Anti-dialogical Theory Vs Dialogical Theory

If we view the world in two terms, we must identify with one. Hence, if there are oppressors and oppressed, then we must be either oppressor or oppressed. Oppressed people know they are oppressed. They read Pedagogy of the Oppressed and find a new way to learn. They become partakers and have value. Few oppressors see themselves as oppressors, and this is where the problem begins. Whether Freire is accurate or not, calling someone an oppressor is not a compliment. Who wants to be an oppressor? Well, Freire has the answer, “For the oppressor, what is worthwhile is to have more—always more—even at the cost of the oppressed having less or having nothing”.

No one wants to be an oppressor. But, once someone has something, it is hard to give it up. Overconsumption in most rich countries functions as evidence of being an oppressor. Even if we say, “I do not oppress anyone,” we neglect to view the conditions of the vast majority of people in the world. Galeano’s Open Veins and Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed relates to poor and persecuted individuals and presents intriguing thoughts regarding how to free individuals. Which makes me to take a gander at my utilization of material products. For example, what amount would my computer cost if the general population who made it approached a similar training and human services I do? A similar inquiry applies to my food, clothing, and everything else in my home. Freire spreads out a hypothesis of "cultural action," or the techniques that individuals use to make social change. Freire isolates social activity into two sorts, "dialogical action" and "anti-dialogical action ".

The anti-dialogical theory of action and its characteristics are: conquest, division, manipulation and cultural invasion which serves oppression. And the dialogical theory of action and its characteristics such as collaboration, union, organization and cultural synthesis serves liberation. Collaboration as a type of network liberation. This procedure does not occur through the juxtaposition of a messianic leader, however rather through the collaboration made when a leader and the majority convey and communicate with one another to accomplish their shared objective of freeing themselves and finding the world, rather than adjusting to it. It happens when they offer each other common trust so a progressive praxis can be come to. Such a circumstance requires modesty and steady dialog with respect to every one of the members. Along with collaboration, a union is also necessary in the event that we are to accomplish a typical exertion toward freedom. This suggests a type of social activity that instructs adherence to the progressive reason without falling into ideological metaphor. Rather, the reason is depicted as it truly may be, as a human movement, not some misrepresented occasion.

The dialogical activity additionally requires organization in the event that it is to stay away from ideological control from the best. The organization is a fundamental component of progressive activity; it suggests knowledge among activity and practice. Oppressed people should not carelessly trust the authority of a revolutionary leader, just as they should not sightlessly trust oppressors.The last normal for dialogical activity is the cultural synthesis which does not only rely on dialogue between people, but also on dialogue between entire cultures. The end of the book mirrors the beginning of the book, as Freire returns to the “central problem” of humanization.