De que inclusão... formação, currículo e diferença no âmbito da Secad/Secadi

Abstract

This thesis involves Teacher Education, Curriculum and Difference as three notions structured around the name inclusion. Teacher Education as well as Curriculum are conceived both as demand and as a double produced in the movement of difference. And difference here is understood as différance (DERRIDA, 1991). The double incurs in the production and signification of the inclusion policy, including the dispute for a hegemonic order (LACLAU, 2013; LACLAU & MOUFFE, 2015). Teacher Education is not here restricted to a physical space such as a classroom, a school, a village, a university. Although this education reminds of such spaces, in this study, it is implicated in a curricular production by Enunciation of Difference (MACEDO, 2006a, 2002, 2011) in texts, intertexts, hypertexts available in the digital library of Secretaria de Educação Continuada Alfabetização, Diversidade e Inclusão Secadi [Secretary of Continuing Education, Literacy, Diversity and Inclusion]. The study problematizes the speech in favor of difference as appreciation of diversity in publications available by Secad/Secadi. Considering that the signatures and countersignatures from these publications entails a wide network relation between public and private agents around the defense of the We are all the same policy, the objective is to understand the matrix of intelligibility that produces these texts. The texts/hypertexts accessed are taken as subsidies for the teacher education and at the same time as useful tools to operate as curricular discursive production, bringing up a type of semantic network, nonlinear and open to multiples possibilities of theoretical and methodological articulations. Such articulation is guided by post-structuralist, post-functionalist, post-colonial constructs allied to a deconstructionist view that allows putting the inclusion of difference under suspicion. The argument is that the ambivalence of curricular discourses evokes movements under contingent fundaments and installs oppositions, disputes and political fights for which the dichotomies conflict, undermining the totalization of differences through the own fissure of the structure. In such a way, the inclusion in its totality only makes sense by the fixation of differences produced by the idea of diversity, although the inclusion is changeable and contingent. And, in its contingency, it cannot hold back the erasure operated by the fi(x)ation and signifi(x)ation of flow of difference