Paulo Freire initiates by perceiving that Pedagogy of the Oppressed is grounded on

remarks from his schooling work in Brazil and from his governmental exile. He then enlarges on
single of those annotations, that several of his students primarily fear serious consciousness as
risky or “anarchic”—a perspective that originates from an adopted “terror of liberty” and the
aspiration not to undermine one’s world vision. However, some learners embrace this awakening
extra simply. Freire quotes a class where a past factory worker said to his classmates that he had
transformed from “raw” to “critical,” lacking the experience of the undesirable effects they were
worried about.

Freire presents the concepts of “critical awareness” and “fear of autonomy” with an exact
instance from one of his schoolrooms, before he openly describes the two terms later in the book.
It’s significant that Freire directly grounds these ideas in his scholastic programs—all the way
through the writing, he strains that a mixture of the abstract (philosophy and reflection) and
tangible (praxis) is looked-for to produce permanent social transformation.

Freire debates that consciousness is not “harsh”—it aids people attempt for self-
affirmation and permits them to touch history in a significant way. He recommends that pupils
often distress the hazards of pushing for liberty, instead feeling extra contented with the
constancy of their present lives. These learners do not constantly recognize their “fear of
autonomy” willingly, and might not even be mindful of it. Freire restates that his thoughts are not
only theoretical, but are “entrenched in tangible situations” including the deprived and middle-
class individuals from his educational programs
.
Crucial to Freire’s impression of oppression is that oppressed people adopt its effects.
Oppressors attempt to persuade oppressed persons that the oppressive social direction is not only
moral or right, but also everlasting and consistent. However, Freire debates that the ease of
permanency cannot bring about freedom—oppressed persons must be knowledgeable that the
world can and will be modified.

Once more, Freire attaches schooling and revolution, but then he does so even more
clearly here. Only extremists have the obligation to humankind and to social transformation that
is desirable for a truly redemptive education program. All through Freire’s writing, oppressed
people (and the anarchists who establish them) inhabit various roles: they may be characters or
foundations, and a noteworthy fragment of his audience.