Freire's Pedagogy: 2. Breaking The Sadistic Cycle

This post is a continuation of meditations and explorations of Paulo Freire's book Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  To me, the consideration of this book follows logically from the consideration of strategic nonviolent resistance which I set forth in the series of posts on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy.  The first post in the current series on Freire's Pedagogy laid out the necessity of our present consideration.  To repeat some statements from that post, freedom from oppression is the goal of a liberation struggle based on strategic nonviolent resistance.  This liberation struggle cannot be successful if it is waged only by isolated individuals.  It must be waged by people in collective, interdependent relationship - that is, by people who have chosen to organize.  The question then becomes how to persuade people to organize - especially when the organizer discovers that it is often very hard to rouse oppressed people to liberating action.  Freire's book begins to explore why oppressed peoples so often act for a long time in ways that do not reflect a desire for freedom, but rather for its opposite, and what foundational work must be done to begin to liberate people in their minds so that they can begin to liberate themselves in actuality.

So we begin once again with a foundational question, namely, what is the purpose of freedom.  Freire answers this by stating that "the people's vocation" is to become more fully human.  I would put it thus: that our calling is to fulfill our ontogeny (that is, the reason why we were created as human beings) to the greatest extent possible.  Freire describes this pursuit as "the pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person."  However, this pursuit of self-affirmation requires the pursuer to shoulder the necessary costs of the pursuit, the necessary costs of being a responsible person.  It is the desire to have the self-affirmation without shouldering the costs which leads some people to become the oppressors of their fellows - that is, the owners of their fellows and of the fruits of the labors of their fellows.  

An example of this is found in the book Garden Graces written by George Grant, a white American evangelical author with Dominionist leanings.  In that book, Mr. Grant celebrates the life and intellectual accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson.  What is especially ironic is Mr. Grant's celebration of Jefferson's accomplishments in the realm of farming and gardening.  For while Jefferson is credited with being a master strategist and inventor in the realm of agriculture, the actual work of implementing Jefferson's ideas was done by African slaves.  Jefferson had the opportunity to develop and express his intellectual talents in the realm of husbandry, but his slaves, on the other hand, were forced by the threat of violence to simply do as they were told.  By that threat of violence - the threatened violence of the oppressor - these slaves were deprived of the opportunity to develop their own humanity, including the intellectual dimension of that humanity which Jefferson got to develop in himself.  

And so we come to a series of key statements made by Freire in his description of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed: 

• "Any situation in which "A" objectively exploits "B" or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression. Such a situation in itself constitutes violence, even when sweetened by false generosity, because it interferes with the individual's ontological and historical vocation to be more fully human." - Pedagogy, page 55.

• "Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons—not by those who are oppressed, exploited, and unrecognized." - Pedagogy, page 55.  Two observations regarding this statement: first, that in order to deaden their own consciences, the oppressors must convince themselves that their intended victims are not persons and are not human.  Second, consider the abundant historical examples that prove the statement that it is the oppressors who throw the first punch and initiate the violence - from the unprovoked murder of Abel by Cain to the unprovoked conquest of the American continent by Europeans to the unprovoked colonization of Africa and Asia by the European "great powers" to the most recent example - the unprovoked attack and invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

• The corollary to the previous statement: "For the oppressors, 'human beings' refers only to themselves; other people are 'things.'" - Pedagogy, page 57.

• "This behavior, this way of understanding the world and people (which necessarily makes the oppressors resist the installation of a new regime) is explained by their experience as a dominant class...Analysis of existential situations of oppression reveals that their inception lay in an act of violence—initiated by those with power. This violence, as a process, is perpetuated from generation to generation of oppressors, who become its heirs and are shaped in its climate. This climate creates in the oppressor a strongly possessive consciousness—possessive of the world and of men and women." - Pedagogy, page 58.  This possessive consciousness can be illustrated by examples.  A personal example is the experience I had several years ago at a technical office where I worked, in which I came in contact with a white South African man who had left South Africa shortly after apartheid ended.  It quickly became clear to me that he could not bring himself to see me as a fellow human being (I being a Black man), but rather as one of his former possessions who had somehow been stolen from him.  The daily sight of me - a degreed technical professional who had the same job rank and privileges as him - must have given him ulcers!  Another example, both contemporary and historical, is the warped Russian desire to possess and dominate the Baltic nations (not to mention the entire world), an attitude beautifully illustrated by Olga Doroshenko in her posts on Russian narcissism.

• "As beneficiaries of a situation of oppression, the oppressors cannot perceive that if having is a condition of being, it is a necessary condition for all women and men. This is why their generosity is false. Humanity is a "thing," and they possess it as an exclusive right, as inherited property. To the oppressor consciousness, the humanization of the "others," of the people, appears not as the pursuit of full humanity, but as subversion." - Pedagogy, pages 58-59.  Not only is this a corollary to the previous statement, but this explains why oppressors consider the struggle for liberation to be an act of subversion - for that struggle subverts the supposed "property rights" of the oppressor.

• "If the humanization of the oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for constant control. And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate "things." This tendency of the oppressor consciousness to "in-animate" everything and everyone it encounters, in its eagerness to possess, unquestionably corresponds with a tendency to sadism." - Pedagogy, page 59.  This statement is the central point of today's post.  To define sadism, Freire quotes from Erich Fromm, who writes that "The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive."  This sadistic drive seeks to turn the animate, with its freedom and unpredictability, into the inanimate - thus killing it.  This is why the language of oppressors "smells like death," to paraphrase Srdja Popovic.

So Paulo Freire asserts that a central pillar of the oppressor's thinking is the desire to treat other human beings as mere objects, and to wholly possess these "objects", to bring these "objects" entirely under his control.  I say right now that the only Being who has a genuine right to call us His possessions is our Creator.  Allowing fallen, fallible men or women to have that right over us leads us very quickly to the experience of sadism.

This is why, in the struggle for liberation, the oppressed must not be led into the fallacy that says that oppressor and oppressed are merely two sides of the kind of bilateral disagreement in which each side shares blame and in which each side must make some compromises.  Such a fallacy will be preached by the oppressor the moment the oppressed succeed in mounting a challenge that seriously threatens the domination of the oppressor.  If you are in a disagreement with another person because you want to just live your life and mind your business while the other person wants to roast you over a barbecue and stick you between two pieces of bread, what sort of acceptable "compromise" can you reasonably work out?  What concessions should you make?

And this is also why in a struggle against an oppressor, appeasement will never work.  For if you respond to the threat of oppression by attempting to appease the oppressor, you will sooner or later come to a situation where, in the limit, you are totally dominated by the sadism of the oppressor and you find that you have become a masochist.  That is living death.