Friere and Delpit

Describe the major tensions between Freire and Delpit.  How are their approaches different?  Use text to support your thoughts.  How does Delpit shift your understanding of Freire?

While Delpit and Friere both discuss how the oppressed can become free of oppresion their methodologies for doing so differ greatly. Delpit believes for the oppressed to escape they must learn the language of their oppressor or "the silenced dialogue". Where as Friere believes that there needs to be structural change, the oppressed must fight to emancipate themselves and become revolutionaries. This difference is best seen in the conciousness of the oppressed and the oppressor in Delpit and Friere two visions of oppression. Friere believes the role of the oppressor is very clear and intentional while Delpit describes a more ambivalent  unaware description. For Friere the dichotomy of the oppressed and oppressor is very evident. To have an oppressor there must be the oppressed, the process is dehumanizing for both however, the oppressor benefits through material wealth and political power. Friere believes the oppressor exploits the oppressed to strenghten and develop there power. For friere, the first step is for the oppressed to become aware or concious of their oppression. For Friere, the oppressed are least concious of their situation while the oppressor is well aware.. Oppositely Delpit describes the oppressor as unaware... " Those with power are typically least aware of- or least willing to aknowledge- of it existence. Those with less power are typically most aware of it. Delpit's picture of the oppressor is ambivalent rather than aggresive.