O diário de Dalila: poética, testemunho e tragédia na formação escolanovista do indivíduo moderno (1933-1934)

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Pinheiro, José Gledison Rocha
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal da Paraíba; Brasil; Educação; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação; UFPB
• Palavras-chave em Português: Diário; Formação; Aluno; Modernidade; Escola Nova; Student; Modernity; New School; Journal; Education; CIENCIAS HUMANAS::EDUCACAO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/tede/8675

This dissertation is a study about Dalila’s Journal, written between 1933 and 1934. Developed as a pedagogic activity, the journal was supposed to reflect her routine as a student, experienced at the Experimental School Manoel Bomfim, created by Anísio Teixeira, during his administration as General Director of Public Instruction at the Federal District. It was a public school oriented by the most refined system of references of the so-called Progressive Education under Anísio’s perspective. To the student, it promised to set the most favorable conditions to the development of his/her individuality to the limits of his/her natural capacities; in what concerns society, it was committed to educate the new Brazilian man, prepared to answer to the modern world’s challenges that was rising in the heart of Brazil. For those who wanted, by following their own dispositions, to be a poet or, perhaps, a writer, he/she was apparently on the way of a successful experience, but Dalila’s school life, despite her poetic and literary moments, was marked by conflicts, sadness and hopelessness. Melancholic, she can’t stand the experience and drops out of school. If she was not able to fulfill her dream, at least she left a work, her journal, which is a true relic to help us think the contradictions of the New School’s project of giving rise to the Brazilian modern individual. In order to be able to read and interpret her work somewhat enigmatic, it was necessary to count on the precious assistance of Ginzburg and Bakhtin. By betting on an evidence-based and dialogic historiographical approach, it was necessary to read and reread the journal many times, in order to try to reveal the meaning of the several details, the several responsive words. And together with this evidence-based search I started to bring other authors to the dialogue. With Georg Simmel, I tried to understand what Dalila resisted and fought against. And this way the kind of subjectivity stimulated by her school, which she resisted so much to accept, was getting clearer and clearer. By resisting turning her journal into a writing of adaptation, little by little she starts to reveal a surprising testimonial character. There was denunciation in her writing, and it had to do, according to Benjamin, with the process of “cultural redesigning” put into effect by the New School’s ideology. Oriented by this testimonial character, I stablished a linkage between the journal and the Sector of Orthophrenia and Mental Hygiene, created by Teixeira and led by Anthur Ramos. It didn’t take long until the intended education image was completely shaken. From an enriching experience, Dalila’s and her mates’ education started to take the shape of cultural tragedy (Simmel) or catastrophe (Durand). But Dalila’s resistance went even farther, because against a reductionist model of subjective conformation, based on the idea of a scientific morality, she made some openings from which we could see a much richer and more complex image of man, inspired by her feminine-romantic culture.