BNCC’s Re-Signification of Literary Reading and of the Reader-in-fruition: A Dialogical Approach

ABSTRACT

Based on the notion of curriculum as an arena of discursive clashes, this paper aims at verifying how the Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC) [Common Core] for Portuguese Language and Literature understands the concepts of fruition and reader-in-fruition. Indeed, it is our intention to understand the very idea of literary reading proposed by this official curriculum document. For this purpose, the skills and contents indicated by BNCC were analyzed from an interpretive research methodology view and under the dialogic perspective for discourse analysis developed by the Bakhtin Circle.

KEYWORDS:
BNCC; Literary Reading; Curriculum

RESUMO

Com base na noção de currículo como uma arena de embates discursivos, este artigo tem por objetivo principal analisar de que modo a Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC) de Língua Portuguesa e Literaturas compreende os conceitos de fruição e de leitor-fruidor. Com efeito, é nossa intenção compreender como a ideia de leitura literária é proposta por esse documento oficial curricular. Para tanto, as habilidades e conteúdos indicados pela Base Nacional Comum Curricular foram analisados a partir de uma perspectiva metodológica interpretativista e sob a perspectiva dialógica de análise do discurso desenvolvida pelo Círculo de Bakhtin.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
BNCC; Leitura Literária; Currículo

Introduction

Dehumanization [...] is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human.

This distortion occurs within history; but it is not a historical vocation.

Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as an historical vocation

would lead either to cynicism or total despair.

Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire’s oeuvre is firmly guided by an understanding of Brazilian education as a system riddled with dehumanization, broadly described as a structured set of practices whose ultimate goal is to ban individuals’ subjectivities from the classroom. According to the Brazilian educator, the expulsion of subjectivity is anything but a natural phenomenon; indeed, it is conducted and overseen by men who, in order to further their own counterfeit interests, dehumanize other men.

In the educational praxis, dehumanization is first given shape through the emergence of a hollow philosophy of learning: one which views students as empty receptacles to be filled with correct knowledge. Crucially, not only are students regarded as clean slates, but it is expected that all learners must become one same kind of subject, defined by his/her command of a sum of knowledge deemed valid by a group bent on preserving the status quo.

Through those lenses, contemporary Brazilian curricular discourse can be seen as an instrument which reflects and refracts, ideological reality, prompting the eruption of certain meanings and views about people while, at the same time, propagating an approach which decenters and dehumanizes individuals. The raison d’être of a curriculum thus designed is to facilitate the production of legions of professionally qualified individuals, more characterized by their technical, operational proficiency (allegedly valued by the market) than by having been educated within a critical framework designed to help them actively produce and transform the social practices in which they participate (GREEN, 1998).

There are significant convergences between this understanding of the curriculum and Vološinov’s (1973)⁴ notion of ideological sign. The author writes that words (which he sees as a form of discourse) are pervaded by competing ideological stances. Any ideological sign constitutes an arena for class struggle-hence the countless historical attempts, on the part of certain groups, to construct meanings aligned with the reality they wished to impose. If that is the case, then the curriculum can also be taken as a discursive instrument which reflects and refracts a comprehensive array of values, stabilizing or consolidating truthful-seeming meanings.

Curricular discourse can be viewed as a site where repeated attempts are carried out to stabilize discourses-especially discourses related to the ideals and worldviews of the economic elite. Of course, as curricular studies evolve, such perspectives are repeatedly called into question, and some degree of social progress is achieved. Nevertheless, the dehumanizing project denounced by Freire can still be spotted, however in a veiled way, in most of Brazil’s official curricular documents.

In the interest of redefining such an ideological landscape, a considerable number of studies have sought to comprehend what kind of knowledge is structured in curricula, as well as to define how curricular guidelines may impact pedagogical practice and critical education, potentially undermining alternative forms of thinking and being (SILVA, 2016).

The analysis developed in this paper follows this tradition. In the upcoming pages, we turn to the Base Nacional Comum Curricular [Common Core] (henceforth BNCC, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym). The document, published in four versions (ranging from the first draft to the officially ratified text), seems to champion a neoliberal⁵ understanding of education. Throughout its extension, BNCC establishes behavioral standards; centralizes so-called essential knowledge; and embraces an idea of educational formation restricted to certain kinds of individuals. In short, instead of operating as a guide to help teachers develop more meaningful pedagogical practices, the document advances a neoliberal logic of social organization.

Our study scrutinizes the educational-and thus social, economic and cultural-principles which underpin BNCC. The investigation is guided by the following research question: how, and through which principles, does the Portuguese Language/Literature component of the BNCC construct its approach to literary reading? In particular, we wish to examine how the models of fruition and of the reader-in-fruition, terms used by the document itself, might allow for the collaborative construction of a more critical approach to literature in Brazilian classrooms.

As we endeavor to conduct a more fine-grained analysis of certain aspects of BNCC, we turn to Bakhtin Circle’s reflections on the ideological sign, on heteroglossia, on official ideologies, and on the ideologies of daily life. Our remarks are also informed by Apple’s (1993)⁷ critique of the politics of a national curriculum, as well as by Rajagopalan’s (2019) analysis of BNCC itself. As regards reading and literary reading, we rely on Amorim and Silva’s (2019) work, which investigates literary education in the High School section of the BNCC, and on Szundy’s (2019) contributions regarding the neoliberal biases displayed in some of the descriptors in the Languages section of the document. Finally, Coracini’s (2009) conception of reading will also prove relevant as we discuss the notions of fruition and of reader-in-fruition, introduced by the BNCC for Middle and High School.

1 A Unified Curriculum: A One-size-fits-all Form of Learning?

The production of the Base Nacional Comum Curricular [Common Core] gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, an area of sheer continental dimensions, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

As maintained by Macedo (2014), members of the private sector have long influenced BNCC’s construction. The section which addresses the needs and goals of Middle School, for instance, is crisscrossed by allusions to financial institutions and large-sized companies, such as Bradesco, Santander, Gerdau, and Natura. There are also references to non-governmental organizations sponsored by such groups, including Lemann Foundation, Roberto Marinho Foundation, Amigos da Escola group etc. (MACEDO, 2014). It is important to mention that the fact that such institutions endorse the production of a centralized curricular framework may help promote the cause of destatization. This is accomplished as educational discourses whose proposed solutions refract aspects of the corporate world are evoked (MACEDO, 2014).

