Response to Donald Mecedo's take on Freire's critics

          Macedo feels, and appropriately documents, that Freire's work is often overlooked or ignored by mainstream academics.  In particular, he notes that several "highly literate" colleagues (Gregory Jay and Gerald Graff) find fault with Freire's lack of "language clarity" and criticize a writing style that " speaks of but never to those who oppose its premises." (20) Further, he documents a conversation wherein an unnamed colleague, who he considered to be "politically aggressive and to have a keen understanding of Freire's work," to object to his use of "Marxist jargon."(20) Macedo argues successfully that Freire uses language appropriate to his goal.  By naming the "Subject" and "Object" oppressor and oppressed respectively, he is using the clearest possible language, if not the most palatable to those who seek to initiate social change through persuasion rather than by a show of force.  Persuasion as a means to bring about social change is entirely insufficient- a type of bet hedging- an assertion that we think things should be different but are unwilling to embody the level of force required to bring about change.  
     Force is necessary but not necessarily violent.  Gandhi was forceful. Martin Luther King Jr. communicated his vision to the people without advocating the use of violence.  Both men knew, as Freire did, that radical social change is not about overthrow but about the awakening of people to the reality of their condition. An acknowledgement by the Objects that they have internalized the "fear of freedom" and that they are willing to push through it to facilitate the conditions necessary for improvement of all oppressed people--not just an individual person being oppressed.
     I find very powerful Macedo's criticism of "highly literate" mainstream academics who cite a lack of "language clarity" as a reason that Freire's work isn't presented in some very lofty academic programs.  I concur with his conclusion that the language that's being called for -- accepted by the mainstream as simple and clear -- is actually language that obfuscates reality.  Macedo's examples, "disenfranchised", "ethnic cleansing", and "theater of operation", can be joined with a host of others that can be found in modern American political discourse.  How about using "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture? How about calling Palestinians "internally displaced people"? How about classifying the peaceful protesters from Greenpeace and Pussy Riot as hooligans and incarcerating them? How about saying a state or company supports the "right to work" instead of calling them what they are--absolutely opposed to labor unions and collective bargaining?  This type of language--used to preserve the status quo and even further act upon the Object--is deliberate and has no place in Freire's work which -- start to finish -- seeks to upend the status quo and warn the people against their own desolation.