By ALMERINDO WINDOW AFONSO*
Relationships between teachers, induced by ideals of the Carnation Revolution, have changed: fair demands and union struggles coexist with solipsistic competitions, career obsessions and professional survival strategies
1.
April 25th, always! This is the watchword of those who continue to believe in the main promises of our democratic revolution: to democratize, decolonize and develop.
The term Democracy refers to the promises and achievements that, among us, in a relatively short period of time, translated into fundamental rights that we did not have. These are rights that, in other historical moments and in other societies, were achieved in different stages that followed one another over a relatively long period of time and that correspond to successive generations of rights.
But one of the specificities of our democratic revolution lies precisely in the fact that we have conquered and enshrined, almost simultaneously, rights of different natures (civic, political, social, economic, cultural rights, etc.) and it is therefore not appropriate, in our case, to speak of generations of rights.
And if we consider the enshrined rights, we know that many of the promises made in April have been fulfilled, although many others remain to be fulfilled or need to be fulfilled in a more consistent and sustained manner.
The issue of rights is, in fact, part of the broader field of democracy and the tasks of its deepening, that is, the democratization of democracy.
Now, it is precisely democracy that is facing major challenges and being confronted with unprecedented events. One of the most worrying developments is the so-called “de-democratization” when, among other causes, we are witnessing an unexpected rise of the extreme right, with all that this entails: xenophobia, racism, various forms of discrimination, voices from more conservative sectors of civil society supporting (in a more or less disguised way) the reversal of social rights and fundamental freedoms, namely the freedom to express cultural and identity convictions.
But the issues are broader, more complex and global, such as those arising from the current wars in various countries and geographies (from Ukraine to Palestine, passing through Sudan and other African countries, as well as different regions of the world that media tend to forget). It is these wars that contribute to further exacerbating the already existing problems concerning refugee movements, emigration and climate catastrophe.
For this reason, the issues of the crisis (or crises) of democracy and participation are today, more than ever, central to our common future, although they are often associated with depoliticization – hence the talk of post-democracy (Crouch, 2020), or counter-democracy (Rosanvallon, 2022), or, as I mentioned above, dedemocratization (Brown, 2006).
2.
Post-politics is another way of framing and naming this debate because it is a politics without an object, as Bruno Latour (2020) refers to, or a “democracy without politics”, in the expression of the (fashionable) Spanish philosopher Daniel Innerarity (2016).
One of the symptoms of post-politics is revealed, for example, in the technocratic management of environmental issues. These are often depoliticized forms of management that contribute to consolidating a post-political and post-democratic condition. They are the antithesis of democracy, because post-political processes either privilege technical explanations and solutions, or tend to refer the resolution and mitigation of the environmental crisis to merely individual behaviors, even if ethically desirable, but emptying collective and community actions (Afonso, 2024).
Post-politics is thus the regression of democracy when it is based exclusively on the governance of experts and is impervious to citizen participation in decision-making. What has been called the dawn of climate barbarism and the emergence of toxic ideologies can only be countered by a radical change in the values and worldviews underlying politics. (politics) and, consequently, to concrete government policies (Policies).
We know that there is a strong insistence, and rightly so, on a vision that simultaneously encompasses different problems (some of which are structural) that persist in today’s societies, and that are directly or indirectly related to the climate crisis. As the well-known and prestigious journalist Naomi Klein (2017) denounces, saying no is not enough! There are options to confront “total climate barbarity”, but there is no point in pretending that they are easy – “it will require an all-out war against pollution, poverty, racism, colonialism and despair, all at the same time” (Klein, 2019, p. 44-45).
That is, it is a fight against different forms of oppression and domination. Hence, we must give greater importance to knowledge and critical thinking about what is happening in the world, so that we can resume education on the path to emancipation.
And if, after 50 years, the D of Democracy is more fragile, or at least more threatened, the D of Development can no longer and should not follow the single path that, in a restricted way, the old ideology of modernization seemed to presuppose, which was the path of bringing peripheral and semi-peripheral countries, such as Portugal, closer to the development patterns of the central capitalist countries of the world system. Continuing with the current patterns of development and growth, particularly in terms of consumption, will make the world completely unviable. But there is no single path. Given that there are multiple modernities and different interpretations of what modernity is, there are also different interpretations of what development is (and what it should be).
It is no coincidence that, in the context of this debate, the issue of degrowth has emerged, requiring a profoundly radical socio-ecological transformation. It is also for this reason that the D for Development, especially when it aims at or essentially means economic growth in a neoliberal logic (at the expense of all other issues that are fundamental to a fairer society), has little to do with one of the broader ideals of the democratic revolution of April 1974. In this sense, development needs to be rethought, no longer only in the national context, but also, increasingly, in the European and global context.