Furthermore, one of BNCC’s defining characteristics is its prescriptive, universalizing nature: the document defines itself as an “organic and progressive set of essential types of knowledge, to be learned by all students across the stages and modalities of Basic Education” (BRASIL, 2018, p.7). This approach greatly differs from the one adopted in previous documents, such as the Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (henceforth PCNs, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym) [National Curricular Parameters] (BRASIL, 1998) and the Orientações Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino Médio (henceforth OCEM, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym) [High School Curricula Guidelines] (BRASIL, 2006). The latter documents, rather than postulating mandatory requirements, issued a series of guidelines and recommendations, thereby constituting themselves as tools in support of teaching practices.

In contrast, despite claims that BNCC is not a curriculum, but a common core, the document enjoys the status of a legal instrument. At its core, we may indeed find references which outline a basic framework for the creation of local curricula; in reality, however, given the compulsoriness of its application and its emphasis on what is deemed essential, BNCC is best viewed as a curriculum (TÍLIO, 2019). It shares certain traits, for instance, with what Saviani termed a curricular instrument: “the curriculum is the assemblage of nuclear activities undertaken by the school” (SAVIANI, 2016, p.57).¹⁰

There are multiple ways in which BNCC can aggravate dehumanization. As it furthers the cause of a universal learning experience, BNCC downplays the importance of specific contexts, as well as of students' worldviews and previous knowledge. The document's concept of essential knowledge favors the external control of learning, a process also refracted by BNCC’s overall architecture of “skills” and “competences.” Moreover, according to Saviani (2016, p.75), the obvious coherence between BNCC and existing standardized testing systems highlights the limits of a unified curriculum since “subordinating the organization and the operation of national education to the aforementioned notion of assessment produces a significant distortion from a pedagogical viewpoint.”¹¹

Such considerations dovetail with Apple’s (1993)¹² arguments about the alleged necessity of a national curriculum. The author disputes the validity of a document which, while stipulating the minimum, supposedly neutral types of knowledge to be developed by an entire nation, is constructed in close association with private interests-especially those championed by neoliberal and neoconservative groups. Rather than viewing education as a repertoire of neutral values, Apple writes that there is a selective tradition, designed to propagate values originated in influential social groups. In other words, the seeming neutrality is backed by a treacherous form of politics: behind the façade of a concern with the quality of education, the imposition of market ideologies proceeds unrestrained. It is hardly surprising that BNCC should define the word “competence” in predominantly corporate terms:

In BNCC, competence is defined as the deployment of knowledge (concepts and procedures), skills (practical, cognitive and socio-emotional), attitudes and values in order to grapple with intricate demands of everyday life, of full-fledged citizenship, and of the world of work (BRASIL, 2018, p.8, emphasis added).¹³

The italicized words echo the KSA-knowledge, skill and attitude-triad, a well-known token of entrepreneurial jargon. A quick YouTube search for those three terms promptly generates a list of tutorials aimed at qualifying professionals for the job market. The passage also includes the word “values,” which, albeit not entirely dissociated from the corporate world, does preserve its importance in education. The bottom line is that BNCC’s verbal choices reintroduce the hackneyed rhetoric of motivational and managerial lectures and workshops; the document, in short, re-voices such discourses.

As we investigate how BNCC weaves its network of references, let us once again turn to Apple’s warnings about the dangers of a central, unified curriculum. Such a colossal document espouses and bolsters a monocultural philosophy, “which deals with diversity by centering the always ideological ‘we’ and usually then simply mentioning ‘the contributions’ of people of color, women, and others” (APPLE, 1993, p.233, emphasis added).¹⁴ This marginalization refracts a reality about which it enunciates alleged truths: namely, that peripheral populations and values should be kept at bay, even in official discourses.

Apple’s argument about the idea of a “we” may help us observe what Rajagopalan (2019) calls the emergence of a form of eugenic discourse. As it unfurls its list of essential types of knowledge, Rajagopalan writes that BNCC posits the existence of an “ideal student”-a movement reminiscent of the uniforming eugenics discourse. Rajagopalan states that the eugenic view refracted in BNCC bears, as its main justification,

[...] the uniformity of contents-of the ethnic-racial composition of a population, and of the pedagogical composition of a curriculum. Both are premised on the notion that the measure, in addition to “democratically” distributing State-sponsored favors, would contribute to the Nation’s preservation as a solid and safe geopolitical unity (2019, pp.31-32).¹⁵

The commonalities between Apple’s and Rajagopalan’s arguments might point to an ongoing erasure of the achievements of social movements in education over the past two decades. Moreover, the existence of a document which invigorates this kind of discourse makes it urgent and necessary to understand the process whereby such a curricular discourse is constructed, as well as its possible impacts upon classroom practices in Brazilian schools.

Notwithstanding BNCC’s alignment with neoliberal discourses, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy (2019), in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author finds BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” (SZUNDY, 2009, p.144). A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices” (SZUNDY, 2019, p.144).¹⁹

We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic,²⁰ seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy (2019) who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6^th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading:

The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept... (SZUNDY, 2019, p.144; emphasis in the original).

BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s (2019) analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9^th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words,

In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca seems [...] in the service of neoliberalism-it is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become self-entrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village (2019, pp.146 -147; emphasis in the original).

Once again, the excerpt illuminates an ideological clash. On the one hand, the document advocates forms of learning informed by a critical-social framework; on the other, it ratifies practices aligned with liberal principles, based on the behavioral control of skills and competences. The conflict in the document can be taken as constitutive of language itself, since the latter is always infused with the values of individuals-in-society (VOLOŠINOV, 1973).24

Some of the concepts developed by the Bakhtin Circle may prove useful to our analysis of curricular discourse. In short, as stated by Vološinov, “everything ideological possesses semiotic value” (1973, p.10; emphasis in the original).²⁵ The statement reminds us that language cannot be apprehended in isolation, divorced from external influences; rather, through the nexus of our social values, language is intrinsically connected to the reality in which it arises. Plus, such values are not a product of our own individuality: they are the culmination of innumerous collective assessments consolidated in society across history.

The word itself, defined as an “ideological phenomenon par excellence” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.13; emphasis in the original),²⁶ absorbs our social horizon. It reflects and refracts “an intersecting of differently oriented social interests within one and the same sign community, i.e., by the class struggle” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.23; emphasis in the original).²⁷ Hence the curriculum’s own plethora of ideological conflicts (VASCONCELOS et al., 2016): although a form of capitalist discourse may predominate, the document also accommodates the needs and desires of other social beings, who attempt to stabilize their meanings, signal their accomplishments, and formalize their ideologies through the use of an educational instrument.

