Almeida Moraes

1
Is a new critical language in the education still possible today?
Raquel de Almeida Moraes, UnB, Brazil
[email protected]
Introduction
The present paper discusses the possible existence of a new critical language in
the education today. In opposition to a typical banking education practiced by the
cultural and educational capitalistic industry, “which uses a simplified language for the
use of the masses” (Tognolli, 2001), with “fixed invariables, prompt clichés, and a
stereotypical translation of everything” (Adorno, Apud Pucci, 1995), the argument of
this paper is possible to discuss with “non-violent intersubjectivities - which involves
recognizing the difference, the total difference (Gur-Ze´v, 2003), aiming to awaken the
consciousness of how “men are deceived in a permanent way ” (Adorno, 1995). This
requires the usage of critical language in poetic (Bakhtin, 1986) and dialogic (Freire,
1986) way, or, if the critical language is authoritarian and violent, it will be used in the
same domination sense, consequently hindering emancipation.
With the premise of developing a counter-hegemony to the authoritarian and
seductive language of banking education, where knowledge is considered a trade object
and the students are passive individuals, reduced to clients in the globalization phase of
Capital, we presume that critical language in education must be a poetic and dialogical
mediator in cultural circles of (Freire, 1986), including cyberspace (Moraes, 2006),
generating a counter reaction to the hegemonic predominant trend.
In order to develop this assertion, the conceptions of language of Bakhtin and
Freire and their significance in Cultural studies and Critical theory’s perspectives will
be elucidated so that we may finally, determine the inferences through the general
premise of human emancipation, democracy and non-violence, the utopia that leads the
present proposition.
1
2
Language in Mikhail Bakhtin and Paulo Freire
Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) and Paulo Freire (1987) regard language as essentially
dialogical. Their ideas about man and life are marked by the belief that the interaction
among individuals is the basic principle of language as well as consciousness. The
meaning and significations of signs (widely comprehended as sounds, gestures, images,
words and silence) depend on the relation between individuals and are built on the
interpretation of statements. Through this perspective, the center of interlocution is no
longer polarized between the “I” and the “You”, the sender and receiver, inserted now
in a dialogical movement in the communication surrounding meaning.
According to Lima (2001), this means overcoming visions of a restrictive model
marked by one-sided directivity, which places the sender as the originator of closed
messages and the receiver as a passive individual before them. It suggests giving a new
dimension to the space of reception transforming it into an interaction and conversion
space and also, modifying the roles of senders and receivers to a dynamic coauthor/creator relationship.
In a final analysis, it means recognizing that inter-acting is more than purely
sending and answering messages; it entails perceiving emission and reception as
repercussive spaces, given that the sender and receiver become part of dialogical
interconnected cord relations. Such relations are always in progression, that is, they are
always confronting each other, being built and deconstructed simultaneously in a
dynamic and dialogical game. (Moraes, Dias, Fiorentini, 2006)
Taking on
this view
in
education
begets challenges.
Traditionally,
communication has presented a linear, imperative and unilateral character in the
educational realm. On a practical basis, we can observe that dialogue is restricted to a
lower level of detailing or elucidation of molded one-sided speeches, derived from a
sender, whose interactive space for building is virtually inexistent and the language
turns into a reproduction tool for the contemporary system. In Freire’s perception
(2001a), two individuals have to share a meaning domain so that the dialogue can take
place. “Regarding to the communicative-dialogic relationship, interlocutors express
each other through a common linguistic sign system” (Freire, 2001, p. 67).
Moreover, Freire (1987) condemns the communicative monologue affirming
that teaching is not transferring knowledge, but generating the possibilities for its own
2
3
production or construction. To him, teaching requires criticism and respect regarding
the pupils’ character autonomy. Otherwise, official reports will take place, the practice
of cultural invasion and broadening, opposed to true communication. To Freire, man is
an associative being who, through his work, transforms nature into a cultural world
when defied by it. By creating the world of labor and culture, he recognizes himself
historically immersed in the oppressors/oppressed contradiction, arising the need of its
overcoming.
It is impossible to understand thought outside its double function: a cognoscitive
and communicative act. As a result, education is conceived as a political and
communicational act, other than of extension, for communication “implies a reciprocity
that cannot be corrupted” (Freire, 2001, p 69). Communication is education and
dialoguing “to the extent which there is no knowledge transfer, but an encounter of
interlocutors that seek the significations of meanings” (Freire, 2001, p. 69).
