7/7 Class Reflection

On p. 48, Freire states that "The oppressed suffer from the duality which has established itself in their innermost being. They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically" and must be "unauthentic beings." While reading these words, I immediately felt uneasy and struggled to want to believe that the very process of being oppressed immediately strips an individual of his authenticity, or legitimacy. I understand that the very process and intent of colonization is to forcefully eject an individuals original ideology and supplement it with another (self-subjugating) one, but to say that the products of a system of abuse are not "authentic" seems to add on to the culture of abuse and devaluation. It also functions off the premise that ideologies and thoughts are static and incapable of change, of movement. Even if the movement is in a painfully and hurtful direction, does that make it less real, less legitimate? And what does the word "authentic" really mean and in what realm is this definition functioning in? How is this "unauthentic" shift in consciousness any different from the imposed beliefs on students in classrooms- who do not necessarily choose what or how they learn, but rather are recipients of a "pedagogy"? Freire goes on to mention that the oppressed are struggling through their duality and oppression to "regain their humanity" (p. 48). This time, I am reminded of Victor from the film we watched (The Color of Fear) and his assertion that "humanity" as it is now refers directly to white consciousness and perception (oppression). I am not sure if any of these questions have answers, but I believe there is a better way at describing the human condition than to call it unauthentic; thus, reducing legitimacy.

It wasn't until later on in the article I realized that the original Freire statement, at least in my interpretation, relates to what Fanon refers to as mummification of culture. Fanon states, "The setting up of the colonial system does not of itself bring about the death of the native culture... This culture, once living and open to the future, becomes closed, fixed in the colonial status, caught in the yoke of oppression. Both present and mummified" (p. 174). In western society, we view "authenticity" as something frozen in time, not allowed to or wanting to change. Anything that breathes, that deviates from the "original" is suddenly false; a lesser presentation of a prototype. But life is not so static and neither are the people who live it, so in this sense I agree that the desire for mummified relics and states of consciousness is a product of the colonial system. So, would that mean Freire's own use of the term "authentic" and "unauthentic" reflect his own participation in an oppressive system, and perhaps, struggle with it?