Park 1

Grace Park
Anya Connelly
English 2
12 September 2016
Revision of Rhetorical Analysis of Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Freires book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, refers to students as being oppressed due to
the inability to speak their thoughts and give opinions on the material which they are learning.
While he brings up critical points to be considered, he also presents them in a tone which is
rather demeaning towards his targeted audience, he fails to supply evidence to support his ideas,
and his use of words are generalized in a way which creates unclarity, therefore making his
reasoning fallacious.
The authors persona is vividly shown by the tone used in the article. As a reader, his
strong tone sets a rather strict and authoritative mood for the reading, which contradicts his own
beliefs about the education system. Freire states, The teacher presents himself to his students as
their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence.
The students, alienated like the slave in the Hegelian dialectic, accept their ignorance as
justifying the teachers existence--but, unlike the slave, they never discover that they educate the
teacher (58-59). While stating this point, he goes on to teach teachers the right way of
teaching, while completely ignoring any benefits of the banking concept. Calling the banking
concept a form of oppression, he is implying that teachers are ignorant for continuing to teach
in this way, and believe his teaching method is superior. Whilst mentioning that students may
also teach the teachers, in this case, the school teachers are thought to be students, but Freire
does not seem to be open about their opinions about this topic. As Freire is also teaching with

Park 2
thoughts presented this article, he contradicts the statement above by believing in the ignorance
of teachers and that his own all-knowing theories of education are true regardless.
The ideas and wording by Freire shows intellectual maturity, yet he fails to include any
evidence such as background information on the successes and failures of teaching in the past, or
real-life experiences of his method of problem posing teaching working to benefit students. Only
giving hypothetical examples, his lack of evidence to support his points may result in an
audience who is not persuaded by his mere thoughts. Freire states, The banking approach to
adult education, for example, will never propose to students that they critically consider reality.
(61). This statement is not substantiated with evidence on how this statement is true. He cannot
prove that no banking approach has ever shown students how to critically consider reality in the
classroom. He repeatedly speaks of this form of problem posing education, yet does not show
any results which differ from the normal way of teaching he disagrees with.
While Freires article is supposedly targeted towards teachers, he speaks in a degrading
tone towards their default way of teaching. The audience may therefore feel offended and
disagree with the harsh statements being made about their profession, resulting in the automatic
disagreement of the argument. Freire asserts, Those who use the banking approach, knowingly
or unknowingly (for there are innumerable well-intentioned bank-clerk teachers who do not
realize that they are serving only to dehumanize), fail to perceive that the deposits themselves
contain contradictions about reality (61). By claiming that all teachers who teach in the
standardized way of lecture end up dehumanizing their students, he makes an untrue
assumption which many teachers may be repulsive towards. Dehumanize is a word which may
be used in the context of post-traumatic stress disorder after fighting in a war, or overcoming
sexual assault or slavery, rather than having been taught a specific way. Using this type of

Park 3
wording shows that he is exaggeratingly comparing teachers to a sort of dehumanizing figure,
such as the Nazis, which is a comparison most readers would not appreciate.
Using deductively valid argumentation, the topic being addressed states its conclusion
several times in the premises before the actual conclusion. According to Cavender and Kahane,
If all of its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true also, because the claim asserted
by its conclusion already has been stated in its premises, although usually implicitly (Logic and
Contemporary Rhetoric 10). Although Freire uses deductive reasoning countless times in his
book, he does not do so implicitly, as noted by the authors of Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric.
This may be where the problem arises. While deductive reasoning may help get the point across
to the reader, the repetition may repel them from reading any further, diverting away from the
purpose of the article.
While education is taught by teachers who spend their lives helping others understand
and further their skill level in a specific subject, and is meant to challenge students to think
critically and use their brains to the utmost of their ability, Freire speaks of it as a dictatorship
where the teacher is only looking to prove their power and superior knowledge. As he states,
Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students, with the
ideological intent (often not perceived by educators) of indoctrinating them to adapt to the world
of oppression (65). Presenting education in such a negative way, this insufficiently grounded
belief, strongly believes that the purpose of education when using the banking concept is to
allow the teachers to dominate over their students, showing they are superior with knowledge by
not allowing students have an input on their class. Without having support to proof this point,
Freire is incapable of knowing the thoughts and true motivations of all teachers who use the
banking method, which shows this is an insufficiently grounded belief.

Park 4
Although it may be implied, Freire does not clearly state the type of teaching he is
referring to when announcing flaws. For example, he states, The teacher talks about reality as if
it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic
completely alien to the existential experience of the students (Freire, 57). This may be relevant
to subjects related to humanities, but it is completely out of context if teaching mathematics,
foreign languages, or performing arts in a school setting. Contrastingly, teaching is also involved
when learning any type of skill, such as dance, origami, berry picking, or coding. As he is
criticizing the educational system, his desire, suggested by this statement, is nearly impossible to
fulfill, as the variety of students in a classroom learning one subject indicates that there would be
several different existential experiences within each individual students life.
The purpose of this book is to persuade teachers to consider a different type of teaching
which allows students for more freedom and critical thinking in the problem posing education,
rather than straight lecture and narration given to students by the teacher, called the banking
concept. While this is so, he continually fails to show the benefits of the banking concept,
even for countering his argument. Freire states,Those truly committed to the cause of liberation
can accept neither the mechanistic concept of consciousness as an empty vessel to be filled, nor
the use of banking methods of domination (propaganda, slogans--deposits) in the name of
liberation (Freire 66). Comparing the banking concept to oppressed freedom, he over
exaggerates the effects of this teaching method which is inevitably used in many cases.
Overall, Freires book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, uses harsh authoritative language
towards the targeted audience, which gives off a tone contradictory of the topic he is discussing.
Also, he generalizes education and teaching, causing chance of confusion when analyzing a type
of teaching he may not be referring to. Without sufficiently grounded beliefs or evidence to

Park 5
support his points, he continues to repeat his words several times in the chapter, which only
bores the reader without adding emphasis. These points combined shows Freires argument is
fallacious and rhetorically ineffective.

Works Cited
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000. Print.
Kahane, Howard, and Nancy Cavender. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason
in Everyday Life. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Park 6