The letter D is missing from Decolonization. The former African colonies achieved independence after a long struggle, namely through armed action by liberation movements against the dictatorial regime that kept Portugal muzzled. This regime also posed a threat to young Portuguese people, many of whom were compulsorily drafted into military service for belonging to student movements that contested the war and the dictatorship. The student movements thus made an important contribution to the democratic revolution (among others, Ferreira, 2012; Rosas, 2023; Teodoro, 2023).
However, while it is true that colonialism ended following the democratic revolution, coloniality persists in Portuguese society. Coloniality (in its variants and overlapping power and knowledge) is the expression used by post-colonial/de(s)colonial authors to designate the re-actualization of the assumptions of domination and subordination inherent to the ideology and practice of colonization. In this regard, for example, there is nothing better than critically understanding what happens when fundamental human rights are violated by the inadequate implementation of policies for the reception, legalization and social integration of immigrants and refugees.
3.
In this context of adversity, it is important to highlight that Education and its professionals cannot fail to contribute to building profound and urgent changes. It is also in relation to these issues that public schools today find themselves at a new, enormous and dilemmatic crossroads. “Education or barbarity” is almost a cry, simultaneously of revolt and hope, with which Bernard Charlot (one of the best-known French-speaking sociologists of education in Brazil) titled one of his latest books (Charlot, 2020).
Historically, public schools have been disputed and pressured to carry out various mandates (sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory): promoting citizenship restricted to the logic of the nation-state, socialization, social cohesion, the demands of the economy, the legitimization of inequalities and social and cultural reproduction, but also scientific rationality and education for emancipation.
In recent years, contrary to the promises of the utopias of the revolutionary process, the idea of emancipation has been forgotten or re-embodied. In certain contexts, the meaning of emancipation, as a collective project, now seems closer to the notion of “overvaluation of individual projects” (Afonso, 2001) – projects supported and maximized by strategies of increasing commodification and privatization of education, with the consequent devaluation of public schools.
It is no coincidence that neo-meritocratic class strategies continue to prevail in private education. These strategies combine the old meritocracy with parentocracy, that is, the individual ability and effort of each individual with the intervention of parents in defining educational paths and options. Sociological research on the educational strategies of the middle and upper-middle classes is currently focusing on this neo-meritocracy, which, among other things, increasingly encourages the internationalization of studies.
It is therefore no coincidence that the paths of (supposed and desired) academic excellence are paths that are also more likely to occur in a virtuous articulation between the requirements of the old meritocracy and the resources of parentocracy, that is, of neomeritocracy (Afonso, 2017).
I have nothing against the legitimate right to choose educational projects, between the public state, the social solidarity (less talked about) and the private. However, as an advocate of universal public education of scientific, pedagogical and democratic quality, for all, I cannot fail to note the insufficient investment and the increasing restrictions that social policies, particularly in health and education, suffer in Portugal (and in many other countries). And, in this case, with all the consequences for public education and for the recognition and dignity of teachers as intellectual workers and professionals – consequences that have represented a material deficit, but also a symbolic deficit, preventing, to a large extent, a new remobilization and motivation of teachers.
Viable alternatives and other opportunities for professional development and development are needed – conditions for a more egalitarian school, with greater social and epistemic justice, for students of all classes and social groups. It is therefore worth briefly revisiting the April Revolution (after all, it is this fiftieth anniversary that we are celebrating) and making two or three more brief notes on the paths taken by the teaching profession in the meantime.
During the long decades of fascist dictatorship, the regime expected primary and secondary school teachers (elementary and high school) to have a vocation and a spirit of mission, and to act as zealous and subordinate employees of a centralized, bureaucratic and strongly hierarchical educational system, essentially organized to provide a minimum level of schooling (not always for everyone), which guaranteed the differential (class-based) induction of possible subsequent paths (industrial and commercial technical schools versus high schools), and which selected the few it needed to, at the higher level, support the dominant ideology, the status quo and the projects of the Estado Novo.
In the revolutionary period after April 25, 1974, when teachers were free, they freed themselves from the shackles of the collapsing regime, many of whom took on the role of pedagogical activists and transformative intellectuals. It is true that any characterization of the whirlwind of feelings and desires that emerged at that time will always be averse to generalizations, even though the experiences and experiences were deeply immersed in the progressive spirit of the time. Unfortunately, in education, the utopian energies of the Revolution faded sooner than we expected.
Gradually, teachers ended up adhering to the discourses and promises of teaching professionalism (with all that this could mean as a collective achievement), but today they are faced with deprofessionalization, or, perhaps even, with neoprofessionalism.
In the antipodes of April, deprofessionalization, which also translates into the social and political devaluation of teaching work, makes the effect of the thousand constraints present in everyday life even more unbearable and alienating: from the impossibility of creative uses of spaces and times, to the solitude of the classroom; from the fading of collegiality, to the increasingly tactical nature of interactions; from the imbalances caused by various injustices in the creation of timetables and the assignment of positions and tasks, to the lack of recognition of investments in training; from the most harmful effects of the peripheralization of ethical issues, to the uncritical permeability to various forms of dedemocratization; from moral harassment and attitudes of cancellation, to management manipulation and autocratic surveillance.
