“WOULD WE BE THE POLICY THAT WE CRITICIZE?”:

an interlocution of the people of Geography in BNCC production

Abstract

Based on a dialogue with the curriculum studies in research in geography education, I highlight the importance of interlocution of the disciplinary field in the production of a broader text of curriculum policy. As a scenario, I appropriate moments of the political struggle for the definition of the National Curricular Common Base (BNCC). Empirically, I focus on expert advice on the Geography document. I seek to understand the meanings articulated in the negotiations, with atention to the identifications produced. Theoretically, I use contributions from Laclau and Derrida in a post-structural approach. I operate with the idea that policy is mobilized by contextual translation processes. These processes would mark the understanding that provisional interpretations provoke contingent subjectivities in policies. I ponder the senses defended by the people of geography as tensioning the production of BNCC, through critical-repairing arguments and / or aligned to the defense of national curricula. This may mean that the geography constituted in response is not only intended to criticize the Base, but to virtually produce another one. I point out that the field, in the emergence of the questioning about a BNCC in its relations with geography, tends to operate with the assumption that a Base can be something desirable, even if objectionable.

Keywords

Geography education, Curriculum policies, BNCC, Deconstruction, Disciplinar people