In Freire’s viewpoint, education is inserted in society, as opposed to being
detached and reduced to a capitalistic function of training for mere labor adjustment.
Capitalism delivers a “banking” kind of education that represents “the educator/pupil
non-conciliation”. Under this perspective, education would serve as an auxiliary to the
transformation and change process. In the book “Medo e Ousadia”, Freire and Shor
state that social change “the establishment of a different relationship with knowledge
and society” (Freire & Shor, 1993, p. 48)
Thus, the change also occurs through the consciousness and more precisely,
language domain. In the book the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, Freire states that: “To
exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once named the world in its turn
reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming.” (Freire,
1987, p. 78).
Naming the word – which is also labor, is praxis; it is the transformation of the
world- not a privilege of few, but A RIGHT ENTITLED TO ALL. It is through an
authentic loving, thoughtful and critical dialogue that the process of consciousness and
humanization takes place. This is the ultimate purpose of education, and that, according
to Freire, occurs when man rediscovers himself as a founder of the world and his
experience by detaching himself from his world of experience.
However, the process of consciousness does not mean discoursing about
subjects and donating knowledge that have absolutely any correlation with the people’s
3
4
yearnings, needs, hopes, aspirations and fears. The subjects that will be approached
(generating themes) must be decided on in an agreement so that non-alienating truthful
communication between educator and pupil can take place. This process implies a new
methodology that cannot contradict the dialogicity of a liberating education.
Discovering generating themes entails the recognition of one’s humanity and at
the same time, products and producers of history, unfinished individuals, in
consequence. In contrast, it is also recognizing what Vieira Pinto (apud Freire, 1987)
calls “limit-acts": those directed at negating and overcoming, rather than passively
accepting, the given.
Through this perception, Freire considers it essential that the dialogical educator,
acting as an interdisciplinary team member, contributes to question this theme universe
withdrawn in investigation, rather than simply returning it as thesis to the men from
whom he/she received it.
Bakhtin (1986) deepened a theoretical gap that permeates the relationship
between base (the economic structure of society) and superstructure (the State and
social consciousness) – through the study of the language. In his conception, alongside
natural phenomena, technological material and consumer goods, “there is a particular
universe, the sign universe” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 32).
Under this premise, we can only ask: Where does the ideological or sign come
from? To Bakhtin (1986, p. 32): “the individual awareness is not an architect of this
ideological superstructure, but only one more tenant in the social building of the
ideological signs”.
In Bakhtin’s view, the word is conceived as a sign, and as such, it must be
perceived as an originator of social relations; it is present in all the comprehension and
interpretation acts. Thus, since signs mediate the relation of man and his reality – as
semiotic material of his conscience – all the mental activity of the individual can be
conveyed under the form of signs, externalizing itself through words, gestures, or other
means resulting from the previous speech. Speech is not individual, it occurs between
speakers. Language is not spoken in emptiness, on the contrary, it is uttered in a
concrete historical situation in which enunciation, communication circumstances and
social structures are interpenetrated – in which its meaning is accomplished- through
and in the interactions between the individuals. This attempt in understanding the
relations between language and society in a complex dialogue between existence and
4
5
language, world and mind, what is given and what is created, between the world of
experience in action and the representation in the world of speech, allows us to
comprehend the impossibility of an individual formation without alteration evidencing
the presence of the other within the boundaries of the inner world.
Though Bakhtin considers all speeches or texts dialogical, “not every text shows
the various voices of speech” (Barros apud Faraco et alli, 2001, p.36). In the
monoglossia speeches, these voices are concealed, disguised, dissimulated, as if they
were one voice, one speech. But in the heteroglossia speeches, is possible the
coexistence of distinct varieties within a single linguistic code. As for authoritarian
speeches, the voices are overwhelmed by each other, the dialogues are hidden and
speech turns into the speech of one sole truth. Heteroglossia or poetical discourses, on
the other hand, would be those in which we do not find traces of authoritarianism and
social coercion, representing a synthesis that respects different voices.