Here, the idea of heteroglossia (BAKHTIN, 2015), defined as the profusion of different social voices, may also come in handy. From this perspective, class struggle can be seen as

[...] a wide gap between social voices (some kind of discursive war), within which centripetal and centrifugal emerge. The former attempt to impose a certain verbal-axiological centrality upon actual plurilingualism; the latter continuously erode centralizing efforts through the use of various dialogical processes such as parody, laughter, irony, covert or overt controversy, hybridization, reassessment, vocal overlapping etc. (FARACO, 2009, pp.69-70, emphasis in the original).²⁸

By regarding language as an arena where antagonizing voices wage an ideological-discursive war, we may be able to produce a more sophisticated understanding of the curriculum’s contradictory approaches. As a result of such strongly engaged forces, interactions may occur between everyday forms and expressions of life (i.e., ideologies of daily life) and crystallized discursive practices (i.e., already-formed ideological systems)-namely, “social ethics, science, art, and religion” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.91).²⁹ Still according to Vološinov, this interaction is first observed in the upper layers of the ideologies of daily life, where some creativity is available which enables dialogues with already-formed systems. Lower layers, on the other hand, are still inhabited by fluid, rapidly mutable ideologies, and thus are not as powerful.

To phrase it differently, in the upper layers of the ideologies of daily life, an accumulation of creative energy can be found which is responsible for the partial or radical transformation of existing ideological systems. Revolutionary though they may be, yet these emerging forces still “undergo the influence of the established ideological systems and, to some extent, incorporate forms, ideological practices, and approaches already in stock” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.92)³⁰. It follows that the curriculum can be seen as an ideological, discursive arena where diverging stances are in ceaseless friction, and where emerging views aspire to be integrated into mainstream educational philosophy and policy-making.

In light of such ideas, let us now examine how BNCC explores the issue of literary education. We believe that the presence of conflicting voices in the curriculum may affect our understanding of what literary education is. It has been noted, for instance, that, as literature found itself subsumed under the Portuguese Language Studies category, it progressively lost its autonomy in Brazilian schools. Besides, current configurations have led to the idealization of certain kinds of students according to how they respond to literary works.

In their investigation of how the teaching of literature has been conceptualized by several official documents, Amorim and Silva (2019) found that the Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino Médio (henceforth PCNEM, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym) [National Curricular Parameters for High School] (BRASIL, 2000), while hinged on a more dialogical, Bakhtinian view of language, still espouse an understanding of literature as a high art, overlooking its political, social and cultural functions. Furthermore, the document ratifies reading practices oriented by a chronological and spatial framework-i.e., by a simplistic interpretation of literary historiography-, rather than proposing pedagogical activities which would enable students to comprehend how texts and contexts co-operate to construct socially and historically grounded meanings. PCNEM, in short, re-voice literary teaching practices adopted throughout the 1990s by Brazilian schools and coursebooks.

Paradoxically, this watered-down historiographical view is reinforced in the Orientações Complementares aos Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (henceforth PCN+, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym) [Complementary Guidelines to the National Curricular Parameters] (BRASIL, 2002), an official guide produced to supplement and rectify issues identified in PCNEM. The document advocates teaching practices based on the study of the relations between literature and period styles; it also recommends that works be classified according to literary genres. As written by Amorim and Silva (2019, p.161), “PCN+ [thus] reiterate the idea that literature can be taught in Brazilian schools through the principles of classification, systematization, and through a simplistic approach to the history of literature.”³¹

With the Orientações Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino Médio (henceforth OCEM, from the Brazilian Portuguese acronym) [High School National Curricular Guidelines] (BRASIL, 2006), literary education is slightly re-imagined, and issues found in the previous documents are called into question. Nevertheless, despite their concern with literary literacy (COSSON, 2006), OCEM still adheres to a belletristic view of literature, dismissing non-canonical texts as “inefficient” and “unrevealing of any aesthetic quality” (BRASIL, 2006, pp.56-57).³² As it cites canonical works as the only ones in which the full complexity of literary aesthetics is at play, the document appears to disregard a number of studies on the aesthetic properties of cordel Literature and rap lyrics, for instance. The argument seems at odds with the notion of literacy introduced by Cosson and Paulino (2009, p.67), who see it as the “process of appropriating Literature as the literary construction of meanings.”³³ This definition implies that the very idea of literariness is constructed in the process of appropriating a literary text as such. OCEM’s insistent favoring of the canon actualizes hierarchical distinctions between classic and non-classic texts, leaving very little room for the emergence of non-canonized texts which might prove meaningful in school contexts.

Let us now zoom in on the Base Nacional Comum Curricular [Common Core] for High School. According to Amorim and Silva (2019), the document still seems to refract a certain formalism, projecting Literature as “artistically organized language.” In the document’s own words, “through special verbal arrangements, [Literature] creates a universe which amplifies our ability to see and feel” (BRASIL, 2018, p.166).³⁴ Literary education remains tethered to pedagogically vague aesthetic criteria, and the possibility is discounted that Literature, without relinquishing its own aesthetic concerns, may inaugurate spaces of critical-political reflection (SILVA, 2018).

Amorim and Silva (2019) also argue that BNCC seems to have made important strides towards recognizing the value of so-called non-canonical works. The document suggests that literary productions with a certain degree of complexity must be integrated into education, including forms of contemporary, indigenous, African, Afro-Brazilian and Latin-American Literature. The emphasis on hierarchy, however, is once again refracted, even if BNCC does not clarify what complexity means (although the document itself states that one of its purposes is to progressively complexify students’ skills).

The territory of curricular discourse is anything but harmonious. While truths considered relevant by a powerful social group are repeatedly re-voiced, the documents also feature discourses of resistance, which oppose or refract the status quo. Overall, though, given the predominance of more liberal voices in curricular discourse, Literature is still mostly approached in terms of its general formative capacities: its role in developing written comprehension and production skills, or in propagating a specific historical vision. Comparatively little emphasis is placed on the possibility that the reader-subject may be critically transformed as a citizen and human being. In other words, despite the presence of more progressive discourses, most of the voices found in BNCC, for example, seem to refract a more liberal, conservative, market-oriented understanding of education.

A major point in this discussion is that BNCC’s occasional attempts to introduce a more ideological view of literacy-in accordance, for instance, with Street’s (2003) ideas - are jeopardized by the document’s competence-based pedagogy. Literary reading remains highly idealized by BNCC’s descriptors, and readers are often expected to satisfy unreasonable expectations. The notions of fruition and of the reader-in-fruition, present throughout the document, seem to ignore both that readers can be radically different from one another and that Literature is more than an object of fruition (MACHADO, 2017).

The next section addresses the concepts of fruition and reader-in-fruition constructed in BNCC. In particular, we analyse how BNCC’s Portuguese Language and Literature Studies components grapple with those concepts in Middle and High School. Our main argument is that the voices assembled in the document attempt to ascribe purely aesthetic meanings to literary reading.

