Suchergebnisse

Este artigo apresenta a Escola Plural, implantada na rede municipal de ensino de Belo Horizonte, no período 1993/1996. A proposta foi considerada inovadora por muitos, polêmica por outros, por ter procurado romper com a cultura tradicional da escola pública, implementando uma concepção de educação mais ampla, democrática, inclusiva, plural, que leve em conta múltiplas dimensões da formação da pessoa humana e na qual as crianças das classes populares tivessem condições de ser bem-sucedidas. Buscava-se responder aos desafios presentes nas políticas públicas para expandir o Ensino Fundamental e, especialmente, melhorar a qualidade da escola pública. O texto apresenta a proposta, algumas polêmicas e resultados de avaliação de seus efeitos. ; This paper presents the Plural School, implemented in Belo Horizonte's local educational system from 1993 to 1996. This educational proposal has been considered innovative by many people and polemical by others since it attempted to break the traditional culture of public schooling, inserting a broader, democratic, inclusive and plural concept of education. It also attempted to take the multiple dimensions of an individual's edification into account and to supply adequate conditions for children from lower socia classes to succeed. Moreover, it aimed at meeting the demands of public policies in order to expand elementary and middle level education and, above all, improve the quality of public schools. The article presents the proposal, some polemics involving it and its assessment results.

Mundos Plurales es una iniciativa desarrollada por una alianza entre el Grupode Investigación "Análisis de las Políticas Públicas y de la Gestión Pública(APPGP) de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL-Bogotá) y elGrupo de Investigación "Políticas Sociales" de la Facultad LatinoamericanaMundos Plurales es una iniciativa desarrollada por una alianza entre el Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de las Políticas Públicas y de la Gestión Pública (APPGP) de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL-Bogotá) y el Grupo de Investigación "Políticas Sociales" de la Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales del Ecuador (FLACSO) a través de un convenio vigente entre estas universidades. Cuenta con el respaldo de académicos provenientes de diversas disciplinas, distintas regiones y países, que apuestan por la pluralidad de pensamiento.Mundos Plurales espera reflejar, como sugiere su título, una gran variedad de enfoques temáticos relacionados con las políticas públicas en el más amplio sentido de la palabra. Es una publicación multilingüe que busca promover y defender un espacio latinoamericano publicando textos en castellano, portugués, francés e inglés.

La importancia creciente de las políticas públicas en los discursos políticos y académicos en América Latina urge la difusión de los principales aportes, propuestas, debates y discusiones en un campo de gran heterogeneidad. Este interés contrasta con la aún limitada disponibilidad en idioma castellano de numerosos autores considerados como referencias indispensables en el campo de las políticas públicas así como en la escasa producción regional de aportes a los debates en este campo, a pesar de la reciente multiplicación de programas de formación en políticas públicas en la región.

In this paper, I distinguish three claims, which I label individual intentional autonomy, individual intentional autarky, and intentional individualism. The autonomy claim is that under normal circumstances, each individual's behavior has to be interpreted as his or her own action. The autarky claim is that the intentional interpretation of an individual's behavior has to bottom out in that individual's own volitions, or pro-attitudes. The individualism claim is weaker, arguing that any interpretation of an individual's behavior has to be given in terms of individual intentional states. I argue that individual intentional autonomy implies neither individual intentional autarky, nor intentional individualism, with which it is usually lumped together. I further argue that this insight is the key to an adequate view of an important class of actions, i.e., plural actions.

Some of the most interesting and important work on freedom in recent
years has been produced by feminist theorists (e.g., Friedman 2003;
Hirschmann 2003; Nedelsky 2011; Zerilli 2005; and see Anker, forthcoming).
Feminist theory has also generated important insights about the character
and conditions of human agency, the intersectional nature of human
identities, and the dynamics of political action that richly enhance our
understanding of freedom (Ackerly and Attanasi 2009; Alcoff 2006; Anzaldua
2007; Bartky 1990; Beltrán 2010; Benhabib 1992; Brown 1995; Butler 2004,
2006; Crenshaw 1989; Hill-Collins 2005; Love 2007; Mohanty 2003; Young
2005). Yet feminist perspectives on freedom—like others in political theory
today (e.g., Berlin 1990; Pettit 2000; Villa 2008)—are limited by their
tendency to conceive freedom in a monistic way. Whether freedom means the
exercise of personal choice (Hirschmann 2003), or inaugural acts of world
making (Arendt 1958; Zerilli 2005), or noninterference (Berlin 1990), or
nondomination (Pettit 2000), or something else, theorists generally describe
freedom as being just one thing. Yet the experiences that we have of freedom
come in different forms, and sometimes the different kinds of freedom that
we have, or that we seek, conflict with one another. Nor is it obvious that
these conflicts could ever be fully reconciled, even under ideal conditions.
Our freedom today is complex: We are at once free and unfree, in ways that
are multiple and often conflicting.