Language in a critical perspective
From Gramsci’s perspective of cultural studies, in the capitalistic society,
education has a clearly defined political function: forming intellectuals in many levels
whose functions in civil society are to organize the hegemony, the population’s
“spontaneous consensus”. This “consensus” is born out of the advantage that
bourgeoisie has in society and the state coercion structure that legally insures the
discipline of those who “consent” it. However, this “common sense” must be
counterattacked in all the coalitions, including the media, using the critical journalism
perspective (Gramsci, 1991).
To Gramsci, as to Freire and Gur-Ze’eve, the post-industrial revolution, modern
and postmodern2 politics are marked by class struggles that are objectively expressed
through exclusion/oppression and subjectively through ideology, which biases and
falses reality. This makes the oppressed see the oppression as something natural and the
2
To Peters (PETERS, 2000), modernism in philosophy can be viewed as “a movement based on the
belief of knowledge advancement, developed from experience and scientific methods”. (p.18). Jean
François Lyotard (LYOTARD, 2000), on the other hand, believes that “The word (postmodern) is
used in the American continent by Sociologists and critics. It designates the state of culture after the
transformations that affected the rules of the Science, literature and art games from the XIX century.”
(p. XV). […]” The Skepticism regarding metanarrations is believed to be postmodern ( …) The
narrative speech loses its actors (funteurs), the great heroes, the great dangers, the great perilous and
the great objective” ( PETERS, 2000, p.XVI).
5
6
ideology, as something immaterial that permeates and directs all the layers of society,
such as media and education.
In this sense, Antonio Gramsci defends, along with Marx, the thesis that the
dominant material force class in society is at the same time, its dominant intellectual
class and according to Darrel Moen (1998) and Stuart Hall (2003), Gramsci moved
forward in Marx’s ideology theory, adding hegemony – comprehended as a “false
consciousness”- to it. Hegemony expresses the subordinate class’ consent to bourgeoisie
domination, presenting itself as the other face of power: that of conscious and language
domination by the reproduction of ideology.
This “spontaneous consent” that people have regarding the existence of a
coercive system in society is transmitted/reinforced by school, whose function is to
form the intellectuals who will maintain, reproduce and perfect the oppression system
under capitalism. The intellectuals produced by schooling, are classified as organic or
higher level intellectuals: creators of many sciences, philosophy, art, and the like; and
the lower level intellectuals: administrators and divulgers of the existing intellectual
richness. Gramsci believed that in a transforming perspective, the school would have
the role of forming intellectuals that will organize/form a new culture, with the
objective of contributing with the creation process of hegemony other than the
dominating hegemony, for it is in the “consciousness arena” that the elites make use of
their organic intellectuals to maintain the domination. Thus, consciousness must be
freed from the bourgeoisie hegemony and must originate a new culture with new values,
and consequently, a new social order.
We can find a similar analysis in the Critical Theory’s perspective (Adorno,
Horkheimer, 1994) where the technique (such as filmmaking, radio) keeps the whole
cohesive. As a result, the technique is inserted in the instrumental rationality logic,
technique from where the means are above the ends and that by becoming a business,
reifies people’s consciousness.
Despite all the illustration and information that is widespread (even with its
help) the Halbbildung became the predominant structure of the contemporary
consciousness, which requires a more wide-ranging theory (Adorno, 1996, p.
388).
On a Subject level, Tognolli (2001, p. 85), asserts that a society “ whose
relationships occur only through fixed words and access codes instead of mediations
6
7
and social incidents, will generate individuals that will speak think through clichés – or
they will think and say significants without meanings.” What once was a thought, gives
place to non-thought, to automation. To him, language jargon, cliché, is above all,
programming. His hypothesis suggests that computers can absorb key-words and foster
the culture of superficiality. Endorsed by the arguments of Eugene Provenzo, Tognolli
asserts that we already have simplified words, the newspeaks, something similar to New
Oceania, to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, “a simplified language to be used by the
masses”. (op. cit., p. 177). This process of key-words and clichés can be simply a part of
this: we have a simplified language for human beings’ consumption, which can make
mass culture even more superficial.
The idea of the individual and the human being’s subordination to technique is
also highlighted by Lazarte (2000, p. 47), who questions this viewpoint, not as a
neoluddite one, “but inverting the order, thinking primarily of the human being and
his/her problems, and only then, in how technology can contribute to solve them”.
