By DANIEL AFONSO DA SILVA*

Both economists, each in their own way, left profound, indelible, positive and superlative marks on the history of the country and on the lives of those who lived, whether much or little, with them.

“The university, in fact, is perhaps the only institution that can survive only if it accepts criticism, from within itself in one way or another. If the university asks its participants to remain silent, it is condemning itself to silence, that is, to death, because its destiny is to speak.”
(Milton Santos).

Neither cliché nor illusion: the passing of Antônio Delfim Netto (1928-2024) along with the passing of Maria da Conceição Tavares (1930-2024) caused an immense void in Brazilian national life. It was a shock, honestly, unprecedented. An accident, obviously, difficult to remedy. Their absence, as such, inaugurates a malaise that nothing seems to be able to contain or overcome.

Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, each with their own way, left profound, indelible, positive and superlative marks on the history of the country and in the lives of those who lived, whether a lot or a little, with them. Marks so perennial and constitutive that, surely, almost no one, in the last fifty, sixty or seventy years, has been able to compare them. Brands that will therefore stay. As Brazil's intangible heritage. Made from a singular experience. Paradigm of expertise. Model.

Many observers – not infrequently poisoned by confusing and shallow ideologies – try to separate them, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, from each other. But this, by logic and truth, is impossible. They have always been complementary. And everyone knows.

Nowadays, self-declared analysts, try to reduce them, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, to the condition of economists. Yes, they worked in this noble area, the economy. But clearly they were unconventional. They were, on the contrary, always and in everything, outliers. Off course, exceptional, extraordinary. Generally emulating the classics. Therefore, first and foremost, they are philosophers. Moral philosophers. As were his timeless masters Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter and John Maynard Keynes himself. Therefore, practitioners of Political Economy. Without, in these terms, ever surrendering to the simplifications of Economics.

Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto did this in this way, because they knew that the world is real regardless of the illusions expressed about it. And, doing so, they were, above all, humanists in the most acute sense of the expression. They were, therefore, true scholars. Masters of their craft. But deep understanding of the flow of life.

So they were practical by devotion, pragmatic by conviction and realistic by vocation. That, in them, was always liquid and certain.

And, seeing this, few of his true peers – of which, among Brazilians, by age and generation, perhaps only Eugênio Gudin (1886-1986), Roberto Campos (1917-2001), Celso Furtado (1920-2004), Mário Henrique Simonsen (1935-1997) and Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira (born in 1934 and living among us) deserve mention – they were, therefore, so worthy, reliable and complete.

With successes and mistakes. But always wrapped in honesty and conviction.

Honesty and conviction that imposed on Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto the imperative of transmission. For they knew intimately that summer needs many swallows. Not made into followers or disciples. But, continue. Competent people to receive, carry and pass on the baton. And, seen like this and recomposing all their times, it is possible to say that the two of them, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, were, above all, teachers/transmitters. And, for being who they were, one of the best. And, unless I better judge, it was in this condition and person that each of them enjoyed being and being the most. So, not by chance, the history of the consolidation of the Brazilian university is intertwined with the personal and professional trajectory of the two: professor Antônio Delfim Netto and professor Maria da Conceição Tavares.

Say what you want to say, but, yes: these two teachers, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, were, throughout their lives, above all, builders and trainers. Institution builders and staff trainers.

And, precisely for this reason, USP, Unicamp and UFRJ, where Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto spent the longest, longest and most direct time, regretted and still regret the absence of their masters. An absence that, far beyond USP, Unicamp and UFRJ, left everything very sad and very gray.

Sad and gray because, after all, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto were, in themselves, institutions. Institutions that, curiously enough, fed back the ethos of a time that, for various reasons, naturally seems to no longer exist. A time that mixed intelligence, intellectual honesty, ideas and elegance combined with sincerity, personal honesty and convictions. A time when, of course, the idiots, of whom Nelson Rodrigues (1912-1980) referred so much, still had some modesty and were far, far from dominating the world, society in Brazil and the Brazilian university.

