Knowledge changes practices

Knowledge changes practices

José Ivo Pedrosa’s text presents in brief lines relevant history marks in the field of Popular Education and Health (PEH). It is worth starting this debate with a brief digression regarding the term Popular Education and Health that initially used the connective “the” and not the preposition “in”, more used with reference to the very historical process, even adopted in the title of the National Policy on Popular Education in Health in the SUS (PNEPS-SUS). However, the initial collective reflections that triggered the construction process of actions to be ruled by a state policy expressed an idea of articulation between both fields, as a way to emphasize that the process foundation is Popular Education, as a field of resistance, fights, and forces that “bring the concern of incorporating the knowledge of common people in the health policies and practices”1 (p. 7) overcoming the conception of Health Education as an exclusive responsibility of health care professionals. Popular Education aims at contributing with new ways of providing Health. It was also about opposing to the use of the term Education in Health, little problematized in daily services and practices, and intensely used within an instrumental perspective of Education.

I highlight what it seems to be an insignificant grammatical preciosity to present a question that permeates Pedrosa’s text and has concrete consequences: What does “popular” mean in PEH?

In the production of this field, there is not only a pedagogical positioning but also an epistemological and ethical-political one, supported by actions and practices in the historical fight against oppression and invisibility of various cultures and knowledge. However, how has this “product” been incorporated into the health practices and policies that guarantee these practices? From the convergence perspective of forms of resistance and fight, affirmation of identities, and diversity of knowledge, it is necessary to question if the understanding about the radicalism of the PEH proposal has been effectively comprehended and put into practice in the health sector, a field in which technical and scientific knowledge is still hegemonic.

Acess in: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414-32832021000100404&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=en

[:]