By analyzing technology, Marcuse (1999) defines it as mode of production that
it is, and at the same time, an entirety of the instruments, devices and inventions that
distinguish the age of machinery as a way to organize, perpetuate, or modify social
relations. By this, technology can promote freedom, as well as authoritism, but he
highlights that what has been noticed under the capitalistic regime is its authoritarian
use. On that, Feenberg (2004) argues on the essentially hierarchal nature of technique,
which generates a technocratic administration and so originates a dystopic system.
Final Considerations
Gur-Ze’ev (2000, 2005) analyses that, despite the fact of capitalistic domination
in our globalized and self-controlled world, it is still a possibility of predictability or
uncontrollability. This possibility makes individuals revive what is forgotten or
deconstructed in the postmodern age: Eros, reflection, transcendence and ethics in a
historically placed dialogue. Nevertheless, to Gur-Ze’ev the fulfillment of the critical
spirit is not guaranteed, given that the individual, as well as the dialogue, are not more
than an Utopia.
In this sense, Paul Virilio alerts (1995):
We have to acknowledge that the new communication technologies will only
further democracy if, and only if, we oppose from the beginning the
7
8
caricature of global society being hatched for us by big multinational
corporations throwing themselves at a breakneck pace on the information
superhighways.
To Adorno (1995), in opposition to the cultural industry’s massification and
violence, debarberizing is the education’s most urgent task. For this matter, he suggests
activities that involve reading, auditions, and conjunct assistances with students using
magazines, radio, music and commercial films (we adding softwares, sites, hypertexts,
and so on) consequently showing the falsehoods of the speeches present in each of
them.
As a result, we see that the main battle between the dominant and subordinate
classes is set in the superesctruture (social consciousness and State – Bottmore, 1983)
and most precisely, in the language arena. In cultural studies’ perspective, Gramsci’s
defends that the overcoming of hegemony occurs due to catharsis, comprehended as a
“passage from the purely economical (or egoistic-passionate) moment to the ethicalpolitical moment, that is, the superior elaboration of structure into superstructure in
men’s consciousness” (Gramsci, 1991, p. 53).
And how is this done? Let us recall Marx (1986) and his third thesis about
Feurbach, in which he postulates that “The coincidence of circumstance modification
with human activity or self-alteration can only be conceived and comprehended
rationally as revolutionary praxis.”
In a transforming or revolutionary process, intellectuals, given their technical
capability, would act as thinking individuals who organize subordinate classes
(Gramsci, 1991). Their mission is not professional; however, as participants of the
construction of a new culture for the mass coalition, they would direct the ideas and
aspirations of the class to which they organically belong, considering that all men are
intellectuals; they think, though not all of them have entirely developed this ability,
given the bourgeoisie hegemony. This means that the struggle for consciousness
emancipation through critical language demands, above all, a non-violent critical
language, if this were to take place, a technocratic logic would will have been used, that
of the bourgeoisie, the oppressor. And thus, it requires emancipation.
In a transforming or revolutionary process, intellectuals, given their technical
capability, would act as thinking individuals who organize subordinate classes
(Gramsci, 1991). Their mission is not professional; however, as participants of the
8
9
construction of a new culture for the mass coalition, they would direct the ideas and
aspirations of the class to which they organically belong, considering that all men are
intellectuals; they think, though not all of them have entirely developed this ability,
given the bourgeoisie hegemony. This means that the struggle for consciousness
emancipation through critical language demands, above all, a non-violent critical
language, if this were to take place, a technocratic logic would will have been used, that
of the bourgeoisie, the oppressor. And thus, it requires emancipation.
Proletarian or revolutionary psychotherapy is a journey witch begins with the
rejection of our adequacy and ends in the acceptance of our smallness; it is the
overthrow of the rulers of the mind by the workers of the mind, as said unknown author.
Corporate capitalism functions as an oppressive ruler non-leader and therefore group
behavior is more individualistic, i.e., more the behavior of individuals in a group is
more guided by conditioned individual conscience and ego. Thus the ruling class
maximizes control by developing a totally controlled system (a total institution) in
which individual is conditioned through the brainwashing institutions of the system –
most significantly – through language, and elements of ideology of vision to act
individualistically, via the created narcissist ego in accordance with their, own, rational
self-interest; but where acting in accordance with individualistic rational self interest, is
in monetocratic reality acting in accordance with the interest of monetocrats .For they
have defined, individual, self – interest and rational, in ways which make this true. For
in addition to the particularities of conscience imposed on multitude, the development
of narcissistic ego as a self-control, decreases the capacity of multitude to experience
their real, social or collective or mass, or/and power mind.