Said this way and shamelessly, Conceição and Delfim were, so to speak, a moral obstacle to the affirmation of cultural and intellectual indigence in the country. So much so that all of his public manifestations – in gestures, words, presence and looks –, even when controversial and imperfect, were always convinced and rigorous. Always consciously trying to prevent the spread of the disgusting ok tudo which, little by little, took over the spaces of production and dissemination of knowledge and knowledge in Brazil – with universities being the biggest target – in the last twenty, thirty or forty years.

But now, with his absence, the absence of Conceição and Delfim, this support – long since faded and tired of war – tends to become even more fragile. Yes, it is fragile because, without Conceição and without Delfim, a certain idea of ​​moral commitment to intellectual work is losing its condition of existence. Consequently, the production of knowledge and knowledge tends to remain harmlessly irrelevant. And the university – especially the public one – tends to remain stagnant, strangled and crushed.

Moral idiocy, everyone knows, gallops on all fronts. Intellectual indigence, everyone sees, advances to conquer its plenitude. And the synergy of these two phenomena – that of moral cretinity and intellectual indigence – accentuates the well-known entropy of everyday life within the walls of universities in Brazil in order to accelerate its deformation towards its destruction.

And, about this, Darcy Ribeiro (1922-1997) has already said a lot. In his opinion, this is something that comes from afar. Which was well thought out and well sewn. And, over time, it revealed itself in the nefarious project of turning the backwardness of the university (and education in general) into a mission.

The general problem is that this project – inaugurated during the military regime, accelerated after it and affirmed in this quarter of the 2024st century – was exposed by the federal teachers' strike of this year XNUMX and affirmed as a cruel and unequivocal reality. Just remember to see. But anyone who actually wants to prove everything should return to the atmosphere of this year's strike.

Doing this, as long as it is done with patience and without bias, the skeptical observer will quickly notice that, in the midst of issues, at least three reflections fueled the discussions and flooded minds.

A first, with a bold and majority union, in defense of the strike. A second, with a clear government mix, in refusal and denial of the strike. And a third, based on questions of order and principles, suggesting the middle path; that is, the path of reflection and meditation on the meaning of the university, the nature of the activities of its attendees and the place of this multi-century institution within Brazilian society.

That was it and nothing more than that. Namely, positions for, against and neither for nor against the strike. And, therefore, these three reflections produced an impressively unprecedented and rich critical and analytical mass. Part of this is worth recognizing, due to the decisive role played by the website the earth is round.

Observing the entire debate calmly, over the more than eighty days of the strike, close to two hundred articles were published on the subject. And, honestly, there weren't any articles. The articles were generally very well-informed and well-intentioned. Produced by teachers from all regions and sub-regions of Brazil. From the most remote to the most centrally located. Thus, bringing together impressions and sensibilities from practically all university realities. From federal institutions, universities and institutes, the oldest to the most recent and the newest. And, thus, creating the best and most dense photograph of the teaching profession at federal universities today.

For my part, I inaugurated a modest collaboration with a simple article, very kindly published here, at the beginning of the strike, on April 15th, day 1 of the strike, under the title “The strike of professors at federal universities”, where it could be read that, in my understanding, “It is therefore not the case whether or not to defend the strike of federal teachers for deserved, constitutional and moral salary replacements. The fundamental thing is to recover the strength to honestly recognize the brutality of the weighty, existential defeat of recent years and finally return to meditating seriously on what all of us professors at federal and other Brazilian universities are actually for.”

Later, as consequences of reaffirmation of my conviction, there would appear “Far beyond the neighbors’ green lawns” and "Sailing upwind”. Two articles produced in dialogue, always sincere and respectful, with arguments contrary to mine. Where could I highlight that “The federal teachers’ strike results in much deeper, more fundamental and almost existential discomfort.”