2 BNCC’s Idealization of Literary Reading

As we have shown, one of the main criticisms directed at BNCC concerns its adoption of a competence-based pedagogy. For example, a large number of the document’s descriptors contain verbs which, while pointing to a more critical form of stance-taking, on closer inspection suggest only the acceptance (not the transformation) of social reality. In the section named “General Competences of Basic Education,” Tílio (2019) makes this exact point as he notes that lexical choices are not conducive to the critical thinking required by a political education. As mentioned above, Szundy (2019) voices the same concerns as she describes how the English Language competences may actually hinder the development of a more critical perspective.

When it comes to the teaching of Literature, similar phenomena are observed throughout BNCC - even in passages which underscore the importance of students’ diversity of contexts. BNCC seems to repeatedly idealize certain kinds of reader-subjects, potentially constructing itself as an instrument for the surveillance of reading: basic education must, after all, culminate in the emergence of a specific kind of reader. In this section, we begin by turning to the idea of fruition constructed in BNCC: an exceedingly abstract concept, based on a term already described by OCEM as poorly developed (MACHADO, 2017).

A quick search of the document reveals that fruition is first conceptualized in the section about Art in Middle School. This showcases the document’s wish to advance a more global understanding of the artistic concept, in lieu of restricting it to interactions with literary texts. Yet, as our discussion will illuminate, the notion of fruition, even in the section about Art Studies, is expressed in unclear, merely aesthetic terms, and it prescribes a kind of historicism which may be misunderstood in literature classes:

Fruition: refers to delight, to pleasure, to bewilderment, to an opening for the emergence of sensitivity while participating in artistic and cultural practices. This dimension implies that subjects be available for an ongoing relationship with artistic and cultural productions originating in various times, places, and social groups (BRASIL, 2018, p.195; emphasis added).³⁵

The passage unequivocally demonstrates the document’s interest in approaching literary texts through aesthetic criteria, even though words such as “delight,” “pleasure” and “bewilderment” are never accurately defined. There are no further instructions, either, about how to create “an opening for the emergence of sensitivity” in the multi-context, fantastically diverse landscape of Brazilian education. The notion of fruition, present throughout the document, separates literary reading from the possibility of a more critical approach-even though the document itself regards Art as a curricular component which fosters

[...] critical interaction between students and the complexity of the world, in addition to promoting a respectful treatment of differences and encouraging intercultural, pluri-ethnic and plurilingual dialogues, which are key to the exercise of citizenship (BRASIL, 2018, p.194).³⁶

It is also worth mentioning that the idea of fruition is connected to the fields of knowledge explored by BNCC: Creation, Criticism, Aesthesia, Expression and Fruition. Those notions co-create an interesting debate which extends far beyond the scope of this text; yet, as an example, let us consider the notions of Criticism and Reflection:

Criticism: refers to impressions which propel subjects towards new understandings of the space they inhabit. Such impressions are based on the establishment of connections, enabled by study and research, between various known experiences and cultural or artistic manifestations. This dimension articulates propositional action and thought, and involves aesthetic, political, historical, philosophical, social, economic, and cultural aspects (BRASIL, 2018, p.194).³⁷

Reflection: refers to the process of constructing arguments and considerations about fruition and about creative, artistic and cultural processes and experiences. It is the attitude of perceiving, analysing and interpreting artistic and cultural manifestations, whether as a creator or as a reader (BRASIL, 2018, p.195).³⁸

The passage about Criticism reveals an opening for the use of Art to articulate “political, historical, philosophical, social, economic, and cultural” meanings. This is certainly a promising point, insofar as it demonstrates an alignment with a more ideological understanding of literacy. Even more: it safeguards the emergence of discursive voices which prevent the document from being defined by a non-critical bias. The entry about Reflection, conversely, seems to subscribe to a more passive understanding of learning as a process of constructing “arguments” and “considerations” about fruition. Verbs such as “perceiving,” “analysing” and “interpreting,” rather than indexing the adoption of a critical, transformative approach to literary studies, project a kind of student who, while able to perform such actions, would lack the means to participate in a more political-ideological movement (such as the one presented in Criticism).

This point brings us back to Rajagopalan’s arguments about a so-called “ideal student”: is he/she the one who can interpret artistic manifestations? How would he/she interpret, analyse and perceive them? Who is the ideal reader, and how can he/she be constructed in a country fraught with forms of inequality that cannot be remedied by education alone? As it dissociates Criticism from Reflection, BNCC falls prey to a significant conceptual mistake, since both dimensions represent responsive attitudes3³⁹ adopted by human beings as they constitute themselves through language.

It should also be stressed that BNCC’s skills and abilities seem much more informed by the notion of Reflection than by Criticism. As a case in point, let us examine three descriptors found in the section about Middle School. Here, the critical attitude previously introduced by BNCC is only dimly recognizable:

(EF69LP44) To infer the presence of social, cultural and human values, as well as of different worldviews, in literary texts; to recognize such texts as ways of establishing multiple perspectives about identities, cultures and societies; and to consider how the production of such texts is affected by issues of authorship, social and historical context (BRASIL, 2018, p.157).⁴⁰

(EF69LP47) To analyse, in fictional narrative texts, the different forms of composition particular to each genre, the cohesive resources which construct the passing of time and articulate its components, the typical lexical choices used by each genre to characterize scenery and characters, and the meaning effects triggered by verb tenses, modes of discourse, reporting verbs, and by the identifiable language varieties (in direct speech, if there is any); to identify plot and narrative focus and to perceive how narrative is structured in different genres, as well as to examine the meaning effects triggered by each genre’s typical narrative focus, by the characterization of physical and psychological space and of chronological and psychological time, by the presence of different voices in the text (the narrator’s, and the characters’, in both direct and indirect speech), by the use of expressive punctuation, words and connotative expressions, figurative processes, and linguistic-grammatical resources particular to each narrative genre (BRASIL, 2018, p.158).⁴¹

(EF69LP48) To interpret, in poems, the effects produced by the use of expressive resources related to sound (stanzas, rhymes, alliteration etc.), meaning (figures of speech, for example), spatial graphics (graphic distribution on paper), as well as by images and their relation to the verbal text (BRASIL, 2018, p.158).⁴²

In the first example, although issues of social, cultural, and human value are alluded to, the verb “infer” signals the adoption of an autonomous attitude towards the very exercise of valuing and ranking. It is understood that students will make deductions, but no guidelines are offered as to how they should employ such deductions. In other words, learners are expected to reflect views about hierarchizing processes, but not to position themselves critically towards them. In the second and third examples, the verbs “analyse” and “interpret” embrace a more formalistic approach to Literature without ensuring, however, that students will be able to construct their own positionings. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with literary formalism, the document ought not to ignore the critical possibilities at stake, since language itself is always pervaded by some form of ideology (VOLOŠINOV, 1973).⁴³

