Purpose: This study utilises a case study approach among the displaced Baka communities of East Cameroon to deepen current understandings of social impact of conservation-induced displacement and to foster collaboration between host communities and sedentarized victims of conservation-induced displacement as an approach for diminishing social impact. Using a critical epistemological perspective, and departing from a critique of the sustainable livelihood approach with its focus on assets and capitals. The study seeks to reveal the extent to which the processes of dominance and subordination affect institutions of marginalization and exclusion which in turn, affect livelihood outcomes for victims of conservation-induced displacement. To inform this evaluation, this study’s theoretical framework was rooted in Paulo Freire's (1970; 2000) dialogical and anti-dialogical theories of dominance and action. This study explores the theoretical and practical dimensions of Freire’s theories as a means of harnessing the power of dialogue in inverting dominant discourse which subjects certain groups in a population to marginalization and exclusion following displacement and sedentarization. Research Methods: Mixed methods case study. Data on the discourse of dominance and subordination were collected through semi-structured and structured interviews with Baka participants, representatives of the government and non-governmental organisations, and the host Bantu community members. Findings were deductively analyzed using tenets of Freire's (1970) anti-dialogical theory. The course of action on dominant discourse inversion was also executed by participatory methods of photovoice and community football under the guidance of Freire’s dialogical theory of action. Findings: The findings suggest that although conservation-induced displacement has led to negative social impacts on the displaced and resettled, building social relations between the displaced and host communities is a first step in tackling processes and institutions of marginalization and exclusion which exacerbate impoverishment among displaced and resettled groups. This outcome vindicates nature conservancy as the sole culprit responsible for negative livelihood outcomes of people living in and around protected areas.