Of course, there are also countercurrent resistances, constructive alternatives, innovative projects (some in partnership with universities and other entities of a diverse nature) and there are also important educational commitments that continue to take place in schools and that dignify teaching work. But the current context is also favorable to the emergence of neo-professionalism – a set of practices that are based on the uncritical assimilation of psychological didacticism; on the unconditional adherence to the digital technicalization of teaching and the seduction of artificial intelligence; on the internalization of the logic of measurable results for the marketing of rankings national and international; in transforming the teacher into an effective tutor, mediator or (even) personal trainer.
A neo-professionalism that coexists with increasingly difficult working conditions in many schools, namely with the accentuation of the hierarchical (if not authoritarian) subordination of teachers, with the simplification of initial training and consequent devaluation of the most critical educational sciences (contrary to the requirement of complex training that is due to intellectual workers), among many other problems.
The relationships between teachers, induced by the ideals of the Carnation Revolution, have changed over time, and today they are redefined in a syncretic and often paradoxical way. Fair demands and mobilizing union struggles coexist with solipsistic competitions, career obsessions and strategies (not always fair) for professional survival.
The erosion of solidarity in the context of work and the devaluation of spaces and times of dialogic collegiality coexist with the disillusionment of postponed political promises and the exhaustion caused by overloaded schedules and bureaucratic tasks. All of this, not infrequently, with the panoptic and autocratic surveillance of some (it should be emphasized, some) school administrators, who are hardly or not at all democratic, acting at the antipodes of the most emancipatory promises of the Carnation Revolution – a major reason for us to reimagine (critically) collegial and self-management experiences.
We urgently need (in the time that remains) to learn more biographies and living testimonies, so that what remains is not only the possibility of post-memory (that is, history told second or third hand by its heirs). It is important to pay tribute to all those who dared to be free and were able to contribute creatively to the changes that were then underway, especially when they took on the role of pedagogical activists or transformative intellectuals, finding new meanings for carrying out collective decisions and taking on the new and unprecedented challenges of pedagogical work.
And if it is true that oppression is largely fueled by ignorance and alienation, there are also many reasons that continue to confirm that knowledge in the context of a critical education helps to keep us on the path to emancipation.
I therefore agree with Patrícia Collins who, in a recent interview, emphasizes: “I see a distinction between emancipatory education and critical education. Emancipatory education is committed to a broader vision of social change because it is informed by ethical principles such as freedom, social justice or participatory democracy. Critical education, in turn, responds to reality as it presents itself at a given moment — it criticizes social inequalities, points out social problems, proposes solutions and prepares people to be problem solvers. Because it aims to change current realities, critical education helps people deal with the social problems they face. Emancipatory education imagines what is possible beyond the here and now, and critical education fosters the critical thinking skills that take us there” (Corrochano et al. 2024).
So, it is worth emphasizing again: if we want ignorance to stop reinforcing oppression, and if we want to continue and contribute to more people and students staying on the path to emancipation, let us never abandon critical education! This will always be an achievable utopia of April!
*Almerindo Afonso Window is a professor at the Institute of Education of the University of Minho.
References
Afonso, AJ (2001). Emancipation or emancipations? Education between the crisis of metanarratives and the overvaluation of individual projects. In A. Teodoro (Org.) Educate, Promote, Emancipate. (pp. 223-243). Lusophone University Editions.
Afonso, AJ (2017). Neomeritocracy and new inequalities. In LL Torres & JA Palhares (Orgs.). Excellence in Portuguese public schools. (pp. 253-263).
Afonso, AJ (2024). Unsustainability: inequalities, ecocides and post-politics. In R. Barros, AS Henrique and DH Moura (Orgs.). Lifelong education and sustainability(s). E-Book, Editora IFRN (in publication).
Brown, W. (2006). American nightmare: neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization. Political Theory, 34(6), 690-714.
Charlot, B. (2020). Education or Barbarism? A choice for contemporary society. Cortez publisher.
Corrochano, MC; Gomes, NL; Vianna, C. Valentim, SS & Marques, EPS (2024). Interview with Patricia Hill Collins. Magazine Brazilian Education, 29, e290038. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782024290039.
Crouch, C. (2020). Post-democracy after the crises. Polity Press.
Ferreira, JM (2012). The student movement as a driver of university democratization and freedom in Portugal. Read History, 62, 173-178.
Innerarity, D. (2016). Politics in times of outrage. Don Quixote.
Klein, N. (2017). Saying no is not enough. Resisting the new shock policies and achieving the world we need. Water Clock.
Klein, N. (2019). On fire. Simon & Schuster.
Latour, B. (2020). Where to land? Time Bazaar.
Rosa, F. (2023). April Essays. Chinese ink
Rosanvallon, P. (2022). The counter-democracy. Humanities Editorial Workshop.
Theodore, A. (2023). Student repression and psychological action at the end of the Estado Novo. Lusophone University Editions.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