And, in more detail, emphasize that “Tuning the debate to this tuning fork, supporting or denying the strike becomes a strange navigation. Upwind navigation. No compasses and no direction. Which, of course, does not remove the legitimacy of all federal strike actions or denial of strikes. However, unfortunately, it simply, sincerely, indirectly, but insistently, throws water in the mills of those, notably outside the walls, who consider that 'The Brazilian university, except for rare cases, is harmless, innocuous. Even so, some are debating what the strike could do to the Lula government (misgovernment).'”

These simple manifestations – in line with a previous article, “Desertified foundations” – as you can see from the outset, they advocated the middle path. The one of meditation and reflection. A path, honestly, dangerous. Especially when traveling without armor inside the system. A system, as is well known, filled with traps and riddled with unstable terrain that, not infrequently, shows its face in the form of reprisals and admonitions. That habitat, everyone knows, hates divergences.

But this time, I didn't sail alone, nor did I plow the sea. Quite the opposite. As soon as the strike began to take hold, several teachers of the highest intellectual quality, technical competence and moral and spiritual values ​​entered the common trench and, sincerely, sophisticated the globality of arguments that impose the middle path on everyone.

To just mention a few, it is worth highlighting that professor Marilena Chaui indelibly raised the level of discussion with her precious “The operational university”. Then, the former rector of UFBA, João Carlos Salles, expanded the guided path of his USP colleague with his suggestive “Hand of Oza”. Later on, it was the turn of professor Roberto Leher, former rector of UFRJ, to further expand the cognitive complexity of the debate by mobilizing overwhelming evidence that almost no one knew about or, at least, had not yet seen in perspective.

In this way, the three of them – to just mention them, Chaui, Salles and Leher – shattered the pettiness of the retail discussion about whether or not to support the teachers' strike in 2024 and launched the discussion on a truly different level. A level that, sincerely, had the merit of reviving the only urgent, necessary and valid debate about the Brazilian university that concerns the permanent inquiry into its meaning, nature and dignity. In short, which university, university for what and university for whom.

It's curious, but that's how it was. And in doing so, they reconnected with the missing link in the battles of Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, which was always education.

Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto have always navigated the choppy and controversial seas of excellence in Brazilian higher education. And, in this sense, they have always been implacable defenders of a public, dignified and honest university. An intellectually decent, culturally relevant and politically engaged space in the improvement of Brazilian society – that is: in the reduction of its aporias, inequalities and injustices. And, therefore, a university averse to delay, stagnation, indigence, self-absorption and mediocrity.

Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, in this regard, were, yes, theoretical, but also practical. See, as examples, the Economics departments that they, with their sweat, created. But, on a more general level, it was at the beginning of redemocratization, at the turn of the 1970s to the 1980s, that they – and everyone – began to notice that the drift of Brazilian universities in general towards backwardness was serious, chronic and accelerated. But, after the Wall and under the happy globalization, that first seizure turned into a nightmare.

The naive dilemmas involving provincialism versus cosmopolitanism became more pronounced. The inconsequential reactions that appeased complexes of interiority versus fears of large centers, with the beginning of the expansion of the interiorization of the university network throughout the interior of the country, produced real deformations and dramas – some of which, even today, have not been overcome. But, worse than all that, the winds of those times after the Wall intoxicated the eyes, covered the ears and buried almost all of Brazilian public higher education in the illusions of technical utilitarianism in the face of the imperatives of complex thinking. As a result, as Marilena Chaui noted, paths were opened for the emergence of this excrescence called “operational university.”

In any case, it's worth noting, for those times, in real time, during the storms of the 1990s, Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto were active in other places. They were in Parliament. They were deputies. They believed in politics and understood it as salvation.

Meanwhile, on the dirt floor of everyday life within the university walls, restless voices vocalized their discomfort. But one of them, frankly, clashed and disconcerted. It clashed with its strength, presence and stridency. And it was disconcerting due to its tone, seen today and in perspective, macabrely prophetic.

