Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2021 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Baitel, Daniele Terezinha de Lima
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Gehrke, Marcos
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação (Mestrado - Irati)
|
| Departamento: |
Unicentro::Departamento de Ciências Humanas, Letras e Artes
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede.unicentro.br:8080/jspui/handle/jspui/1867
|
Resumo: |
This research focused on the contributions of Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya regarding the formulation of a communist education based on the category of collectivity. The scope was to highlight the theoretical and practical production of a revolutionary, pedagogue, woman and militant, analyzing the relations between the Soviet socialist revolution and the project of communist education, with the intention of rescuing historical-pedagogical elements and discuss the praxis of the category of collectivity, in the conception of this thinker, for the education of the masses of workers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. To analyze the object, we based ourselves on the perspective of the dialectical method, which allowed us to have a view of the historical, political and social totality in which Krupskaya was inserted and that forged her ideology, culminating in her theoretical-practical educational elaborations of revolutionary character and with a view to human emancipation, having collectivity in a dialectical relationship with the other categories, as the central element of human formation in the subjects. The methodological procedures were those of theoretical bibliographical research, based on academic-scientific studies published in Brazilian universities, as well as Russian educators, such as the works of Krupskaya, and Brazilian educators. These reflections allowed us to understand that collectivity is one of Krupskaya's central categories, since we find it in a striking way in most of the texts studied in this work. Her proposal was to systematize a conception of collective education that had work as a collaborative strategy for self-organization, for strengthening habits of class solidarity in children's collectives, for organizing collective activities for children, for connecting socially useful work to school and surrounding life, for relating school content to the complexes for the fostering of the collectivity of teachers to the life and cultural elevation of teachers and students. We conclude that the category of collectivity formulated by Krupskaya helps us to (re)think our current mode of education, since the conception of collectivity of the bourgeois school deals with this ability closed in the walls of the school, there is no connection with work, with socially useful work and even less fosters self-organization, since it is disconnected from life and class struggle. We point out that the school that the working class, conscious of its exploited condition, desires, cannot be viable in capitalism. We want a school that develops the social and multifaceted predispositions of the subjects, making them people with collective abilities, who work and have goals as a function of the whole, but this school can only be fully implemented after a proletarian revolution. While we wait fighting for a proletarian revolution, we can rehearse an education that aims at emancipation, filling in the gaps of the capitalist system and grounding the conceptions of a more humanitarian education, like Krupskaya's educational collaboration, based on collectivity, capable of breaking with individualism and constituting itself as an element that forms praxis. |
