Invitation to a travelers story: contributions of Anthropology and comparative education to considering diversity

• In Event: Historicizing the truth regimes of comparison

Proposal

The main purpose of this work is to elucidate the routes followed by anthropologists and comparativists in the nineteenth century, considering current efforts in search of an understanding of the Other, and consequently to address the processes of exclusion and inequality that have been established during the development of these scientific fields. The methodology adopted here was to study the basic literature that contributed to defining the trajectories of these disciplines. In the nineteenth century, the approach of anthropology was to study subjects who were distant temporally, geographically, and culturally. Sometime later, Malinowski adopted a new attitude toward his subjects, living with the natives of the Trobriand Islands. In anthropology, understanding of the Other should not be limited only to the study of different and distant societies, but should also include the analysis and interpretation of these groups in a way that avoids bias, while our own society should also be a focus of study. The emergence of comparative education (CE) dates from the nineteenth century, associated with individuals who travelled across Europe in search of national education systems and educational organizations that could be used as models and subsequently be borrowed and copied. This process has been explained by several authors at the international level. In the present work, the appropriation and establishment of such models in Brazil is examined, considering the various contributions and paradoxes involved. Processes that could lead to knowledge of the Other emerged later, by means of meetings that overcame the boundaries of knowledge and suggested comparisons of ourselves with that which we see in the Other. In the CE field, perceived differences were either associated with feelings of superiority or, alternatively, recognition of equality led to denial of the Other and its acculturation at an early stage of its consolidation. In summary, in the field of comparative education the endeavor to understand the Other has passed through different phases, from the drive to establish universal laws for education systems and teaching practices, to the characterization of these systems and their globalized aspects conditioned by local perspectives. Today, the challenge posed to comparativists is to make historically intelligible the processes related to meaning and identity that are manifested by the existence of the Other and its differences, without them emerging in the forms of inequality or exclusion. From the contributions of the authors referenced in this text, it is possible to make an analogy between anthropology and CE that identifies the need to seek an understanding of the Other that considers the alterity of the modern world characterized by contradiction, conflict, and homogeneity. The relentless logic that permeated the field of CE threatened to suppress the differences between humans, concealing the identities and meanings present in educational discussions, until in recent decades comparativists accepted the legitimacy of the Other. Like anthropology, CE is constantly challenged to make explicit the cultural and historical processes that permeate educational practices. This cannot be justified by anthropology and comparative education as simply the task of understanding similarities and differences in different educational contexts. In this sense, the central component of education research undertaken by comparativists and anthropologists is the understanding of the Other. In continuing this process, discussions by comparativists and anthropologists reveal attempts to reduce the Other to an object that is often ignored, rather than to understand it in its uniqueness. Analyzing the paths outlined here, with their exclusion or scant consideration of the Other, our discussion aims to contribute new understanding to education research. As we point out, the directions taken in the development of this area now enable us to consider the discussions about the Other, as well as those made by the Other, in broader and more complex social and educational contexts. Our intention, therefore, is to assist anthropologists, comparativists, and especially educational researchers to reflect on the purposes and processes of inclusion and exclusion of the Other that have permeated the evolution of these scientific fields, as well as on the outcomes of the paths taken during this process. To put it another way, we believe that the discussions developed about the Other offer an important way to analyze the constitution of these scientific fields. The possibility of breaking the boundaries between disciplines by such contacts with other areas could contribute to the complexity and the theoretical and methodological diversity that constitutes the field of CE. The many voices emerging from attempts to understand the Other reflect the structure of CE as an academic field composed, above all, of differences.

Authors

• Ingrid Dittrich Wiggers, University of Brasilia

• Flavia Martinelli Ferreira, Universidade de Brasília