Do fazer ao ser

o percurso do sujeito pelo domínio afetivo da educação

Abstract

This work proposes to describe a section of the scheme underlying the pedagogical proposal created by Bloom, Krathwohl and Masia (1972), in order to better explain, from a semiotic perspective, a peculiarity of the affective domain of education: the focus on the being of the subject in the place of their competence. Bloom, Krathwohl and Masia propose a taxonomy of socio-affective objectives as a global scheme that has five linked steps. The analysis concentates on two of the five stages: the second and the third ones, since these stages highlight the transition from a subject of the search modalized by duty to a subject marked by an intense desire and a belief in a given object as fundamental for their being. According to Fontanille (2008), current advances in the area allow for the description of this object through a semiotic scheme that provides for the articulation of the dimensions of action and passion integrated with the mobilization of value objects, which enter the learner's field of presence, through the semiotic practice of teaching-learning. For this endeavor, the concepts of tensivity, presence field, semiotic scheme and modes of existence will be used (Fontanille; Zilberberg, 2001; Fontanille, 2008; Tatit, 2019). In this sense, our work notes that, as the subject passes through these levels, little by little, he integrates the modalities of doing with the modalities of being, thus experiencing the opposite of the path to action, which subsumes first a contract, based on belief; then the virtualizing modalities; and finally the actualizing ones, which do not come into question at the analyzed levels of the taxonomy of the affective domain. There is an inversion in the order of the modalities that suggests a peculiarity of the affective domain of education: from an affective perspective, the modalities linked to passion cease to be a means to become an end, as the focus is the establishment of wanting and believing in oneself, the intensity and quantity of the modality, the way it correlates with the subject's identity in the presence field. We conclude that, in the affective domain of education, what matters is not exactly to lead the subject to action, but to modify their (junctive, modal, and sensitive) relationship with the world. It is a semiotics of being, not of doing, an "inverted" modal path.