Can one remain a 'bourgeois subject' and practice Pedagogy of the Oppressed?

Not to be an overachiever, but I'd like to comment briefly on this provocative question, posed by Robin several posts ago.

If I understand Freire correctly (always a big "if"), the question contains an inherent, internal contradiction.  The praxis of true libertarian pedagogy (note that unlike with Boal, Pedagogy of the Oppressed remains nothing more than the title of a book; he never discusses a praxis by that name) is TRANSFORMATIVE, not only of the students, but of the teacher as well.  One may well belong to the bourgeois class when one begins practicing libertarian pedagogy.  But if what s/he is practicing really is libertarian pedagogy, s/he will be transformed through the praxis.  So if one is a bourgeois subject, one may (begin to) practice libertarian pedagogy, but over time, either the truth of the bourgeois subjectivity or of the critical pedagogy will fade away. 

Of course, as Robin mentioned, Freire did not speak in terms of "bourgeois subjectivity."  I think one of the reasons he eschewed this language, in favor of oppressor/oppressed, was to restore the vital dialectical and relational nature that existed in Marx's original use of terms such as "bourgeois," but which has fallen away from them.  The link between "bourgeois" and "oppressor" is Freire's characterization of the oppressor-mentality as one of possession, of having, of private property.  This is the key to the bourgeois revolution.  And it is important to note that Freire does NOT say you have to "become the oppressed" to practice libertarian pedagogy; you simply need to "fight at their side."  You need to give up -- or be in the process of giving up -- this proprietary bourgeois/oppressor mentality/subjectivity.  Julian Boal, son of Augusto, asked last spring whether he had to give up his iPod to be a real practitioner of libertarian pedagogy.  I don't think he does.

Or is this just me being self-serving?