As regards fruition, let us consider another skill-one which, introduced by the phrase “to position oneself critically,” seems to foster more agentive attitudes:

(EF69LP45) To position oneself critically vis-à-vis texts pertaining to different genres, such as fourth covers, leaflets (from theatre and dance performances, exhibitions etc.), synopses, critical reviews, comments in cultural blogs/blogs, in order to select literary works and other artistic manifestations (cinema, theatre, exhibitions, performances, CDs, DVDs etc.); to distinguish between descriptive and evaluative sequences and recognize such genres as instruments supporting the choice of a book or cultural production to be consulted, when required, during decision-making (BRASIL, 2018, p.157).⁴⁴

A more careful analysis reveals that the descriptor is informed by purely aesthetic criteria. Its overt purpose is to help students select between various artistic manifestations, distinguishing between “descriptive and evaluative sequences” and classifying such manifestations according to specific genres. While there might seem to be some kind of agency, the actions outlined in the descriptor are simply conducive to the development of critical-aesthetic skills, and not to the consolidation of a more political outlook.

Another relevant point concerns how the notion of fruition gives rise to the so-called reader-in-fruition-an abstract entity, a subject whose outstanding reading proficiency allows him/her to analyse and scan literary texts for their likely meanings. Derived from the concept of fields of action and dependent on strong pedagogical control, the reader-in-fruition emerges as a central guide in the artistic-literary realm, and is perhaps best understood as an ideal reader:

[...] a reader-in-fruition, that is, [...] a subject capable of fully engaging in the reading of texts, of ‘unraveling’ their multiple layers of meaning, of attending to their demands and reaching agreements with reading itself (BRASIL, 2018, p.138).

The concept provides a worryingly broad framework for the definition of what a reader is. It stipulates that students should be able to “reach agreements with reading itself,” and, at the same time, it emphasizes texts and their layers of meaning, rather than the social and ideological relations between text, reader, and contexts, which are the very backbone of meaning-making (AMORIM, 2013). Such attitudes seem at odds with the kinds of reading students can be expected to produce through their own experiences (FREIRE, 2011). Crucially, they also ignore the possibility that students may respond to literary texts by refusing to reach agreements of any sort. The document offers no additional explanations about the said “agreement”; it merely introduces a subject who will effortlessly receive, and interact with, texts of various natures.

Moreover, the assumption that students will be able to “unravel” textual layers fails to acknowledge which processes may or may not take place. Coracini (2009) believes that this ideology of reading is informed by modernist, positivistic ideals, aimed at producing a “good reader”: an individual capable of retracting writers’ footsteps. This interactionist view of reading posits that “both the (good) author and the (good) reader are ideally conscious and work continuously, tirelessly, to achieve ideal consciousness.” (CORACINI, 2009, p.21).⁴⁶

BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader,⁴⁷ equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations (VOLOŠINOV, 1973),⁴⁸ where they are imbued with existing social values. To phrase it differently, the act of reading is not previously conditioned by a set of available interpretations; rather, meanings are exclusively constructed through a responsive and ideological interaction between text, reader, and social, historical and cultural context. That is not to say that reading is highly arbitrary, but that assuming that readers will follow pre-existing routes tends to turn them into markedly abstract figures.

This rhetoric is intensified in the BNCC’s section about High School. Since the final years of Basic Education seek to consolidate the developments initiated in previous years, the High School component addresses the necessity of deepening already-built understandings and sharpening already-developed skills:

Towards the end of High School, students must be able to exercise fruition in their interaction with artistic and cultural manifestations, understanding the role played by the relations between different languages and appreciating such works according to aesthetic criteria (BRASIL, 2018, p.496).⁴⁹

It can thus be inferred that, towards the end of High School, individuals must have learned the skills required to exercise fruition as they interact with various artistic manifestations. The categorical construction “must be able to exercise fruition” leaves no room for ambiguity: it is expected that students will be able to engage in more complex reading practices effortlessly. Evaluative criteria are not made explicit and, in truth, a certain automatism seems at play. The latter point is also illustrated by the document’s use of the word “protagonism” in its description of specific competence number six:

To aesthetically appraise the most diverse cultural and artistic productions, considering their local, regional and global aspects, and to resort to knowledge about artistic languages in order to ascribe meaning to and (re)construct individual and collective works, exercising protagonism in a critical and creative way, respecting the diversity of knowledge, identities, and cultures (BRASIL, 2018, p.496; emphasis added).⁵⁰

The passage “exercising protagonism in a critical and creative way, respecting the diversity of knowledge, identities, and cultures,” associated with the general emphasis on appraisal, suggests the existence of a learner whose heightened sense of autonomy is incompatible with the results often observed in this stage of education-a discrepancy which is not at all addressed. Having said that, the document does mention the importance of respecting “the diversity of knowledge, identities, and cultures.” In opposition to the prevailing autonomy-centered project (naturalized since BNCC’s component about Middle School, where the reader-in-fruition was already idealized), another possibility emerges, based on the appreciation of a wealth of existing cultures.

Final Thoughts: Fissures as Paths of Re-Existence in BNCC

The points we have raised reveal how enormous challenges are posed by BNCC for the promotion of literary education in Brazilian schools. The document, predominantly guided by a prescriptive and centralizing perspective, advances an abstract understanding of fruition and of the reader-in-fruition. In doing so, it might potentially bring about a learning environment with slim chances of producing meaningful learning experiences for students. Curricular components are exhausting, not explicit enough, and incompatible with a philosophy of reading premised on an ideological view of literacy.

Yet, as we have also tried to sustain, the presence of more critical perspectives, dwarfed though they may seem by the behavioral surveillance advocated by the document, may allow for the construction of spaces where these same impositions become re-signified. The friction between antagonizing discourses in BNCC is a result of the discursive clash between the voices in the document; it is a consequence of the continuous interaction not only between official ideological systems -e.g., the ideological and autonomous models of literacy, the socio-historical and cognitivist views of language and language learning-, but also between ideologies of daily life and historically crystalized ones.

As we have argued in this paper, new forces arise in the upper layers of the ideologies of daily life, where they are assimilated or modified by official ideologies (VOLOŠINOV, 1973).⁵¹ This process is inherent to language itself, and it is illustrated, for example, by the achievements of minority groups, as well as by the introduction of non-canonized forms of literature in BNCC (AMORIM and SILVA, 2019). In that regard, we believe that certain actions may be potentialized as ideological emergences-that new social forces, erupting from the clash between social groups, are necessary for the development of new views in and of society. As we understand that such forces are routinely assimilated by officialized discourses, a pressing need takes shape for practices which may re-signify the alterations occurring in the curriculum.