It was the voice of a peculiar Brazilian, of superior intelligence, known and famous – like his peers Florestan Fernandes (1920-1995), César Lattes (1924-2005) and Mário Schenberg (1914-1990) – throughout the world. It was the voice of a guy from Bahia, who grew up in Brotas, initially trained in Salvador and who went by the name of Milton de Almeida Santos (1926-2001). Unavoidable and unforgettable master of us all.

Milton Santos, like so many other illustrious Brazilians, was impeached, persecuted, arrested, humiliated and mistreated by the military after 1964. But, unlike many, he never lost hope or dignity. Milton Santos did not sell out or abandon his convictions.

And, perhaps, also for this reason, his return to Brazil and his reintegration – after martyrdom – into the Brazilian university system were, to say the least, clearly complex, noisy and tortuous experiences.

To make it short, he was not accepted into the CEBRAP arrangement, had difficulties at UFRJ and had a rough time trying to be integrated into USP.

But, once integrated into the most important university in the country, he expanded his difference.

It is not the case here that the political, moral, intellectual and aesthetic impact of his works, such as For a New Geography (1978) The work of the geographer in the third world (1978) The divided space (1978) Citizen space (1987) The nature of space (1996) and For another globalization (2000). Any geographer – or any minimally academically well-trained person – knows what this is about.

It is also not worth remembering much or emphasizing that this illustrious Bahian and citizen of Brotas received the Vautrin Lud Prize, a kind of Nobel Prize in his exclusive area of ​​activity, in 1994. But, for those who harbor doubts or, who knows, mongrel complexes meeting the genius of this distinguished Brazilian, it is simply worth highlighting that the world-renowned and famous David Harvey, Paul Claval, Yves Lacoste and Edward Soja – to name just a few of the most famous activity common – they would receive the same prize only some time later or much later.

Therefore, said thus and without shame, Milton Santos was, indeed, brilliant and unique.

And, for all this, his peers at USP decided to grant him, in 1997, the honorable title of Professor Emeritus at USP. To which, Milton Santos received, of course, with great pleasure.

But, unlike many of his peers in a similar situation, he used the moment to make a passionate denunciation of the situation at the Brazilian university.

Those who lived can remember. Anyone who simply hears about it, believe me: his demonstration was not at all mild.

The intellectual and the stagnant university was his title. The year was 1997. The month, August. The day, the 28th.

Milton Santos began his speech with a curious ode to the obstacles and defeats of intellectual life, emphasizing that “a man who thinks, and who therefore almost always finds himself isolated in his thinking, must know that the so-called obstacles and defeats are the only route for possible victories, because ideas, when genuine, only triumph after a thorny path”.

But, later on, he drew attention to the fact that this “thorny path” was being undermined by the university careerism imposed by the current university model. Careerism, in his view, could only lead to conformism and the silencing of thinking. And, in the end, he made it clear that, of course: a university that doesn't think or allow thinking isn't really a university.

And the speech continued. Where, later, he predicted that “believing in the future is also being sure that the role of a Faculty of Philosophy is the role of criticism, that is, of building a comprehensive and dynamic vision of what the world is, what the country, what the place is and the role of denunciation, that is, of clearly proclaiming what the world, the country and the place are, saying all of this out loud”.

And he continued by saying that “this criticism is the intellectual’s own work”.

A work previously genuinely practiced by philosophers. But, in modern times, depository of the artisans of the Humanities. In other words, people who, by profession, are seriously involved in Arts, Philosophy, Geography, History, Literature and the like. People who, after all, have the training and willingness to navigate the crossroads of the incommensurability of the complexity of the transversality of the knowledge construction process. People without whom, he once again made clear, the university simply does not exist. Or, when they insist on subsisting, at best, they are doomed to destitution.

Yes: hard like that. But blunt and truthful. And, sincerely, The intellectual and the stagnant university, deserves to be read and re-read, meditated on and understood.

