Georgia Bright

Prof. ​Michalski

CTW 1

24 October 2018

The Hypocrisy in Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”

There is a debate in education on the difference between knowledge and understanding.

As time goes on, less importance is placed on the memorization of facts and more is placed on

critical thinking. While the majority of people agree on this point, there is little consensus on

how to achieve this goal. In “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, the author, Paulo Freire thinks he has

the answer and is an avid proponent of critical thinking. In Freire's argument for problem-posing

education and against the banking concept, his assertive writing style (mainly diction and syntax)

helps him effectively present his point-- on the surface level. But, deeper analysis reveals that it

unfortunately comes across as hypocritical. He does this by using the exact strategy he spends his

essay arguing against. Although he wants to be free from oppressors, he can’t help but sound like

one himself.

Throughout his essay, Freire uses an assertive tone. This goes for when he is making his

own argument as well as when he is refuting those in favor of banking education. This

assertiveness helps in the effectiveness of his claims. When he is arguing for his own points, the

firm tone results in his argument coming across as more sound because he is so strong in his

position. On the contrary, when he is addressing the counter claims, he doesn’t give them any

wiggle room; he stands by his points as if they are irrefutable. An example of this is where he

writes, “Those who use the banking approach, knowingly or unknowingly…” (61). In this
sentence, he addresses the fact that not everyone does bad things intentionally, but either way,

they are still bad. He sets it up so that no matter what his opponents say, Freire’s audience is

conditioned to see that as long as there is an oppressor (intentional or not) there is an injustice.

This strong, unwavering tone leaves the reader confident that Freire is speaking from a place of

understanding; it also leaves the audience feeling that the counterclaims have been sufficiently

refuted. His authoritative tone makes the reader listen to his argument and hold it as the truth. It’s

clear that Freire speaks with confidence, but how does he establish such an assertive tone while

writing? Primarily, he does this through diction and syntax.

The diction that Freire uses is quite aggressive; he is not afraid of using confrontational

words or words with negative connotations to get his point across. He is also not afraid to use

language that belittles the reader so, in turn, they are more motivated to take action. For example,

he describes teachers and students as “oppressors” and “the oppressed,” respectively (60). He

does this to grab the reader's’ attention and infuriate them. His hope is that with this new found

information and passion, the reader will be more likely to actively move towards the

problem-posing model. This strategy is related specifically to the reader but Freire also uses

precise wording to praise problem-posing and demonize banking education. Words he uses to

describe banking are “attempts”, “inhibits”, and “domesticated” whereas problem-posing is

described as “sets itself the task”, “regards” , and “makes” (71). If these words were used to

describe a person, the former would be weak and the latter would be capable and intelligent.

These descriptive words are imperative in helping the reader to understand the futility of the

banking system. To further his authoritative tone, he chooses his diction very carefully when he

is driving home his points. Not only does he write mostly in the present tense, he goes further to
use words like “must” and “it cannot” (73). These words are nonnegotiable; they make it hard for

the reader to believe anything other that what Freire is telling them to. He does this on purpose

because he knows such strong diction gives his argument a solid foundation, but at the same

time, puts him in a position of power over the reader.

While the specific word choice helps his arguments, Freire goes even further to

strengthen his argument with syntax. There are several methods that Freire uses to prove his

point. The first is his strategic use of active and passive voice. The active voice is used mostly

when describing his idea of problem-posing education to make it sound like it is accomplishing a

goal. Contrary to this, he uses passive voice when describing banking so that it sounds like it

can’t stand on its own or move towards progress. Another interesting example of how he uses

syntax can be seen in this quote: “In sum: banking theory and practice, as immobilizing and

fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men as historical beings; problem-posing theory and practice

rake man’s historicity as their starting point” (71). The fragment describing banking is

interrupted by many commas; it is winding and confusing. But the second fragment makes

problem posing theory sound simple and easy to understand. This use of language

subconsciously convinces the audience that problem-posing education is the way to go. It is

effective, yet manipulative on Freire’s part.

All of this was part of Friere’s effort to make an solid argument. So how effective is it? A

lot of the statements that Freire regards as fact have an emotional effect on the audience. This

effect is aided by the strength of his diction. By calling the audience “objects,” “automatons,” or

“not a conscious being,” it is no wonder that the audience could take offense to that (57, 61, 62).

By using pathos, Freire enlightens and enrages readers to convert them to his point of view. As if
the emotions he evokes weren’t enough, he uses repetition to further convince the reader of the

validity of his claims. The repetition and therefore structure of his arguments keep the audience

paying attention and make it very clear for them to see the differences between banking and

problem-posing education. The best example of this can be seen in the second paragraph of page

71: Freire bounces back and forth between the descriptions of banking and problem-posing. By

following this repeating pattern, he is able to better show the connections between the two as

opposed to if he can given each a long, tangent-y paragraph. This way, he more effectively

shows the similarities and dichotomies between banking and problem-posing education.

Why did Freire write so passionately about this topic? What was his purpose? Part of his

purpose is to educate the audience and make them aware of their victimhood so that they can join

him in standing up against the oppressor. I believe he is genuine in his intentions for trying to

secure a better education for all. I also believe that this same passion is what lead him to be blind

to his hypocrisy in presenting his argument the way that he did.

Freire’s argument is very effective; he wanted to be that way which is why he put so

much effort into his writing style. Surprisingly, in his attempts to advocate for problem-posing

education, he engaged in that which he is so against-- he forcefully presents his argument as the

one objective truth and hopes that the reader will willingly accept his deposit. Freire says that it

is bad to single someone out, to marginalize them, to not take into account that we are unique

individuals, not machines-- yet he says that “banking education begins with a false understanding

of men as objects” (64). Whether or not this point is true, Freire just dismisses the entire premise

of his opponents’ argument without trying to give them the benefit of the doubt or trying to find

common ground and grow together. Instead ​he​ marginalizes ​them​. Though he throws in the word
“logically” (62, 65) a few times, the arguments he makes are quite emotional. Just because he

says the word “logic” doesn’t mean that it is. He relies much more on pathos than he does logos.

He says that anyone who believes in the banking method “must abandon the educational goal of

deposit-making” (66). This doesn’t sound like growth or understanding-- it sounds necrophilic.

He says that it is wrong to draw dichotomies because things aren't black and white yet he

constantly draws the line between banking and problem-posing education. As critical as he is

toward people in positions of power, he surely is not afraid of being the authority figure.

Freire’s intentions might have been in the right place. On top of that, the way he crafts his

argument through diction and syntax is very convincing. But once you look beneath the surface,

it is clear to see that Freire is just as oppressive as those he so vehemently debates against.