Therefore, we express our agreement with Szundy (2019), who regards such differences as fissures-gaps which surface in BNCC through the simultaneous presence of (1) “an autonomous model of literacy based on the development of competences and skills” (SZUNDY, 2019, p.147)⁵² and (2) “conceptions related to the socio-historical approach and to the ideological model of literacies” (SZUNDY, 2019, pp.147-148).⁵³ These fissures may prompt the emergence of practices of re-existence, a term coined by Souza (2011) to designate forms of literacy that not only challenge legitimized positions, but re-signify consolidated practices. In the author’s own words,

The term re-existence addresses the nature of literacy practices more effectively than the term resistance. More than challenging and questioning socially legitimated practices, hip-hoppers reinvent socially ratified practices; in doing so, they look for ways to re-exist in a society charged with prejudice, racism and discrimination (SOUZA, 2011, p.37).⁵⁴

As we reflected on such “socially ratified practices” and on the ways in which literary reading was constructed in BNCC, we have argued that, by building on the few ideological perspectives present in the document, we might be able to construct learning environments in which readers-learners, through the singularity of their social, historical, and ideological responsive attitudes, may work through textual opacities. By using BNCC as a trampoline, we may implement practices of re-existence; we may create fissures which help us to understand and challenge ideological emergences. In short, the road is open for us to re-exist through our pedagogical practices and humanize both ourselves and others.

