I've actually read a decent bit of the book and some related philosophical and anthropological texts so:
While the problem of humanization has always, from an axiological point of view, been humankind’s central problem,
Human beings tend to be concerned with the components of a person that make them human. Is it a soul? A body? A brain? Consciousness? Sentience?
Many indigenous cultures believe that humanity is a thing you grow into over time. Western culture believes that humanity is a thing you simply are, and that with enough taxonomy you can describe your humanness to the degree you understand what's already there.
it now takes on the character of an inescapable concern.
In the time period Freire was writing in, WW2 had extinguished communism in the West and new communist movements were sprouting up in South America. Because of Communism's humanism, and the answers it proposes to the question "what does it mean to be human?" this more or less means that the power struggle between Communism and Capitalism is fundamentally about the path human history will take. In Freire's mind, communism is the path toward humanization and capitalism is the path toward dehumanization. And so if capitalism "wins" then the peoples of the world will be effectively alienated from reality by a filter of fascist ideology. For Freire, and most modern communists, this is an existential and likely self-destructive threat to the species.
Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality. And as an individual perceives the extent of dehumanization, he or she may ask if humanization is a viable possibility.
This is more or less a fancy way of saying "if it's possible to become human then it's possible to unbecome human." Freire takes the same view as a lot of indigenous cultures in his perception that humanity is not an automatic given (nor is it earned), but is actually built through a person's interactions with their physical and social reality. "Feral children" studied by psychologists, for example, lack the social component, where someone plugged into VR or super-rich-yacht-club culture lacks the physical component. One is alienated from the superstructure of society and the other is alienated from the base. One is alienated from birth and never fully develops, wheras the other can have an "unbecoming" as they unlearn the reality of labor and prosociality. I don't think Freire uses these as examples, but I think they can work as a handy illustration of extreme dehumanization. Freire considers the bourgeoisie, in particular, to be extremely dehumanized.
Within history in concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion.
Here, he's referring to the possible directions one can take as they achieve class consciousness (as @Theblarglereflargle pointed out), they can either become revolutionary or reactionary, constructive or destructive. To kindle revolutionary energy within oneself is to desire humanization. Every communist feels they are missing a certain part of themselves. We want community, fulfilling work, and a healthy relationship with the Earth. These are things capitalism cannot give us, and without which we feel depression, anxiety, and a whole other host of disorders. Similar to how accepting transition decreases dysphoria (and turns transness from a mental disorder to a normal part of life), accepting other elements of humanity will decrease our alienation in these various spheres. But if we choose reaction, instead, as our method of allieving alienation, we will only find ourselves in a dehumanizing feedback loop, similar to a person with dysphoria rejecting trans identity and thus everyone else who is trans (something fairly common in reactionary lgbt spaces). It doesn't allow them to grow as a person but instead stiflea them and further alienates them.
Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality
Another way to read this is prefiguring the work of Agamben on homo sacer. Basically, there are forms of life for humanity that are fundamentally inhuman. Just being born homo sapiens doesn't make one human - human life is more than mere animal life (zoe - "bare life" in Agamben's terms).
Basically, like Freire, Agamben looked to the Nazi concentration camps as a fundamentally inhuman thing - a really existing process of dehumanization. His project looks back to ancient Roman law to look at examples, but Friere obviously has a different archive and interest. Like @Ideology says in a post in this thread, "Humans are social beings." The things that make us human are more than biology. This isn't "woo woo" shit, but really existing social relations that make us human. Without those, you're not Aristotle's "political animal" (bios) but instead something closer to a mere animal.
Pretty much. The capitalist ideal of the lone wolf caveman is an extreme anachronism trying to sell the idea of "things have always been this way." Hermits existed but were never the mainstream mode of existence anywhere in the world. And they still had to come from a highly socialized society to even get the momentum to leave their place of origin.
“Feral children” studied by psychologists, for example, lack the social component, where someone plugged into VR... lacks the physical component. One is alienated from birth and never fully develops, wheras the other can have an “unbecoming” as they unlearn the reality of labor and prosociality.
I feel like a large part of what is wrong with me is that I have not-insusbstantial portions of both of these problems baked into me, on account of how I grew up.
IDK that there's a realistic path wherein I become a "fully self-actualized human being" on my own accord.
I mean, it's not something you're meant to do alone. "Humans are social beings" as they say. Getting better often means experimenting with the social world around you to see what works for you (and them) and what doesn't. People who get overwhelmed and recede into themselves are avoiding learning experiences because they fear failure, but most of what understanding what people are, what their needs are, and how you fit into everything means experiencing that social world for yourself (in its own way, it's a kind of Practice). And, in turn, the hope is that those people will also support you. This unspoken communal giving-back has helped humans survive fpr millions of years, so it should be innate to us. But capitalism has broken down such 'outdated' sensibilities, so finding the right people to provide a sense of community is much more of a struggle now.
TL;DR: Human growth is dialectical. You can't grow alone, but by understanding the way you respond to actual social interactions.
I mean, it’s not something you’re meant to do alone. “Humans are social beings” as they say. Getting better often means experimenting with the social world around you to see what works for you (and them) and what doesn’t.
The thing is you're right, but the only thing that seems to "work" for me & others is my general isolation from all social life.
I dunno; 30 years is short historically, but it's a lot of life to live for one person, very close to half the total life expectancy of most the world. And in my case, for as much of my life as I can honestly remember, the answer to the questions of "Where do I belong?", and "What should I be doing with myself?" have been very explicitly given to me. Those answers in order are, "Somewhere away from everyone else where you will not bother them.", and "Whatever the people who are in charge of you are telling you to do."
