Freire considers many of the "oppressed" to be hindered in the process of self-realization and advancement by a "freedom of fear" that is actually taught them by the "oppressor." The importance that the Object internalize this concept--upon which the Subject relies to maintain dominance-- is essential to the maintenance of the status quo. This "fear of freedom" is rarely acknowledged by the infected. In fact, the possibility that the sufferer is unaware of the fear is very real; they may have simply internalized the Subject's vision completely. In order for the power balance to remain stable, the oppressor must convince the oppressed that they are worthy of the power they possess and create a definition of "success" for the oppressed to strive toward.
The definition of success-- as posited by the Subject-- is their own condition. To be successful is to be a part of, and a participant in, the world of the oppressor. The oppressed have internalized this idea to such an extent that their desire is not for the improved condition of their class but for the betterment of their own lives as individuals. They don't strive for freedom; they want security-- to be accepted and named by the dominant society as one of their own.
This separation of the oppressed individual from his people is an extremely effective way to maintain the status quo. It means, basically, the oppressed support and continue the policies of the dominant class.
When I ask my students why they want to learn English, the answers vary but most contain a component of ownership. They want to "own" something: a house, a car, land, a business. They--who are often unable to survive in their countries of origin because the policies of "owners" have depressed wages and educational opportunities into virtual nonexistence--want to enact those same policies on others. Of course, they say to themselves, they will be fair; they will treat their workers with respect and support their efforts to become "owners" after their own right. And, they may well be fair; they may pay better wages and treat their workers better; however, they will have done nothing to facilitate or instigate change in the system which is -- by definition -- unjust. I'm sure there were slave holders that treated their slaves relatively well. They may have fed them well, allowed them to marry, not sold their children and perhaps, after years of service, they may have even granted some of them freedom. Should we regard these "nice" slave holders as a justification for the defense of slavery? What is more important? That they treated the people they "owned" well or that they "owned" people-- an idea and practice beyond grotesque.
We need not look so far back into history to consider successful instances of the Subject convincing the oppressed to maintain the status quo; to work against their own interests and further the interests of the dominant class. Recent cuts in social services including SNAP (food stamps), a no vote for extension of unemployment benefits, cuts in educational services, resistance to the idea that the minimum wage is wholly inappropriate and the most vociferous objections to any type of health care reform are supported, in large part, by Senators and Representatives from Southern states. States which are the poorest, that have the highest mortality and unemployment rates and the lowest quality of life ratings. What's up with that?
Caitlin, I have enjoyed reading your commentary, which often includes razor-sharp critiques. What is surprising is that people sometimes buy into an ideology that is actually harmful to them and to their communities. It is less surprising to see people who benefit from wealth or middle-class status want to hold on to what they have, even when they see that other people do not enjoy the same benefits. These observations are surprising and unsurprising because I believe that people very often, almost always in fact, do things that are in their own self-interest. That may not be all that they do. But at least some of what people do often seems to be associated with benefits accrued to themselves and their families.
ReplyDeleteSo it is in a poor person's interest to critique the reasons for poverty. But, as you point out, very often poor people buy into an ideology that almost makes their poverty seem "natural" and right.
What are some actions that your students could take? Are there small actions that they can take and that you can incorporate into your teaching?
Even choosing to think about and learn about social justice is an action. Your students can do that. Making the choice to view a video or film that informs them about social justice issues is an action that counts. Making the choice to work with certain people, to work in certain types of jobs, and to live or work in certain neighborhoods can be a choice for a more equitable social order.