• Statement of Authorship and Responsibility for Published Content
  We declare that the authors had access to the research corpus, participated actively in the discussion of the results, and conducted the review and approval process of the paper’s final version.
• Translated by Robledo Neves Cabral Filho - [e-mail]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9137-0207 and Marcel Alvaro de Amorim - [e-mail]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8840-8371
• 1
  FREIRE, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York/London: Continuum, 2005. p.44.
• 2
  In this paper, in accordance with the epistemological principles formulated by the Bakhtin Circle, we use terms such as refraction, re-voicing and re-signification. We do so in an attempt to emphasize the unsteady, dynamic nature of meaning-making in various social practices.
• 3
  In alignment with the Bakhtin Circle, we understand ideology as a set of ideas and values constituted through the discursive interaction of social voices belonging to socially organized groups in concrete history (FARACO, 2009).
• 4
  VOLOŠINOV, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York/London, 1973.
• 5
  According to Santos (1999), neoliberalism is a social economic regime which favors economic policies designed to de-regulate various markets, privatize certain companies, and intensify international competitiveness. The quest for a minimum State may also lead to tax cuts for the wealthiest population groups, as well as to a reduction in expenses related to important social costs. In Brazil, this economic view has been espoused by sectors of the mainstream media, which consistently call for the reduction of public expenses, for the privatization of state companies, and for a politics of austerity to control inflation (CARVALHO, 2019).
• 6
  BNCC champions a competence-based pedagogy: a model which attempts to control students by previously establishing a list of behaviors and contents; and by determining what kind of subjects students must become at the end of each educational segment (RAMOS, 2002).
• 7
  APPLE, M. W. The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does a National Curriculum Make Sense? Teachers College Record, v. 95, n. 2, pp.222-241, Win 1993.
• 8
  Statization is the action of reducing or removing state management within certain areas of society.
• 9
  In the original: “conjunto orgânico e progressivo de aprendizagens essenciais, que todos os alunos devem desenvolver ao longo das etapas e modalidades da Educação Básica.”
• 10
  In the original: “currículo é o conjunto das atividades nucleares desenvolvidas pela escola.”
• 11
  In the original: “essa subordinação de toda a organização e funcionamento da educação nacional à referida concepção de avaliação implica numa grande distorção do ponto de vista pedagógico.”
• 12
  For reference, see footnote 7.
• 13
  In the original: “Na BNCC, competência é definida como a mobilização de conhecimentos (conceitos e procedimentos), habilidades (práticas, cognitivas e socioemocionais), atitudes e valores para resolver demandas complexas da vida cotidiana, do pleno exercício da cidadania e do mundo do trabalho.”
• 14
  For reference, see footnote 7.
• 15
  In the original: “[...] como principal justificativa a uniformização do conteúdo - de composição étnico-racial de um povo, no primeiro caso, e da composição de material pedagógico a ser ofertado ao povo, no segundo caso. Ambas alicerçadas no argumento de que, além de ser “democrática” na distribuição das benesses do Estado, a medida também contribuiria para a manutenção da Nação como unidade geopolítica com solidez segura.”
• 16
  Although we are referring to an author who specifically analysed the English Language component of the document, her findings remain relevant to the Portuguese Language/Literature section, as will become clear in the following pages.
• 17
  Street (2014) understands this classification as an alternative to the autonomous model of literacy, based on the “effect of enhancing their cognitive skills, improving their economic prospects, making them better citizens, regardless of the social and economic conditions that accounted for their ‘illiteracy’” (STREET, 2003, p.77). From an ideological viewpoint, besides considering technical processes, we must turn to the issues of power underlying the teaching of reading and writing; and we must acknowledge the existence of various forms of literacy, aligned with the specific nature of each context and contrary to abstract pedagogical impositions. Ideological literacy is seen as “[...] a more culturally sensitive view of literacy practices as they vary from one context to another. [...] [L]iteracy is a social practice, not simply a technical and neutral skill; that it is always embedded in socially constructed epistemological principles” (STREET, 2003, pp.77-78).
• 18
  In the original: “compreende as língua(gens) como recursos que nos colocam em contato com a alteridade, com formas plurais e igualmente válidas, de ser e estar no mundo.”
• 19
  In the original: “a BNCC pode nos instigar a situar o ensino nas práticas decoloniais.”
• 20
  It is problematic to the extent that it posits a form of knowledge to be developed by everyone, ignoring or erasing differences between people (LOPES e MACEDO, 2011).
• 21
  Szundy (2019, p.142) sees this as a comeback of the “(...) cognitivist, structuralist approaches which characterized language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s.”
• 22
  In the original: “A utilização dos verbos formular, identificar e localizar nessas três habilidades de leitura contraria o caráter formativo e político da língua inglesa defendido na apresentação do componente e a percepção de língua franca privilegiada pelo documento...”
• 23
  In the original: “O status de inglês como língua franca na BNCC parece [...] estar a serviço do neoliberalismo - atende ao desenvolvimento de competências e habilidades para que o/a aluno/a se torne um/a empreendedor/a de si mesmo/a, de forma a habilitá-lo/a a participar desse mundo global sem questionar suas macro e microestruturas, e como estas operam para manter um grande contingente da população mundial sem acesso às commodities dessa utópica aldeia global.”
• 24
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 25
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 26
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 27
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 28
  In the original: “[...] um vasto espaço entre vozes sociais (uma espécie de guerra dos discursos), no qual atuam forças centrípetas (aquelas que buscam impor certa centralidade verboaxiológica por sobre o plurilinguismo real) e forças centrífugas (aquelas que corroem continuamente as tendências centralizadoras, por meio de vários processos dialógicos tais como a paródia e o riso de qualquer natureza, a ironia, a polêmica explícita ou velada, a hibridização ou a reavaliação, a sobreposição de vozes etc.).”
• 29
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 30
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 31
  In the original: “os PCN+ reforçam [desse modo] a ideia de que a classificação, a sistematização e a abordagem simplista da história da literatura são caminhos para o ensino de literaturas nas escolas brasileiras.”
• 32
  In the original: “ineficientes” por “não revelarem qualidade estética.”
• 33
  In the original: “processo de apropriação da literatura enquanto construção literária de sentidos.”
• 34
  In the original: “[m]ediante arranjos especiais das palavras, cria um universo que nos permite aumentar nossa capacidade de ver e sentir.”
• 35
  In the original: “Fruição: refere-se ao deleite, ao prazer, ao estranhamento e à abertura para se sensibilizar durante a participação em práticas artísticas e culturais. Essa dimensão implica disponibilidade dos sujeitos para a relação continuada com produções artísticas e culturais oriundas das mais diversas épocas, lugares e grupos sociais.”
• 36
  In the original: “[...] a interação crítica dos alunos com a complexidade do mundo, além de favorecer o respeito às diferenças e o diálogo intercultural, pluriétnico e plurilíngue, importantes para o exercício da cidadania.”
• 37
  In the original: “Crítica: refere-se às impressões que impulsionam os sujeitos em direção a novas compreensões do espaço em que vivem, com base no estabelecimento de relações, por meio do estudo e da pesquisa, entre as diversas experiências e manifestações artísticas e culturais vividas e conhecidas. Essa dimensão articula ação e pensamento propositivos, envolvendo aspectos estéticos, políticos, históricos, filosóficos, sociais, econômicos e culturais.”
• 38
  In the original: “Reflexão: refere-se ao processo de construir argumentos e ponderações sobre as fruições, as experiências e os processos criativos, artísticos e culturais. É a atitude de perceber, analisar e interpretar as manifestações artísticas e culturais, seja como criador, seja como leitor.”
• 39
  Responsiveness can be defined as follows: “Any utterance—the finished, written utterance not excepted—makes response to something and is calculated to be responded to in turn” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.72). Such responses continuously re-signify, reflect and refract emotional and volitive, and hence active and evaluative, positionings on the part of enunciators (BAKHTIN, 2010).
• 40
  In the original: “(EF69LP44) Inferir a presença de valores sociais, culturais e humanos e de diferentes visões de mundo, em textos literários, reconhecendo nesses textos formas de estabelecer múltiplos olhares sobre as identidades, sociedades e culturas e considerando a autoria e o contexto social e histórico de sua produção.”
• 41
  In the original: “(EF69LP47) Analisar, em textos narrativos ficcionais, as diferentes formas de composição próprias de cada gênero, os recursos coesivos que constroem a passagem do tempo e articulam suas partes, a escolha lexical típica de cada gênero para a caracterização dos cenários e dos personagens e os efeitos de sentido decorrentes dos tempos verbais, dos tipos de discurso, dos verbos de enunciação e das variedades linguísticas (no discurso direto, se houver) empregados, identificando o enredo e o foco narrativo e percebendo como se estrutura a narrativa nos diferentes gêneros e os efeitos de sentido decorrentes do foco narrativo típico de cada gênero, da caracterização dos espaços físico e psicológico e dos tempos cronológico e psicológico, das diferentes vozes no texto (do narrador, de personagens em discurso direto e indireto), do uso de pontuação expressiva, palavras e expressões conotativas e processos figurativos e do uso de recursos linguístico-gramaticais próprios a cada gênero narrativo.”
• 42
  In the original: “(EF69LP48) Interpretar, em poemas, efeitos produzidos pelo uso de recursos expressivos sonoros (estrofação, rimas, aliterações, etc.), semânticos (figuras de linguagem, por exemplo), gráfico espacial (distribuição da mancha gráfica no papel), imagens e sua relação com o texto verbal.”
• 43
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 44
  In the original: “(EF69LP45) Posicionar-se criticamente em relação a textos pertencentes a gêneros como quarta-capa, programa (de teatro, dança, exposição etc.), sinopse, resenha crítica, comentário em blog/vlog cultural etc., para selecionar obras literárias e outras manifestações artísticas (cinema, teatro, exposições, espetáculos, CD´s, DVD´s etc.), diferenciando as sequências descritivas e avaliativas e reconhecendo-os como gêneros que apoiam a escolha do livro ou produção cultural e consultando-os no momento de fazer escolhas, quando for o caso.”
• 45
  In the original: “[...] um leitor-fruidor, ou seja, [...] um sujeito que seja capaz de se implicar na leitura dos textos, de “desvendar” suas múltiplas camadas de sentido, de responder às suas demandas e de firmar pactos de leitura.”
• 46
  In the original: “tanto o (bom) autor quanto o (bom) leitor são idealmente conscientes e trabalham para, cada vez mais e melhor, atingirem a consciência ideal.”
• 47
  Our definition of a Cartesian reader echoes Coracini’s (2009, p.21) definition of a Cartesian author: “[...] he is rational, essentialistic, Cartesian, summarized by Descartes’ well-known cogito, ergo sum.”
• 48
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 49
  In the original: “Ao final do Ensino Médio, os jovens devem ser capazes de fruir manifestações artísticas e culturais, compreendendo o papel das diferentes linguagens e de suas relações em uma obra e apreciando-as com base em critérios estéticos.”
• 50
  In the original: “Apreciar esteticamente as mais diversas produções artísticas e culturais, considerando suas características locais, regionais e globais, e mobilizar seus conhecimentos sobre as linguagens artísticas para dar significado e (re)construir produções autorais individuais e coletivas, exercendo protagonismo de maneira crítica e criativa, com respeito à diversidade de saberes, identidades e culturas.”
• 51
  For reference, see footnote 4.
• 52
  In the original: “adoção de um modelo autônomo de letramento baseado no desenvolvimento de competências e habilidades.”
• 53
  In the original: “concepções relacionadas à abordagem sócio-histórica ao modelo ideológico de letramentos.”