The very form of individualistic, narcissistic conscience controlled behavior is in
the vested interest of the privileged and ruling class for it eliminates the state of mind in
which multitude have permanently stimulating power and possibility of new
revolutionary structure of integral culture. The individual sees in narrow ways which
the possibility of dialectical discernment. The bourgeois ego or the personality or
character is the locus of this controlling individualism. The bourgeois adoration of the
individual, of the personality, is nothing more than a technique of bourgeois control of
the multitude. For the self-interested, rational, individual, is guided by a ruling class /
and/ cultural logic of Late Capitalism imposed conscience /or super-ego/ which she or
he transforms into a self-controlling bourgeois i.e., narcissistic ego. Together they
9
10
provide maximal control by diminishing the sense of collective mind.
Against it and in order to reach emancipative discourse in the education, it is
necessary to act as a friendly guide (Gramsci), in a dialogical-loving (Freire) and
reflexive pedagogy (Gur-Ze’ev), which is the foundation of democracy, baring a
technological conception that goes beyond the rule of technocracy and technoburocratic
rationality
(Marcuse, Kellner, Feenberg), where the language is an expression of
multiple voices (Bakhtin) that does not only mean a consensus, but above all, a poetic
speech.
References
ADORNO, T. W.; HORKHEIMER, M. Dialética do Esclarecimento. Fragmentos
Filosóficos. Tradução de Guido Antonio de Almeida. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar
Editor, 1994.
ADORNO, T. W. Teoria da Semicultura. Tradução de Newton Ramos-de-Oliveira,
Bruno Pucci e Cláudia B. Moura. Revista Educação e Sociedade, ano XVII, n.
56, p. 388-411.
ADORNO, T. Educação e Emancipação. Tradução de Wolfang Leo Maar. Rio de
Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1995.
BAKHTIN, M. Marxismo e Filosofia da Linguagem. Tradução de Michel Lahud e Yara
Frateschi Vieira. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1986.
BOTTMORE, T. A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. USA, Basil Blackwell Publisher
Ltd., 1983.
FARACO, C. A et al. (org.) Diálogos com Bakhtin. Curitiba: UFPr, 2001.
FEENBERG, A .Heidegger and Marcuse. The Catastrophe and Redemption of History.
New York, London: Routledge, 2005.
_____Teoria Crítica da Tecnologia. Nota autobiográfica. Texto original “Critical
theory of technology”.Tradução da Equipe de Tradutores do Colóquio
Internacional “Teoria Crítica e Educação”. Unimep, Ufscar, Unesp. 2004.
Disponível em:
<http://www.sfu.ca/%7Eandrewf/critport.pdf> Acesso em 2006.
FIORENTINI, L. M. R.; MORAES, R. A. (Org.) Linguagens e interatividade na
educação a distância. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2003b.
FREIRE, P. & SHOR, M. Medo e Ousadia. Tradução Adriana Lopes. São Paulo:
Brasiliense, 1986.
FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do Oprimido. 17 ed..Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987,
_____.Pedagogia da Indignação. São Paulo: Unesp, 2000.
____. Extensão ou Comunicação? 11 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2001.
GRAMSCI, A. Os Intelectuais e a organização da cultura. Tradução de Carlos Nelson
Coutinho. 8 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1991,
_____Concepção Dialética da História. Tradução de Carlos Nelson Coutinho. Rio de
Janeiro: Ed. Civilização Brasileira, 1991.
HALL, S.“O Problema da Ideologia”. In: SOVIK, L. (Org.). Da Diáspora. Identidades
e Mediações Culturais. Tradução de Adelaine La Guardia de Rezende et alli.
Belo Horizonte: Ed. UFMG; Brasília: Unesco, 2003, p. 265-293.
10
11
GUR-ZE'EV, I. E possivel uma educacao critica no ciberspaco? (a translation by
Newton Ramos-de-Oliveira of "critical education in the cyberspace?").
Comunicações, 9: 1, 72- 98 (Portuguese), 2000.
____.Destroying the Other´s Collective Memory. New York; Oxford, Peter Lang
Publishing. (Counterpoints; vol. 141), 2003.
