Alan, Lubomir, Rosan, Eduardo,'n'll,

Before going further, since we are getting deeper into this, I must
say that I have so far only read one book by Freire, "the Pedagogy of
the Oppressed", so I am not an expert in Freire, and I am probably
writing more about my own insights that were inspired by reading him
than presenting his points (except when I quote him).

At 20:11 -0700 25.4.2004, Alan Murdock wrote:
>I think Lubomir was saying that under Lenin people were "actually"
>oppressed while under contemporary society people don't know what
>oppression is.  That's not to say Freire is at all like Lenin.

I think that only Lubomir can clarify this - but based on some
offlist messages from him, I think that he believes that 'Freirism'
leads to another kind of trouble that he does consider as harmful as
Leninism. I do not know what Freirism is, so I can't comment too much
on that. Lubomir?

>On Sunday, April 25, 2004, at 01:02 PM, Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
>>My feeling about Freire is that he was not so interested in defining
>>oppression, but instead in figuring out how to deal with it, and how
>>to get rid of it. I think this is in sync with the needs of design.
>
>This may be one of the mistakes of his theories.  If we are developing
>our theory on a negation of something then we have to be specific about
>what we are negating.  Otherwise the term can become a loose cannon.
>Is this what you are saying in this next part of your post?

I believe that (and tried to express that in my post) Freire shares
an interest with designers - to change things in a meaningful way.
His interest in theory is to facilitate that, so it may not satisfy
all those whose focus is not on the practice but on the soundness of
theory.

He sees human life as praxis, as "transformation of the world",
"theory and practice", or "reflection and action", but he says that
the "theory of transforming action" must "assign the people a
fundamental role in the transformation process". His central point is
that the theory can't be developed by some and given to the others.

I am more interested in the feasibility and significance of the
theory aspects in his work than in its scholarly soundness. The world
is full of important things that our lives are based on that we do
not have sound theories of. Some hints and insights are therefore of
great value, when they make sense and help ME to understand the
situation better. This is what Freire delivers to me, and this is
also why I maintain that his material is helpful for design.

And I think that he is right when he insists that theories that seek
to influence the praxis should be open to dialogue by those affected
by it. I think that the way he theorizes is compatible with this
goal, but, like all true constructive dialogue, requires that people
read the theory with empathy.

>Rosan wrote
>>
>>the power of oppression lies in the very fact that the oppressed do not
>>realize they are being oppressed. when a person
>>realizes/recognizes/acknolwedges s/he is in an oppressive situation,
>>it is
>>the beginning of hope for emancipation. and this recognition doesn't
>>require a scientific, abstract or general definition of what
>>oppression is,
>>but rather a tacit understanding/judgement of the good, the just, the
>>beauty and the truth of life in a particular historical moment and
>>place.
>
>I agree that identifying and getting out from under oppression can be a
>process of intuition and action on many levels, but I also see people
>using the language of liberation as a means of further oppression.
>Cults often use this process.
>
>Obviously we can consider cults in a different category than someone
>leaving an abusive spouse, but I think to consider the range of uses of
>the language of liberation we need to consider both ends of the
>spectrum.
>
>In Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics the author Frederic Spotts
>explores a number of things we have talked about.
>
>First, Hitler spoke in the language of liberation, talking about
>creating a "true" "free" and "pure" Germany liberated from those who
>were tainting it.  Second, he never defined exactly what the things
>oppressing Germany were.  Oppression, or the enemy, was redefined in
>each speech and only spoken of vaguely except in that it was located in
>the life of the city, in modernism, in the Jewish people, gays,
>Gypsies, and the mentally handicapped.
>
>Right now I'm only making a guess, but my intuition says that to avoid
>having the word "oppression" manipulated for the purpose of tyranny it
>is better to define what it is.  I would make the stipulation that in
>the definition of "oppression" should be included the use of words like
>"liberation," "oppression," "utopia," and "freedom" for the purpose of
>oppression.

I think that we need to link Eduardo into this to move forward:

At 20:15 -0700 25.4.2004, Alan Murdock wrote:
>On Sunday, April 25, 2004, at 03:29 PM, Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:
>
>>Oppressed and oppressors are participating in so many
>>characteristics that they are not really opposed. They are just one,
>>defining oppression. The dichotomy should be, therefore: oppression
>>/not
>>oppression.  This polarity is mediated by power and, as I posted
>>yesterday, power of creation and power of destruction.
>
>I agree completely, and I think this addresses clearly the conflict
>when an oppressor uses the language of liberation.

This is, I would say, compatible with Freire's position.

And I would say that because definitions can, just like you say,
potentially oppressive because they can be mobilised by manipulators
to serve whatever need, the attempt to define oppression clearly and
unambiguously may not be the key to avoiding it. Freire talks about
this too, and identifies it as the main error many "revolutionaries"
make.

I think oppression is a social phenomenon, a practice, implemented
through social systems, and it can't be defeated with definitions,
theories or language alone. But of course, theory that makes it
easier for us to understand it, may help us to change the oppressive
practices and systems.

Freire can help us to become more sensitive to the potentially
oppressive qualities that we may inadvertently design into our social
systems, and gives ideas of how to avoid that.

But, he says also that his book is for radicals, and he understands
that many will not want to read it because of his position or his
language. He is writing for people who work within oppressive
contexts and he identifies features of oppression that may turn many
people off. But I think that many of the things he says apply to
contexts where the oppression is not as clear, and like I said
earlier, can reveal oppressive qualities in places and designs where
we did not realize having them - and what is most important for
design, can help us to deal with the problem.

kh