Surely no one was more direct, honest and precise in diagnosing the accident at the Brazilian university than Milton Santos. Back in 1997 and until his death in 2001, he drew attention to this chronic crisis. Which, after all, was one of meaning and identity. This crisis, over the years, only made it worse.

And this has been the case, above all, because intellectual, cultural and moral indigence has effectively taken over everything. So, nowadays, the majority of university attendees have become indifferent to the problem. Partly because they do not have the cognitive competence to enter the discussion. Partly because, honestly, I don't even know what it's about.

So, yes: read Milton Santos. And, when you do, you will realize the obvious: there is no university without Humanities. But, like everything in life, this can be understood in a different and temporizing way. Who knows, perhaps in a milder formula that simply suggests that the fate of the university depends on the fate of the Humanities.

When Milton Santos clarified this understanding, Brazil was living immediately after the military regime, the Berlin Wall, the end of the Soviet bloc and the beginning of the ubiquity of globalization. After that, and into the 21st century, this whole picture became more complex and, with it, the situation of the university.

From the outset, there was a sweeping expansion of the network of higher education institutions in the country. Which, of course, generated an increase in the number of institutions. But at the same time, curiously, the number of universities did not increase. Otherwise, who knows, it might even decrease. And it decreased because, little by little, what was understood as university became something else, which, honestly, we don't really know what it is.

But the reasons, after reading Milton Santos, become clear. It is enough to calmly resume the process of accelerating the expansion of higher education institutions since the beginning of the century.

Anyone who does this will quickly notice that, as incredible as it may seem, there was, in general, little or no real interest in valuing the place of the Humanities within the new institutions. And this, one must believe, was not simple carelessness or mere inattention. This is delay as a project. And, seen like this, the university's coffin became a mission. Because, clearly, the institutions that came from scratch or were emancipated from others from the year 2003-2005 were, in general, forged without any interest in creating truly consistent and relevant courses in essential fields of knowledge and knowledge as arts , philosophy, geography, history, letters and the like.

This unforgivable negligence, taken to its ultimate consequences, violated the very meaning of the university in Brazil. This is because, without the latency of the Humanities within these new and brand new institutions, the formation of one or two generations of Brazilians was completely deformed to the point of compromising the “construction of a comprehensive and dynamic vision of what the world is” within of society.

Consequently, without denying it, intellectual indigence became the norm everywhere and helped pave a safe path for the rise of a truly stupid person to the presidency of the Republic. The milk was spilled. Everyone saw it and everyone knows.

The agonies of the nights from June 2013 to January 8, 2023 were immense. But, so, not without reason. And the strike by federal teachers in 2024 simply increased the conviction of the accident and highlighted that the situation became much worse than what Milton Santos imagined.

The lapse of twenty or twenty-five years of Brazilian university expansion/deformation, produced among academics a majority without any aptitude or sensitivity to notice the infinite subtleties within the variety of fields of knowledge and knowledge. Said without any shame, the notion of basic things was lost, such as the distinction between humanities and sciences (human or natural).

In view of this, honestly, it is best to remain silent. But with silence, the university – without the Humanities – dies. Because as Milton Santos predicted, “The university, in fact, is perhaps the only institution that can survive only if it accepts criticism, from within itself in one way or another. If the university asks its participants to remain silent, it is condemning itself to silence, that is, to death, because its destiny is to speak.”

Everything, therefore, in addition to being very sad, is very serious.

And, perhaps, now, seeing the gravity of the whole picture, we realize how much Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto, without cliché or illusion, are missed.

Conceição Tavares and Delfim Netto were obsessive in their speech. Don't talk for the sake of talking. But in speaking – now, perhaps, it is understood – to postpone the silence of the end. From the end of the university and the end of becoming.

*Daniel Afonso da Silva Professor of History at the Federal University of Grande Dourados. author of Far beyond Blue Eyes and other writings on contemporary international relations (APGIQ). [https://amzn.to/3ZJcVdk]

---

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