____.A teoria crítica e a possiblidade de uma pedagogia não-repressiva. ZUIN et al.
Ensaios Frankfurtianos, S.P: Cortez Ed., 2004, p. 13-41.
____. Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy Today - Toward a New Critical Language
in Education. (Editor). Iyyunim Bachinuch (Studies in Education), Faculty of
Education, University of Haifa, 2005.
GUR-ZE’EV, I. ; MASSCHELEIN, J. ; BLAKE, N. Reflexo, Reflexão e ContraEducação. Tradução de Newton Ramos-de-Oliveira. Revista Eletrônica Outras
palavras – v., n. 1, ano 2, outono de 2002.
KELLNER, D.A Cultura da Mídia. Bauru, São Paulo: Sagrado Coração. 2000.
LAZARTE, L. Ecologia cognitiva na sociedade da informação. Revista Ciência da
Informação. Volume 29, número 2, 2000, p.43-51.
LIMA, V.A Mídia: Teoria e Política. São Paulo: Perseu Abramo, 2001.
LYOTARD, J. A condição pós-moderna. Tradução de Ricardo Correa Barbosa.Rio de
Janeiro: José Olimpio, 2000
MARCUSE, H. Algumas implicações sociais da tecnologia moderna. In: Tecnologia,
Guerra Fascismo. (Editado por Kellner). São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 1999.
MARX, K, ENGELS, F. Ideologia Alemã. Feurbach. Tradução de José Carlos Bruni e
Marco Aurélio Nogueira. 2 ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1986.
MOEN, D. G.
"Analysis of Social Transformative Movements in Advanced
Capitalism: A Neo-Gramscian Approach." Journal of Policy and Culture: Vol.
3. March, 1998.
MORAES, D. (Org.) Sociedade Midiatizada. Traduções de Carlos Frederico Moura da
Silva, Maria Coimbra Guedes, Lúcia Pimentel. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad, 2006.
MORAES, R. de A. Mídia e Educação. In: PEDROSO, L A.; BERTONI, L. M. (Org.)
Indústria Cultural e Educação (reflexões críticas). Araraquara, SP: Unesp, JM
Editora, 2002a, v. 1. p. 91-102.
____ Rumos da Informática Educativa no Brasil. Brasília: Plano, 2002b.
____Educação a Distância: aspectos histórico-filosóficos. In: FIORENTINI, L. M. R.;
MORAES, R. de A. (Org.) Linguagens e interatividade na educação a
distância. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2003.
MORAES, R. de A “AULA VIRTUAL E DEMOCRACIA: UMA PEDAGOGIA
CRÍTICA NO CIBERESPAÇO”. In: Anais do IV SENAED – Seminário
Nacional ABED de Educação a Distância, “Apoio ao Aluno para Sucesso da
Aprendizagem”, Brasília – DF, 2006.
MORAES, R. de A , DIAS, A C, FIORENTINI, L. M. R. “AS TECNOLOGIAS DA
INFORMAÇÃO E COMUNICAÇÃO NA EDUCAÇÃO: AS PERSPECTIVAS
DE FREIRE E BAKHTIN”.Anais do VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de
Ciencias de la Comunicación - ALAIC & UNISINOS, 2006. Disponível em
<http://www.alaic.net/ponencias/UNIrev_Moraes_e_outros.pdf>. Acesso em abril de
2007
PETERS, M. Pos-Estruturalismo e a Filosofia da Diferença. Tradução de Tomas Tadeu
da Silva. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2000.
____. Poststructuralism, Marxism, and Neoliberalism. Between Theory and Politics.
USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INCl, 2001.
11
12
PUCCI, B. Teoria Crítica e Educação. Petrópolis, R.J: Vozes, 1995.
SARUP, M. An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism. Great
Britain: Harvester-Wheatscheaf, 1989.
TOGNOLLI, C. J. A Sociedade dos Chavões. Presença e lugar- comum na
comunicação. São Paulo: Escrituras Editora, 2001.
_____. A Falácia Genética. A Ideologia do DNA na imprensa. São Paulo: Escrituras
Editora, 2003.
VIRILIO, P. A Bomba Informática. Tradução de Luciano Vieira Machado. São Paulo:
Estação Liberdade, 1999.
____.Speed and Information. Cyberspace alarm . Le monde diplomatique, August,
1995. [<http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=72>]
12