Por uma escola inclusiva ou da necessária subversão do discurso (psico)pedagógico hegemónico

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-01-29 DOI:10.5007/2175-7984.2020.E73724

Leandro de Lajonquière

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In order to inquire about the functioning and status of the implementation of the “inclusiveschool”, the text presents and develops the notion of (psycho)pedagogical illusion. Thisis considered a key part of the naturalizing pedagogical ideal. Thus, it is claimed that the old pedagogical naturalism that established an essential difference between “normal” and “abnormal” – enough for them to be prevented from going to ordinary schools –, today, paradoxically gives rise to the idea of “special educational needs”, proposed by the Salamanca Statement (1994). This notion gives scope, in turn, for the practices of “diagnosing” and “labeling” children. Such a gesture, particularly widespread in Brazil, impoverishes the school experience of children, condemning them to the condition of “excluded from within”. It is proposed, then, in the context of psychoanalytic studies in education, the epistemological subversion of the naturalizing ideal, responsible for the obstacles imposed on the event of a worthy education.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一个包容的学校或对霸权(心理)教育话语的必要颠覆

为了探究“全纳学校”实施的功能和现状，本文提出并发展了(心理)教学幻觉的概念。这被认为是归化教学理想的关键部分。因此，有人声称，旧的教育自然主义在“正常”和“不正常”之间建立了本质区别- -足以使他们无法进入普通学校- -今天却自相矛盾地产生了《萨拉曼卡声明》(1994年)提出的“特殊教育需要”的概念。这种观念反过来又为“诊断”和“贴标签”儿童的做法提供了空间。这种行为在巴西尤为普遍，使孩子们的学校经历变得贫瘠，使他们处于“被排斥在外”的境地。因此，在教育的精神分析研究的背景下，它提出了对自然化理想的认识论颠覆，负责对有价值的教育事件施加障碍。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.