletion under the conditions of oppression. When we engage in the persistent unveiling of reality, we begin to pose problems to our consciousness and complicate our immobilized, static reality. Shaking off the anesthetization of oppression, we realize the need to fight for our emancipation. Acting on this realization is to break down the dominant ontology of disability through critical reflection. In the instant that we understand that people with disabilities are not disabled by their diagnoses or impairment, but rather by society, we "develop the power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves" (Freire PO ch. 2, par. 38). Praxis cannot begin without the emergence of a critical consciousness. This emergence is the vocation of the oppressed to become more fully human, the desire for humanization. It is to traverse the ontological contradiction of their existence that is created, reinforced, and perpetuated by the hierarchical relationship between the non-disabled and the disabled.

Dialogism is an existential necessity of revolutionary praxis. Human nature itself is communicative--we are relational creatures. But, true dialogue "cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people" (Freire PO ch. 2, par. 8). When love is at once the foundation and the substance of dialogue, the result is "an act of creation" (Freire PO ch. 2, par. 7). Love and faith in humankind must be at the very core of your cause for liberation, for these are the true motivators of the desire for humanization. Revolutionary praxis cannot be achieved without diagloic action with others. Through dialogue, the oppressed create new understandings of the world and those around them. As we have begun to examine, disability is an incredibly diverse minority group. Thus, dialogic action, often resulting in cross-disability approaches, is a discourse essential to our pedagogical success. It is also essential that in unifying an oppressed group with cross-disability approaches, we do not forget the unique experiences of every person with a disability which contributes to a diverse whole. In dialogic action, there must be a balance between individuality and the collective and a respect to every person's worldview.

If praxis is critical reflection and the act of creation through dialogic action with others, then praxis as consciousness and communication is necessarily human. As we move forward, it is integral that we understand and interpret these concepts and use critical consciousness and dialogism as constitutive elements of revolutionary praxis with the ultimate goal of becoming more fully human in spite of ableist objectivity.

The struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed is born out of the necessity of the oppressed to fight for liberation; “and this fight, because of the purpose given it by the oppressed, will actually constitute an act of love opposing the lovelessness which lies at the heart of the oppressor’s violence” (Freire PO ch. 1, par. 7). Revolution as an act of love requires a disposition of indignation, of violent resistance and nonconformity in response to the oppressor’s injustice. Violence and indignation, however, cannot be understood as an act by or feeling of the oppressed as we understand them in the oppressor’s terms. Instead, we must see that “whereas the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being fully human, the response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the desire to pursue the right to be human” (Freire PO ch. 1, par. 37).

Freire also echoes this idea in Pedagogy of Freedom, saying, “My just anger is grounded in any indignation in the face of the denial of the rights inherent in the very essence of the human condition” (Freire PF p. 51). The oppressed have a right to be angry, and their anger is justified by the dehumanization of the oppressor’s violence. Revolution and the subsequent transformation of the oppressed are the consequence of our passion to fulfill our ontological vocation of becoming more fully human, and thus an act of love as the expression of our essential desire and purpose.