REFERÊNCIAS

• AMORIM, M. A. de. Literatura, adaptação e ensino. In: AMORIM, M. A. de; GERHARDT, A. F. L. M.; CARVALHO, A. M. (orgs.). Linguística aplicada e ensino: língua e literatura. Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2013. p.231-262.
• AMORIM, M. A. de.; SILVA, T. C. da. O ensino de literaturas na BNCC: discursos e (re)existências possíveis. In: AMORIM, M. A. de; GERHARDT, A. F. L. M. (orgs.) A BNCC e o ensino de línguas e literaturas Campinas: Pontes Editores , 2019. p.153-179.
• APPLE, M. W. A política do conhecimento oficial: faz sentido a ideia de um currículo nacional? In: MOREIRA, A. F.; SILVA, T. T. da (orgs.). Currículo, cultura e sociedade São Paulo: Cortez, 2011. p.71-106.
• BAKHTIN, M. Para uma filosofia do ato responsável Tradução aos cuidados de Valdemir Miotello e Carlos Alberto Faraco. São Carlos: Pedro & João Editores, 2010.
• BAKHTIN, M. Teoria do romance I: A estilística. Tradução, prefácio, notas e glossário Paulo Bezerra. Organização da edição russa Serguei Botcharov e Vadim Kójinov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2015.
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Parâmetros curriculares nacionais Brasília: MEC, 1998.
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Parâmetros curriculares nacionais para o ensino médio Brasília: MEC, 2000.
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Orientações complementares aos parâmetros curriculares nacionais Brasília: MEC, 2002.
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Orientações curriculares para o ensino médio: linguagens, códigos e suas tecnologias Brasília: MEC, 2006.
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Base nacional comum curricular Brasília: MEC, 2018.
• CARVALHO, F. O. L. Qual guy fawkes? Dialogismo e trajetórias textuais das máscaras de V nos protestos de junho de 2013 2019. 168 f. (Mestrado em Linguística Aplicada). Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• CORACINI, M. J. R. F. Concepções de leitura na (pós-) modernidade. In: LIMA, R. C. de C. P. (org.). Leitura: múltiplos olhares. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, 2009. p.15-44.
• CORREIA, R. L; COSTA, S. L; AKERMAN, M. Processos de ensinagem em desenvolvimento local participativo. Interações (Campo Grande), v. 18, n. 3, p.23-29, 2017.
• COSSON, R. Letramento literário: teoria e prática. São Paulo: Contexto, 2006.
• COSSON, R.; PAULINO, G. Letramento literário: para viver a literatura dentro e fora da escola. In: ZILBERMAN, R.; ROSLING, T. (orgs.). Escola e leitura: velhas crises, novas alternativas. São Paulo: Global, 2009. p.61-79.
• FARACO, C. A. Linguagem & diálogo: as ideias linguísticas do círculo de Bakhtin. São Paulo: Parábola, 2009.
• FREIRE, P. A importância do ato de ler em três artigos que se completam São Paulo: Cortez, 2011.
• FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do oprimido São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2017.
• GONTIJO, C. M. M. Base nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC): comentários críticos. Revista Brasileira de Alfabetização, v. 1, n. 2, p.174-190, jul./dez. 2015.
• GREEN, B. Subject-specific literacy and School learning: a focus on writing. Australia Journal of Education, 30(2): p.156-69, 1998.
• LOPES, A. C.; MACEDO, E. (orgs.). Currículo: debates contemporâneos. São Paulo: Cortez, 2011.
• MACEDO, E. Base Nacional Curricular Comum: novas formas de sociabilidade produzindo sentidos para educação. Revista E-curriculum, v. 12, n. 3, p.1530-1555, out./dez. 2014.
• MACHADO, R. C. M. Leitura literária na escola: algumas reflexões sobre o ensino de literatura na educação básica brasileira. In: AMORIM, M. A. (org.) Ensino de literaturas: perspectivas em linguística aplicada. Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2017. p.51-70.
• RAJAGOPALAN, K. Reforma curricular e ensino. In: AMORIM, M. A. de; GERHARDT, A. F. L. M. (orgs.) A BNCC e o ensino de línguas e literaturas . Campinas: Pontes Editores , 2019. p.23-39.
• RAMOS, M. N. A pedagogia das competências: autonomia ou adaptação? Rio de Janeiro: Cortez, 2002.
• RENFREW, A. Mikhail Bakhtin Tradução de Marcos Marciolino. São Paulo: Parábola, 2017.
• SANTOS, T. dos. O neoliberalismo como doutrina econômica. Revista Econômica, Niterói, v.1, n.1, p.119-151, jun. 1999.
• SAVIANI, D. Educação escolar, currículo e sociedade: o problema da Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Movimento-Revista de Educação, n. 3, p.54-84, 2016.
• SILVA, T. T. da. Documentos de identidade: uma introdução às teorias do currículo. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2016.
• SILVA, T. C. da. Ensino de literatura na educação básica: (des)aprendizagem humanização e resistência. Rio de Janeiro: Multifoco, 2018.
• SOUZA, A. L. S. Letramentos de reexistência - poesia, grafite, música, dança: hip-hop. São Paulo: Párabola Editorial, 2011.
• STREET, B. Letramentos sociais: abordagens críticas do letramento no desenvolvimento, na etnografia e na educação. Tradução de Marcos Bagno. São Paulo: Parábola, 2014.
• STREET, B. What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol. 5 (2), p.77-91, 2003.
• SZUNDY, P. T. C. A Base Nacional Comum Curricular e a lógica neoliberal: que línguas(gens) são (des)legitimadas? In: AMORIM, M. A. de; GERHARDT, A. F. L. M. (orgs.) A BNCC e o ensino de línguas e literaturas Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2019. p.121-151.
• TÍLIO, R. A Base Nacional Comum Curricular e o contexto brasileiro. In: AMORIM, M. A. de; GERHARDT, A. F. L. M. (orgs.). A BNCC e o ensino de línguas e literaturas Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2019. p.07-15.
• VASCONCELOS, T. C.; CELINO, L. de. S.; SANTOS, N. F. dos; VIANA, D. N. de M. Currículo enquanto signo: uma perspectiva dialógica, polifônica. Revista Eletrônica Científica Ensino Interdisciplinar, v. 2, n. 4, p.64-73, mar. 2016.
• VOLÓCHINOV, V. (Círculo de Bakhtin). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução, Notas e Glossário Sheila Grillo; Ekaterina V. Américo. Ensaio introdutório Sheila Grillo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Dec 2020
• Date of issue
  Oct-Dec 2020

History

• Received
  28 Mar 2020
• Accepted
  12 Oct 2020