The discourses of those who debated the text assert a fundamental assumption for the comprehension and strengthening of PEH, that is, the conception that it is a field in construction adding knowledge, actions, and individuals that are moving in specific spaces and, as stated by Bourdieu1, it is characterized as a field of power. From this perspective, it is worth remembering that in the institutionalization process of PEH as a technical area in the Ministry of Health (MS), various resources of power were brought to the scene, such as material support for the organization of groups and events, publication of texts in which the key concepts of Freirian Education were debated, and constituent processes of individuals who stated “not only pedagogical, but also epistemological and ethical-political, supported by actions and practices in the historical fight against oppression and invisibility of various cultures and knowledge”2 (p. 2), as Helena David remembers.
When reflecting on the institutionalization context of PEH in the MS from a perspective in which the State is conceived as a political arena disputing the hegemony of a particular world conception3, it is necessary to highlight that subtle disputes (as those usually occurring among several tactics in the left political spectrum) or evident disputes (as those occurring among rivals in opposing poles) existing in the MS, in the governmental structure, in the institutionalized political arenas, and in the collective spaces of social participation present reflexes in the current situation characterized by the fragmentation of the popular fights and the emergence of identity fights. Therefore, the following complex question is raised: How to produce dialogs in dispute scenarios? Alternatively, in other words, How to conduct a political action that enunciates transformations permeating moments of dispute and of dialog? What are their limits or possibilities when actions are adjusted to the existing conditions?
Regarding identity, I believe that it is of utmost importance that PEH, as a field in construction, give visibility to its fundamental principles, getting rid of the blurring evidenced by the different senses in which changing the preposition “of” to the connective “and” reveal crucial and important differences. Does the overcoming of the instrumentalist perspective of a “nice, fun” education translated by the expression “in Health” make sense to the individuals who identify themselves as popular educators?
[:]
