virtue of their power; cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppresd or themlves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppresd will be sufficiently strong to free both. Any attempt to “soften” the power of the oppressor in deference to the weakness of the oppresd almost always manifests itlf in the form of fal generosity; indeed, the attempt never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express their “generosity,” the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this “generosity” which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispenrs of fal generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source.
幸运儿英文True generosity consists precily in fighting to destroy the caus which nourish fal charity. Fal charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the “rejects of life” to extend their trembling hands. True generosity lies in striving so that the hands — whether of individuals or entire peoples — need be extended less and less in supplication, so that more and more they become human hands which work and, working, transform the world.
This lesson and this apprenticeship must come, however, from the oppresd themlves and from tho who are truly in solidarity with them. As individuals or as peoples, by fighting for the restoration of their humanity they will be attempting the restoration of true generosity. Who are better prepared t
han the oppresd to understand the terrible significance of an oppressive society? Who suffer the effects of oppression more than the oppresd? Who can better understand the necessity of liberation? They will not gain this liberation by chance but through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it. And this fight, becau of the purpo given it by the oppresd, will actually constitute an act of love opposing the lovelessness which lies at the heart of the oppressors’ violence, lovelessness even when clothed in fal generosity.
But almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppresd, instead of striving for liberation, tend themlves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.” The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity. This phenomenon derives from the fact that the oppresd, at a certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of “adhesion” to the oppressor. Under the circumstances they cannot “consider”him sufficiently clearly to objectivize him — to discover him “outside” themlves. This does not necessarily mean that the oppresd are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themlves as oppresd is impaired by their submersion in the reality of
oppression. At this level, their perception of themlves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction;[2]the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identification with its opposite pole.
外语培训学校In this situation the oppresd do not e the “new man as the person to be born from the resolution of this contradiction, as oppression gives way to liberation. For them, the new man or woman themlves become oppressors. Their vision of the new man or woman is individualistic; becau of their identification with the oppressor they have no consciousness of themlves as persons or as members of an oppresd class. It is not to become free that they want agrarian reform, but in order to acquire land and thus become landowners — or; more precily, boss over other workers. It is a rare peasant who, once “promoted” to overer, does not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the owner himlf. This is becau the context of the peasant’s situation, that is, oppression, remains unchanged. In this example, the overer, in order to make sure of his job, must be as tough as the owner — and more so. Thus is illustrated our previous asrtion that during the initial stage of their struggle the oppresd find in the oppressor their model of “manhood.”
Even revolution, which transforms a concrete situation of oppression by establishing the process of liberation, must confront thus phenomenon. Many of the oppresd who directly or indirectly particip
ate in revolution intend — conditioned by the myths of the old order —to make it their private revolution. The shadow of their former oppressor is still cast over them.
肥皂剧英文The “fear of freedom” which afflicts the oppresd,[3]a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppresd, should be examined. One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppresd is prescription. Every prescription reprents the imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness. Thus, the behavior of the oppresd is a prescribed behavior, following as it does the guidelines of the oppressor.
The oppresd, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion.考研线下培训机构
戒牒To surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize its caus, so that thro越狱全集
艾薇儿婚庆ugh transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation. Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and tho whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himlf dehumanized becau he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle.
However, the oppresd, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immerd, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they feel incapable of running the risks it requires. Moreover, their struggle for freedom threatens not only the oppressor, but also their own oppresd comrades who are fearful of still greater repression. When they discover within themlves the yearning to be free, they perceive that this yearning can be transformed into reality only when the same yearning is aroud in their comrades. But while dominated by the fear of freedom they refu to appeal to others, or to listen to the appeals of others, or even to the appeals of their own conscience. They prefer gregariousness to authentic comradeship; they prefer the curity of conformity with their state of unfreedom to the creative communion produced by freedom and even the very pursuit of freedom.
The oppresd suffer from the duality which has established itlf in their innermost being. They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically. Yet, although they desire authentic existence, they fear it. They are at one and the same time themlves and the oppressor who consciousness they have internalized. The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themlves or being divided; between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to transform the world. This is the tragic dilemma of the oppresd which their education must take into account.
directoryindexThis book will prent some aspects of what the writer has termed the pedagogy of the oppresd, a pedagogy which must be forged with, not for, the oppresd (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity. This pedagogy makes oppression and its caus objects of reflection by the oppresd, and from that
reflection will come their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation. And in the struggle this pedagogy will be made and remade.
The central problem is this: How can the oppresd, as divided, unauthentic beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation? Only as they discover themlves to be “hosts” of the oppressor can they contribute to the midwifery of their liberating pedagogy. As long as they live in the duality in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor, this contribution is impossible. The pedagogy of the oppresd is an instrument for their critical discovery that both they and their oppressors are manifestations of dehumanization.
Liberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The man or woman who emerges is a new person, viable only as the oppressor-oppresd contradiction is superded by the humanization of all people. Or to put it another way the solution of this contradiction is born in the labor which brings into the world this new being: no longer oppressor nor longer oppresd, but human in the process of achieving freedom.yoke
博取This solution cannot be achieved in idealistic terms. In order for the oppresd to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation they must perceive the reality of oppression not as a clod world from which there is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform. This perception is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for liberation; it must become the motivating force for liberating action. Nor does the discovery by the oppresd that they exist in dialectical relationship to
the oppressor, as his antithesis that without them the oppressor could not exist[4]— in itlf constitute liberation. The oppresd can overcome the contradiction in which they are caught only when this perception enlists them in the struggle to free themlves.
The same is true with respect to the individual oppressor as person. Discovering himlf to be an oppressor may cau considerable anguish, but it does not necessarily lead to solidarity with the oppresd. Rationalizing his guilt through paternalistic treatment of the oppresd, all the while holding them fast in a position of dependence, will not do. Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of tho with whom one is in solidarity; it is a radical posture. If what characterizes the oppresd is their subordination to the consciousness of the master, as Hegel affirms,[5] true solidarity with the oppresd means fighting at their side to transform the objective reality which has made them the “beings for another”. The oppressor is in solidarity with the oppresd only when he stops regarding the oppresd as an abstract category and es them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor — when he