That's how it was when I was growing up, and that's still how it's been turning out as an adult.
I'm sorry it's a lot of work to explain in detail what I mean by all these things & been sitting here for the last couple hours trying to articulate them, but I just can't seem to write it all down in a way that's both informative & concise.
I've actually read a decent bit of the book and some related philosophical and anthropological texts so:
Human beings tend to be concerned with the components of a person that make them human. Is it a soul? A body? A brain? Consciousness? Sentience?
Many indigenous cultures believe that humanity is a thing you grow into over time. Western culture believes that humanity is a thing you simply are, and that with enough taxonomy you can describe your humanness to the degree you understand what's already there.
In the time period Freire was writing in, WW2 had extinguished communism in the West and new communist movements were sprouting up in South America. Because of Communism's humanism, and the answers it proposes to the question "what does it mean to be human?" this more or less means that the power struggle between Communism and Capitalism is fundamentally about the path human history will take. In Freire's mind, communism is the path toward humanization and capitalism is the path toward dehumanization. And so if capitalism "wins" then the peoples of the world will be effectively alienated from reality by a filter of fascist ideology. For Freire, and most modern communists, this is an existential and likely self-destructive threat to the species.
This is more or less a fancy way of saying "if it's possible to become human then it's possible to unbecome human." Freire takes the same view as a lot of indigenous cultures in his perception that humanity is not an automatic given (nor is it earned), but is actually built through a person's interactions with their physical and social reality. "Feral children" studied by psychologists, for example, lack the social component, where someone plugged into VR or super-rich-yacht-club culture lacks the physical component. One is alienated from the superstructure of society and the other is alienated from the base. One is alienated from birth and never fully develops, wheras the other can have an "unbecoming" as they unlearn the reality of labor and prosociality. I don't think Freire uses these as examples, but I think they can work as a handy illustration of extreme dehumanization. Freire considers the bourgeoisie, in particular, to be extremely dehumanized.
Here, he's referring to the possible directions one can take as they achieve class consciousness (as @Theblarglereflargle pointed out), they can either become revolutionary or reactionary, constructive or destructive. To kindle revolutionary energy within oneself is to desire humanization. Every communist feels they are missing a certain part of themselves. We want community, fulfilling work, and a healthy relationship with the Earth. These are things capitalism cannot give us, and without which we feel depression, anxiety, and a whole other host of disorders. Similar to how accepting transition decreases dysphoria (and turns transness from a mental disorder to a normal part of life), accepting other elements of humanity will decrease our alienation in these various spheres. But if we choose reaction, instead, as our method of allieving alienation, we will only find ourselves in a dehumanizing feedback loop, similar to a person with dysphoria rejecting trans identity and thus everyone else who is trans (something fairly common in reactionary lgbt spaces). It doesn't allow them to grow as a person but instead stiflea them and further alienates them.
This was very helpful!
GOOD comment :stalin-approval:
Another way to read this is prefiguring the work of Agamben on homo sacer. Basically, there are forms of life for humanity that are fundamentally inhuman. Just being born homo sapiens doesn't make one human - human life is more than mere animal life (zoe - "bare life" in Agamben's terms).
Basically, like Freire, Agamben looked to the Nazi concentration camps as a fundamentally inhuman thing - a really existing process of dehumanization. His project looks back to ancient Roman law to look at examples, but Friere obviously has a different archive and interest. Like @Ideology says in a post in this thread, "Humans are social beings." The things that make us human are more than biology. This isn't "woo woo" shit, but really existing social relations that make us human. Without those, you're not Aristotle's "political animal" (bios) but instead something closer to a mere animal.
Pretty much. The capitalist ideal of the lone wolf caveman is an extreme anachronism trying to sell the idea of "things have always been this way." Hermits existed but were never the mainstream mode of existence anywhere in the world. And they still had to come from a highly socialized society to even get the momentum to leave their place of origin.
I feel like a large part of what is wrong with me is that I have not-insusbstantial portions of both of these problems baked into me, on account of how I grew up.
IDK that there's a realistic path wherein I become a "fully self-actualized human being" on my own accord.
I mean, it's not something you're meant to do alone. "Humans are social beings" as they say. Getting better often means experimenting with the social world around you to see what works for you (and them) and what doesn't. People who get overwhelmed and recede into themselves are avoiding learning experiences because they fear failure, but most of what understanding what people are, what their needs are, and how you fit into everything means experiencing that social world for yourself (in its own way, it's a kind of Practice). And, in turn, the hope is that those people will also support you. This unspoken communal giving-back has helped humans survive fpr millions of years, so it should be innate to us. But capitalism has broken down such 'outdated' sensibilities, so finding the right people to provide a sense of community is much more of a struggle now.
TL;DR: Human growth is dialectical. You can't grow alone, but by understanding the way you respond to actual social interactions.
The thing is you're right, but the only thing that seems to "work" for me & others is my general isolation from all social life.
I dunno; 30 years is short historically, but it's a lot of life to live for one person, very close to half the total life expectancy of most the world. And in my case, for as much of my life as I can honestly remember, the answer to the questions of "Where do I belong?", and "What should I be doing with myself?" have been very explicitly given to me. Those answers in order are, "Somewhere away from everyone else where you will not bother them.", and "Whatever the people who are in charge of you are telling you to do."
That's how it was when I was growing up, and that's still how it's been turning out as an adult.
I'm sorry it's a lot of work to explain in detail what I mean by all these things & been sitting here for the last couple hours trying to articulate them, but I just can't seem to write it all down in a way that's both informative & concise.
:meow-hug: