Au revoir, France

Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By GUILHERME CARDOSO DE SA*

For an anthropophagic movement in Brazilian human sciences

A fundamental role of the historian is not to lose the “thread” of history, this does not mean an apology for chronology or even historicism. Every reading of the present is also a (re)reading of the past. Obviously, there are disagreements about interpretations, there are historiographical consensus and dissent, but history has the unique characteristic of touching reality, in other words, before interpreting and giving meaning to events, historical events, continuities, ruptures and conjunctures emerge.

They are often filled with details and verses, which ultimately constitute a “historical body”, the most accepted interpretations among historiographical production. They are not narratives, even though no one in academia believes in “absolute truths”, it is necessary to differentiate the wheat from the chaff.

History, as a scientific field, has the characteristic of using the conceptual field created and disseminated by anthropology, sociology, political sciences, etc. The converse is also true, all of these sciences seek to historicize their objects based on historiography. For non-historians, some debates, within the consensus, remain marginal and can characterize a major deviation in understanding.

Above all, because a generic look at “globalization” or “capitalism” without expressing the approaches and distances of these processes in time and space will tend to lead to the construction of misunderstandings. Often, it is so obvious that no one notices. I am not referring to the instrumentalization of fragments of facts or interpretations to legitimize theoretical aspects.

Therefore, it is not common for a historian to venture into conceptual debates, we consider the facts. I first need to establish my relationship with the object that in this article I propose to analyze. When I took on my teaching position at the state network (SP), I participated in the union sub-headquarters where we held many debates about teaching working conditions and the impacts of productive restructuring. Outsourcing, flexibility and precariousness were watchwords. This was the “frontier of the debate” or “State of the Art” on working conditions.

A huge number of dissertations, theses and publications had the maxim already in their titles. In the field of education and health sciences, at the end of the 1990s and especially in the 2000s, the concepts gained strength. In fact, conditions were bad and undeniably the advent of technology, especially informational, had imposed a new paradigm. My previous professional experience at IBGE would bring with me not only an attachment to statistics, but also the experiences of re-registering streets and alleys that “appeared” in the new borders of the most distant neighborhoods of the city, an “opaque” world of “slow men” and invisible .

It was at IBGE that I learned about informality and that “it has always been like this” for a huge number of peripheral workers. Previously, in questionnaires what we today call informal was treated as “on your own”. If the decision were mine, I would keep the previous nomenclature. Without going into the deeper debate, very well done by professor Alexandre de Freitas Barbosa,[I] of the nuances that the concept acquired after being forged in 1972 in a report on the Kenyan economy in an ILO mission.

Informality could be defined simply as the antonym of formality. A formal employment, that is, consisting of a certain format, falling within a certain typological scope. An “ideal type” of Economist to define a job within the “humanized” rules of capitalism, with rights and duties. The informal is the opposite of this, applying the rules that escape the State and the historical arrangements that legitimize variations of productive organizations that orbit the desired “ideal capitalism” before “real capitalism”. Would formality depend on its opposite in the world economy?

This apparently very fragile dichotomy makes the ILO report itself judge that informality is an operating part of the formal economy, that is, it was not an element characterizing the “traditional” or “archaic” that would invariably disappear with the advancement of industrial capitalist relations. There are also many authors and research that have dealt with this false dichotomy, Chico de Oliveira is probably the most fundamental work in this sense in Brazil.[ii] The previous nomenclature was much more powerful, it was able to attribute a face value to the concept that directly referred it to reality, each one on its own.

However, the change had a scientific value, after all it would be a way of establishing parameters between different countries. When we compare it with France, for example, we realize that this was never an established concept, in the European labor market, jobs that deviated from the form were too marginal and the term “atypical” used accurately represented those societies. In fact, the concept of “atypical” used in Brazil would not make any sense.

The praxis of shoe soles when stepping on dirt streets, visiting shacks and feeling the reality of communities without sanitation, living on odd jobs, underemployed or without any income was a lesson that never escaped my thoughts. A meeting with Brazil. Many times in party or even union meetings I realized that the key words made little sense if used in that “backward” Brazil.

Let me go back to the times at APEOESP,[iii] but specifically in 2015, when we carried out the longest strike of its kind in the State of São Paulo, it was 92 days. Many teachers joined even though they were not union members, the fatigue, overload of double shifts and overcrowded classrooms helped. Most of the entries were from teachers who had recently arrived, from the 2010 (my case) and 2014 competitions. However, I will not go into the details of those three months.

Attention was drawn to a large number of teachers who did not join and who allegedly said that their work and salary were “fair”. I remember talking to several teachers from this new wave, young people who didn't join. The key to understanding them was not their “peleguismo”, but rather their trajectories. Many were happy to have managed to pass a public exam. For most, it was their first experience with stability, not as a “filler”, in the secretariat’s erudite language, “Category O”.

Others had outlined even more intriguing journeys, as street vendors, caregivers for children or the elderly, motorcycle freight drivers and a host of occupations without rights, carried out in their homes or in small family “businesses”. In many cases, university education was an isolated case in the extended family. How could I convince them that working as a teacher in the stable public service was conducive to a process of precariousness in their lives?

It was necessary to better understand “precariousness”, which by semantic condition, I interpreted as a process of corrosion between point A and point B, in time and space. I separated the concept of precariousness to name what was constant, that is, the conditions of permanence in different times and spaces. Finally, I tried to make sense of a process that I perceived not as precariousness, but as a deep disenchantment.

For this process of “mismatch” between work and the worker, I preferred to use the Marxian concept of “proletarianization”, that is, a process between formal and real subsumption. In other words, the dominance of capital over a given occupation. Proletarianization, in this sense, is an extremely powerful concept, which allows us to understand the long process of sedimentation of capitalism in different societies and work activities. The analysis of educational legislation allows us to infer proletarianization rather than precariousness. Control over work and its loss of social meaning are fundamental characteristics. On the other hand, this fact, in my opinion, is not a worsening of objective working conditions, such as working hours, salary, number of students per class, etc...

We cannot lose sight of the fact that it was only in 1988 that we universalized the right to access to education and at that same moment we expanded social security. This is a Brazilian contradiction, at the same time that it was establishing a “welfare” state, it was undergoing neoliberal reforms contained in the “Washington Consensus”. We know of countries that cut social rights in the 1990s or even whose system collapsed, such as the USSR.

The Brazilian case is unique, especially when we take into account the territorial and population size. Logically, analyzing Brazil in a chronological timeline in which the end of the 1980s marks the global neoliberal diffusion is not entirely pertinent and this should not be an impasse, especially for Marxists. If we took the history of Europe as a parameter we could say that our 1978 was their 1968, or say that the future of their employment is our past. But no comparison seems good enough to understand our peripheral reality. Comparative history carries treacherous traps. A detail that does not prevent us from relating facts from a Global history to national elements or even specificities circumscribed in the field of microhistory.

Therefore, how can we analyze the world of work in a country like Brazil from a Eurocentric perspective? What elements shaped the Brazilian job market? They are elements sine qua non for any realities? Is consolidated capitalism in the periphery comparable to the center? These are not merely rhetorical questions. Would it make any sense to use the concept of “atypical jobs” to analyze the Brazilian reality?

I had no choice but to delve into the origins of the concept of precariousness. There were so many doubts that I used the doctorate project to do this immersion. In general, the concept emerged in France in the late 1970s, to specifically address “family precariousness” in the works of Agnes Pitrou.[iv](1978) Work that sought to analyze family conditions, solidarity networks that demonstrated vulnerability and at least protected from certain misfortunes. For the author, these families are not those who are on social assistance (marginalized), receive benefits or are assisted by any programs, at least they are not the middle class characterized by stable employment, consumption and leisure.

In due course, in the 1980s, the concept was used in reports on socioeconomic conditions in France. In the 1980s, the concept gained space in public, partisan and academic debate and became present in government statistical reports.[v]. This movement allows for a broadening of the concept and its use, even if not very rigorous, to deal with labor income and contract conditions. In France, this is a time when “precarity” is synonymous with “new poverty” and “marginality”.[vi] Nevertheless, the 1980-90s marked the shift of the concept from the field of social assistance and public policy to the sociology of work.

Will it be Offredi[vii] (1988) who introduced the term into sociology, but still identifying “precarity” with poverty and marginality. The author points out that changes in the organization of production, or even its disorganization, are possibly a broader process that generalizes uncertainties and would be creating another form of sociability. A turning point will occur with the article by Dominique Schnapper (1989) “Rapport à l'emploi, social protection and social statutes” whose term “precarity” will be associated “ver l'emploi” (for employment). As Barbier points out[viii] (2005)

Dominique Schnapper will never use the concept before, even in a more restricted way, however, and her later production will be marked by the use of “employment precariousness” as a central analytical category. In this phase, the concept slowly moves away from its initial formulation and even in the early 2000s there was use intertwining poverty and precariousness as elements of the same social phenomenon (BARBIER, 2005).

It is up to us to focus on Social Sciences, which only at the beginning of the 1990s (PAUGAM[ix], 1991; CASTEL[X], 1995) will begin an investigation highlighting in particular the “increase in social uncertainties”, the rupture of a “Fordist social pact” and posing the question of the relationship that individuals maintain in the present and in the future in the context of the economic crisis. This issue of “uncertainty” will be central to the reception of the concept of precariousness by these sociologists. Serge Paugam[xi] (2000) separates and systematizes two concepts that could be used, on the one hand, “precariousness of employment” and "precarité du travail”.

It is already possible to notice that the concept is expanding, only going beyond the limits of what until then were considered “atypical”. In the case of “precariousness of work” Paugam frames an individual dimension, seen from the workers themselves regarding their occupation, that is, the precariousness of work is characterized by a worker who feels underpaid, unrecognized or even that their work is uninteresting. By “employment precariousness” Paugam structures an analysis that takes into account more the legal form, the contract and the social rights of work. Castel (1995) will go further by attributing the “precariousness” as an unrestricted destabilization of society, the “erosion of wage conditions”.

Pierre Bourdieu (1998) in the work “Precarity is everywhere” gives a greater meaning to “précarité” than Castel or Paugam, for him precariousness is truly a “mode of domination” based on a generalized state of insecurities and uncertainties , which by purpose forces society to accept more degrading conditions of exploitation, employment and life.

We identified four distinct moments that the concept of precariousness went through, including a “stage” classified by MAURÍCIO[xii] (2015). Firstly, it was created based on anthropological analysis and social assistance with a focus on the family at the end of the 1970s. At the beginning of the 1980s it began to be used as a category in reports that would guide public policies (first enlargement). The 1990s will mark the specific conditions of use relating to “employment” in two “stages”.

Based on the work of Castel (1995), the concept begins to characterize the crisis of the “salary society”, that is, the conditions of merely occupations are no longer restrictive, but of the entire arrangement that engendered the construction of Fordist relations of production. industrial and social reproduction of the workforce (second enlargement). The second expansion is characterized by expanding the analysis of employment to society.

Finally, the third expansion occurs with the possibility of interpreting Bourdieu (1998) in which it is not only the wage society that has entered into crisis, but life itself, human existence is permeated by a new form of domination. Insecurity and uncertainty shape a new ethos a “permanent state of precariousness”, whether in the public or private sector, in health or education. The future itself is hopelessness, that is, we could not experience anything different from the tragedy of the present.

The metamorphosis of the concept

At a time when France was going through social and economic transformations arising from successive crises since the beginning of the 1980s. Even so, until the end of the decade the employment rate in “status” jobs was close to 82% of the economically active population and other forms of employment were defined in a single category, “atypical” (LEITE[xiii].

Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello[xiv] (1999), use different paths to those visited so far, analyzing what “neocapitalism” would be and its implications in the world of work. In the work they defend a more restricted use of the concept, above all, by defending the use of the comparative method to define “precariousness”. In other words, it would only be possible to identify the phenomenon based on previous conditions.

At the same time, the concept of Flexibilization will be the basis of similar criticism, but predominant in the English language. In the specific case of flexibility, the use of the concept is more restricted to the conditions of the occupation and its negative trajectory in relation to stability, income, career building and access to social protection at work. It will also be used to designate a broader movement, a new form of organization of globalized capitalism used as “flexible accumulation”. The term itself is designated in proposals for reforms on employment contracts in the late 1970s and early 1990s in European Economic Community countries with a positive meaning of “modernization”.

But, unlike the Brazilian reception of the concept, which I will outline below, there was a broader debate in France about its heuristic capacity and legitimacy. Just as an example, we could mention the most critical work such as that of Chantal Nicole-Drancourt[xv] (1992) in an article that analyzes, above all, the condition of young people's insertion in the job market. Initially, she makes it clear that the concept of “precarity” was presented with considerable polysemy at the beginning of the 1990s and “the notion of precarity is broad, omnipresent and often untraceable” (page 57).

In the article “Precarité revisitée idea” the author seeks a definition to differentiate “precariousness” from “precarious work”. In her research on the trajectory of young workers, the author mentions that it is not possible to equate precariousness and precarious work and that it is quite common for young workers to take on precarious jobs at the beginning of their career, highlighting it more as a process of mobility than precariousness.

Another critical contribution is from Beatrice Appay[xvi] in a book chapter published in 1997 titled “Social precarisation and productive restructuring”. The sociologist is one of the few to draw attention and try to differentiate “precariousness” (precariousness) of “casualization” (precariousness). In this context, the author identifies “precariousness” as a process, part of a set of factors that came together in a certain time/space. While “precarity” would be a state, a condition and would be more related to social exclusion.

However, the author realizes that the concept of “precariousness” is being reformulated, in part by a group of administrators who aim to mask new forms of exploitation and insecurity, replacing it with “mobilité” (mobility). Appay identifies three main “strands” in this reformulation process. In this process, the author seeks to categorize and define a concept of “social precariousness” created from “double institutionalization”, on the one hand economic insecurity and on the other the insecurity of social protection. The proposed configuration would be as follows:

1 FRAMEWORK– Systematization of the concept of Social Precariousness

Source: APPAY. B. (1997).

Barbier (2005) takes stock of the concept and analyzes the relevance of its use beyond French borders, specifically in European countries such as Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark. He concludes in his article that the use of the concept of “precariousness” does not fit the realities of Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. In the case of Denmark and the United Kingdom there is no strict regulation of work and contracts, but in the case of Denmark there is social protection that prevents any characteristics of “precariousness”, even for those outside the labor market.

For a second group formed by France, Italy and Spain, the author believes that the concept of “precariousness” is possible to be imported, even if with reservations. The author identifies Germany with a specific case in which marginal jobs, a concept similar to that of “atypical” in France, did not change during the period, which raised the issue of “precariousness” without foundations in reality, added to a State in which the social protection remained universal.

Jean Claude Barbier asks a fundamental question: What is the relevance of exporting the concept “precariousness” for the European Union? Shouldn't we do the same before employing him?

Precariousness in Brazil: between ubiquity and nomination

An initial warning to the reader is necessary, I need to define a starting point, which is not very clear in the use of the concept in Brazilian academic production. In this way, I understand “precariousness” as a process in which, in space/time, it is possible to verify, qualify and quantify the elements that decline working conditions. Time is an essential variable. However, “precarious” is used as an adjective that qualifies an almost immutable situation of occupations or workers’ trajectories.

Having made this initial warning, we can proceed to understand the relevance of the different uses of the concept in different Brazilian scientific fields. I will indicate very specific points of my research, perhaps this may leave the impression that the data is preliminary. I will leave the data set for the future publication of the thesis, but I can guarantee that this small demonstration has very solid foundations.

I will only present a small sketch, focused on general data from the job market, just in a statistical effort to try to get a glimpse of what I have been measuring. We could use data on work absences or disability retirement, data from DATAPREV or the Census. We could use CAGED or other variables that somehow contribute to reconstituting the scenario. I used the PNAD because it has national data and was consolidated during this period with a methodology that underwent few changes. I emphasize, this is just a sample of data to problematize our object.

Thinking from this definition of “precariousness” as a process from point A to point B, I will use the data cut from 1976-2002. The justification for this periodization lies in the fact that there is a consensus that the labor market in Brazil is consolidated with wage employment concomitant with the economic miracle, with 1976 being a pertinent date to reach data before the crisis that affected Brazil in the “lost decade”. ” from 1980. At the other end, the year 2002 is a date that would not encompass the “Lula years”, considered contradictory as it marks an advance in the formalization of employment, but in sets of low pay and qualifications. By choosing this periodization we avoid controversies that we may face at other times.

I will use data from the continuous PNDA to try to draw up a portrait of the job market in Brazil to specifically think about the historical movements involved in these transformations. Let's see, in 1976 approximately 50% of workers received between ¼ and 2 salaries, approximately 77% received between ¼ and 5 salaries and workers without salaries represented 12,5%. Of the workforce, 38% were salaried workers with a formal contract, 24% were salaried workers without a formal contract and 38% were self-employed. The PNAD data from 2002 are very similar, with 37% being salaried workers with a formal contract, 23% being salaried workers without a formal contract and 41% being non-salaried workers. Income in 2002 consisted of between ½ and 2 salaries 55%, up to 5 salaries 74% and without salary represented 13% of the economically active population.

A very stable scenario that should refer to the adjective precarious to exemplify its totality, whether in quantitative or qualitative analysis, given that the income of half of the economically active population is up to two minimum wages.

When segmenting the data, working only with “urban” populations, we noticed the same stability. In the salary range of 1 and 2 salaries we have 30% in 1976 and 29,70% in 2002, between 2 and 5 salaries 24,50% in 1976 and 26,50% in 2002. It is interesting to look at the highest salary ranges, as If there was a substantial change in the set of best jobs it would be noticeable in this interval of approximately 25 years. In the range between 5 and 10 salaries we have in 1976 8,75% compared to 8,50% in 2002, between 10 and 20 salaries 4,10% in 1976 and 4,60% in 2002 and above 20 salaries 1,40% against 1,30% in 2002. Between 1976 and 2002 there was also some stability in the number of workers who contributed to the social security system, 47% in 1976 and 45% in 2002.

The concept of precariousness, whether in its more limited version that only lists “employment” or its expanded version as “in society” is a priori difficult to imagine in the reality of the Brazilian labor market. The widespread use of the concept in different areas of science in Brazil is indeed a challenge to understand. But, what paths did the concept of “precariousness” take between its formulation and landing in Pindorama?

I spent some time poring over the articles, publications and theses and dissertations that introduced the concept, their authors and their advisors. I managed to define a group that I define as “receivers” and another group of “diffusers” of the concept. An interesting fact was discovering that the first mentions of the concept occurred in the area of ​​“Social Services”. Only at the beginning of the second decade of the 2000st century did “precariousness” start to have more mentions than “flexibilization” in the search for the CAPES Platform, while at the beginning of the XNUMXs it was used more than “outsourcing”.

I used these concepts as I noticed their simultaneous use in the works analyzed, often as synonyms or suggesting a degree of relationship, which would be the result of outsourcing and making the precarious process more flexible. However, it will be the concept of “precariousness” that will prevail at the end of the second decade of the 21st century, as a synthesis of the processes involved. It is also noted that almost no work, whether from the receiving group or the group that I classified as diffuser, is concerned with explaining and defining this concept. It would merely be an instrumental category as professor Ana Elizabete Mota suggested to me[xvii]? Or are we facing a “naming” of a given process that social scientists tend to understand as clairvoyant?

When in 1993 the CRH[xviii] issue 19 published the article “Criticism of the division of labor, health and counter-powers” by Annie Thébaud Mony the concept began to frequent the constellation of Brazilian social sciences, beginning its landing in the Brazilian Northeast, especially at UFBA (Federal University of Bahia) and UFPE (Federal University of Pernambuco). In publication number 21 of CRH notebook in 1994 a group of researchers[xx] published the second part of an investigation entitled “Management Changes, Precarious Work and Industrial Risks".

In this article they use the concept of precarious work, but it had not been used in the first part of the article in 1993. From that point on, the concept gradually gained space among analyzes that deal with “outsourcing” and “flexibilization”. . The “productive restructuring” would lead to the process of “precariousness”.

In the CNPq Research Group Directory, the “keyword” “precariousness” predominates – 68 groups – to the detriment of “flexibilization” – 10 groups – and “outsourcing” – 13 groups. Particularly, precariousness took shape and expanded in national academic literature precisely at a time when the labor market was undergoing an “anti-cyclical” movement, an unparalleled increase in formalization.

Another historical element that was consolidated, even with advances and setbacks, were the social rights created from the 1988 Federal Constitution. We could say that the concept of “regulated citizenship” by Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos[xx] underwent a metamorphosis to “expanded citizenship” from 1988 onwards, as the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution were not only related to formalized employment. To give a better example, the title phrase “those who have a job have benefits”, a brilliant synthesis by professor Ângela de Castro Gomes, about the Vargas period and the consolidation of the CLT and the relationship with social rights, went into decline due to the social guarantees, treated as fundamental constitutional clauses, creating a legal framework for the “Wefare States" Brazilian.

We are not saying that the country now has a “welfare” state, obviously, but that the legal framework was created exactly in the year that the Washington Consensus affirmed its neoliberal guidelines. This contradiction is specifically ours and should not be underestimated. Let's look at a very significant data from DATAPREV, between 1991-94 around two and a half million rural workers were able to retire without ever having contributed to social security. Rights for pregnant women, disabled people and benefits for elderly people without income. The universalization of access to education and the creation of the SUS are not elements that can escape a deeper analysis of Brazilian society in the period. Appay's own concept of “social precariousness” is anchored in the employment-health binomial. Logically, a micro analysis could be used, the specific health of a worker, their occupational health condition or even the rules of a category.

I think in this case, it is more important than looking at the “tree” and conceiving the “forest”. In this sense, even if there are specific processes that could be characterized as precariousness - worsening working conditions - of categories such as bank employees, high and medium-level employees, engineers, etc... the trajectory of the labor market remained stable and the country went through a significant change for the poorest.

Could we conclude that the perception of precariousness is legitimate when the perspective comes from a group of the middle class? The trajectory of a migrant worker who got his first family-registered job could be conceived as descending in what senses? Will the bank employee who lost his job to the information revolution fill the telemarketing position or will it be the black migrant woman who finds her first formal job? These questions are relevant, the trajectory of workers may contain the generational and historical key made up of important cleavages.

A huge contingent of Brazilians coming from our tragically precarious past, from the countryside, from work arrangements that escaped the CLT, such as sharecropping, settlement and partnership, or “self-employed” migrant workers, “self-employed” or “boia fridas” ” are a past that does not bring us closer to the capitalist center. By importing elaborations and concepts from a different reality than ours, we run too much risk of fitting the theory into reality and subverting our explanatory capacity based on our own reality. It does not mean that the theoretical framework, methods or debates developed and articulated in other realities do not serve us, but it is important to understand the research object from its innards.

My argument is not a denial of the processes that Brazil has experienced since the 1990s, privatizations, deindustrialization that intensified with the 2014 coup and Lava Jato, changes to the CLT and even changes to important parts of the Federal Constitution 1988, especially in social legislation. I intend to contribute to the important path of historicizing social sciences. As professor Fernando Novais taught, historians seek to explain to reconstitute their object, while the social scientist reconstitutes it to explain. On the one hand, the construction of a theory and concepts about a given object or process, on the other, the look at the permanences, ruptures and the conditions in which this object and process are established in time and space. Historicizing theories and concepts becomes essential.

Social precariousness could, in this way, be understood as a long-lasting element of Brazilian history, permeating the relationship between workers and occupations and jobs that opportunely, given the situation, emerge in the present, always constituted by a strong presence of the past. A society whose labor market is constituted[xxx] for 1/3 of workers benefiting from the CLT, two of which approximately 35% receive up to 2 salaries and 2/3 are unregistered or self-employed workers cannot be compared with labor markets in which occupations without “status” are considered “atypical”.

Finally, I emphasize that the criticisms presented here are not directed at researchers and authors who use the theoretical framework that I sought to problematize, for this reason I almost did not mention “so-and-so”. My research continues to seek elements in which we can improve the theoretical debate and advance in understanding the present. How can we explain that a large part of the working class in the country adheres to the discourse of “self-entrepreneurs”, that CLT is an obstacle for employers and employees or that workers with CLT would have privileges and not rights? Was it just an ideological conviction? Or does listening to these workers also mean unveiling our past and re-asking fundamental questions for current political action?

*Guilherme Cardoso de Sá He is a professor of history at the Federal Institute of São Paulo (IFSP).

Notes


[I] De “Sector” for “Informal Economy”: Adventures and Misadventures of a Concept 2009.

[ii] Criticism of dualist reason/The platypus. Boitempo Editorial, 2015.

[iii] Union of Official Education Teachers of the State of São Paulo.

[iv] Precarious life, families in difficulty, Paris, CNAF.

[v] The first concrete introduction within public policies was stated with the Oheix report (1981) and later with the Wresinski report (1987).

[vi] In France defined as “exclusion” e “nouvelle pauvreté”.

[vii] La precarité des années quatre-vingt ou un phénomène social en gestation dans la société, Revue internationale d'action communautaire, 19/59, pp. 21-32.

[viii] La precarité, une catégorie française à l'épreuve de la comparaison internationale. Revue française de sociologie, v. 46, no. 2, p. 351-371, 2005.

[ix] Social disqualification: essay on new poverty, Paris, PUF, col. “Sociologies”, 1991

[X] Les Métamorphoses de la question sociale, une chronique du salariat, Fayard, 1995.

[xi] The precarious worker: new forms of professional integration, Paris, Presses universitaire de France, coll. “The Social Link”, “Research Documents” Series, 2000

[xii] MAURÍCIO, Francisco Raphael Cruz. PRECARIITY: A socio-historical genealogy of the concept. Piauí Magazine of Social and Labor History. Year I, n° 01. July-December 2015. Parnaíba-PI.

[xiii] Work and its reconfigurations: concepts and realities. The reconfigured work: essays on Brazil and Mexico. São Paulo: Annablume, p. 20-4, 2009.

[xiv] CHIAPELLO, Eve, and BOLTANSKI, Luc. Le new spirit of capitalism.

[xv] L'idee de precarité revisitée. Work and employment, no. 52, p. 57-70, 1992.

[xvi] Precarisation sociale, travail et santé. Paris: Iresco-CNRS, 1997.

[xvii] Interview given to the author in September 2022.

[xviii] Center for studies and research in humanities-UFBA.

[xx] Tânia Franco, Maria da Graça Druck, Angela M. Borges, Ângela MA Franco.

[xx] Citizenship and justice: social policy in the Brazilian order. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1979

[xxx] Data from the 1976-2002 cut-off period for the analysis proposed by the author.


the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE

See this link for all articles

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

______________
  • 40 years without Michel FoucaultVenice 13/07/2024 By VINÍCIUS DUTRA: What still remains admirable in Foucault's way of reflecting is his acumen in contesting ideas intuitively accepted by the critical tradition of thought
  • What time is it on the NATO war clock?Jose Luis Fiori 17/07/2024 By JOSÉ LUÍS FIORI: The hands of the “world war clock” are moving faster and faster
  • Unicamp at the moment of truthPalestinian artist culture 13/07/2024 By FRANCISCO FOOT HARDMAN: On August 6th, the Unicamp University Council will have to decide whether to suspend current relations with one of the institutions involved in the massacre in Gaza
  • Stalinist episodes in BrazilOld pictures 14/07/2024 By ANGELA MENDES DE ALMEIDA: A story woven together with untruths, but which, much later, ended up coming out into the light of day
  • Marxism and politics — ways to useLuis Felipe Miguel 15/07/2024 By LUIS FELIPE MIGUEL: Author's introduction to the recently published book
  • Letter from Berlin — war and the old devilFlávio Aguiar 2024 16/07/2024 By FLÁVIO AGUIAR: There is a burning smell in the air of Berlin. And there is no Wald (forest) on fire, despite the summer heat. The burning smell actually comes from the Federal Government headquarters
  • The night the French Revolution diedstick 0406 01/07/2024 By MARTÍN MARTINELLI: Preface to the book by Guadi Calvo
  • An endless cyclepalestine street people 16/07/2024 By BRUNO HUBERMAN: The Zionist left attacks the Palestinian struggle for decolonization
  • Antigone in the classroombooks and reading 17/07/2024 By GABRIELA BRUSCHINI GRECCA: The present time has proven increasingly essential for us to regain contact with Greek tragedies
  • After neoliberalismELEUTERIO2 18/07/2024 By ELEUTÉRIO FS PRADO: The inability to think of capitalism as a social system formed by structuring social relations

SEARCH

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS