During the recent global pandemic, social paradigms have reversed, and people have found themselves trapped in fears, uncertainties, and primary needs for relationships. Emerging educational issues stimulate an in-depth examination of the dominant themes in the contemporary curricular context and seek meaningful readings. To clarify, this chapter focuses on a pedagogical reflection, not an exhaustive one, which offers some perspectives and alternatives for literacy from the perspective of liberation and the reappropriation of one's cultural variations and historical roots. The reflective essay refers to a cross-reading of the methodologies used in the non-European contexts, and it is concluded that it is crucial for the educational community to recover and reappropriate the educational and cultural space of life. Through a literacy pedagogy, we are able to recover complex education in a deschooled and deconstructed environment, which is reduced to a few critical symbols and meanings.
TopIntroduction
The recent outbreak has provoked thousands of deaths and has been the cause of many new poor. It is a symbol of a period of profound educational, psychological, and emotional reflection beginning. In the context of globalization, basic needs have once again become fundamental, such as eating, working, and surviving as a family, as a peer group, as a citizen, and, above all, as a human being. In our societies, invisible enemies have always been present. They do not represent a new threat in themselves, but they are equally frightening as if they were the first time that they appeared. We mistakenly live in a stage of development that is characterized by wasteful use of time and life. Unforeseen unemployment, the obligation to a life locked within four walls, caged, as if the dominant roles were returned to nature that has recovered its forests in our cities.
Urbanizations live in silence, people are afraid of others, and the great enemy in contact with others, the confirmation of what has been happening in recent decades where living beings slowly moved away, into virtuality. At every stage of our lives, we read, write, and, above all, interact with our environment, where we must remember to reconnect to the dialectical practice with our family, our friends, and all those who allow us to decrypt a message, give meaning to the paratextual environment with which we live in the dystopian reality in which we live, it is of fundamental importance to understand how behind each subject there is a set of patterns that favour their synchrony in the depth of the daily relationships.
When engaging in any discussion about reading, we often begin with our favourite authors. However, in the history of the book, as well as in the history of reading and especially in the history of education, we find that messages and texts are the subjects of relationships.
Reading and its nuances have characterized the centuries of our evolution, both in a cognitive and epistemological vision. If we want to return to the meaning, and to the very meaning of reading, we need to consider what the philosopher Schopenhauer also reminded us of from the “world as will and representation”. Already in the title of that work Magna, we can reflect despite this, in the history of the book, as well as in the history of reading but above all the history, we continue to develop about the world and its hypothetical representations. Although subjectivity has characterized centuries of debates in the educational field, it is noteworthy that, throughout the history of the book, as well as reading and specifically education, messages and texts have been considered topics of relationships, crowded, wasting the values of different individuals. This is not the place to push the existing boutade on originality, and massification but, this is the most suitable environment to take a position on the value of reading. Talking about reading and writing in a space so linked to electronic technological development, fundamentally means resuming self-awareness. Too often we confuse tools with objects that allow us to express ourselves, while, in reality, they are acting as a filter for the information we want to disseminate. Based on the theoretical reflections offered by authors of different latitudes, but close in their view of action and knowledge of existence, Baldacci refers to a social environment based on the Gramscian relationship of subordination (Baldacci, 2017) and on which its control system exists. A subaltern relationship between dominant and dominated (Buttigieg, 1999), oppressed and oppressor (Freire, 1978; Giroux, 2020), is most evident in the relationship with the hegemonic term (Baldacci, 2017).
In this context, Baldacci recalled: “the term “hegemony” comes from the Greek heghemòn, derived from hegheòmai (Devoto, 1968) which meant “I direct”. [...] In common usage, of which the vocabularies account, “hegemony” means “economic and political supremacy of one state over others” and, by extension, “cultural, intellectual and commercial domination” (2017, p. 44).