Introduction

The presence of Philosophy and Sociology in Brazilian Basic Education corresponds to the trajectory of democracy, citizenship and social rights. Thus, in moments of crisis in democracy, these subjects are cast adrift. However, the defense of its presence in Secondary Education by Education professionals and the scientific field itself. The flexibility of these subjects in the new Secondary Education (2018) were changes institutionalized in the context of the advance of the extreme right, under the government of Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022). Conservatism, the 'customary agenda', the 'school without party', the defense of the family and the Christian religion are positions of different groups and interests, which identify in the subjects of Philosophy and Sociology the extent of progressivism in school and, therefore, argue that they must be combated. For representatives of Brazilian authoritarianism, intersectional debates about social classes, gender and race, about human rights, ethics, democracy and citizenship, for example, would be associated, in the social imaginary, with progressive social struggles come from the left party, processes which would have ideologically forged the theories present in the curriculum, in syllabi and pedagogical practices of Philosophy and Sociology in basic education.

Philosophy and Sociology were addressed jointly in the guidelines and bases of national Education (^{Law nº 9.394/1996}, Section IV), and were incorporated into Secondary Education through ^{Law nº 11.684/2008}. In replacement of that guideline, the Secondary Education Reform (^{Law nº 13.415/2017}) establishes the mandatory inclusion of 'studies and practices' of Philosophy and Sociology, through the National Curriculum Guidelines for Secondary Education (Resolution nº 3, November 21^st 2018). Thus, the new Secondary Education repositioned these subjects, making their presence more flexible as mere 'studies and practices' that make up the 'basic general education' in the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC) and are part of the training itinerary of the area of ​​knowledge ‘Applied Human and Social Sciences, linked to History and Geography. Therefore, there is no specific place for the disciplines, the presence of Philosophy and Sociology is distributed across the skills and abilities presented and must be related to other contents, mainly within the training itineraries.

In terms of the workforce, the workload for Philosophy and Sociology teachers is lower in Basic Education, the incorporation of new teachers into the basic education workforce continues at a slow pace, configuring the deregulation and precariousness of these professionals. In terms of the field, the way in which these subjects will remain in the new Secondary Education is still in dispute and is presented in a contingent manner, varying according to the states, the availability and training of teachers and the way in which the training itineraries will be structured. In any case, there is a non-linear presence of these subjects, which are not in fact guaranteed in their extension in the so-called new Secondary Education.

The curriculum as a space of power and, consequently, of open disputes within the field and in the relationship with other fields (^{Bourdieu, 2004}) imposes conflicts in the process of institutionalization in basic education of certain contents, authors, schools of thought and integrative themes. The reformulation of Secondary Education in the context of a democratic crisis and the advance of the extreme right further stressed the problematization of themes and theories allegedly associated with progressivism that could be present in the BNCC. The question raised then addresses the fact that the subjects of Philosophy and Sociology did not have an institutionalized curriculum, being limited either to the decision of the teacher in Basic Education, or to the textbooks used as a curricular component. To further complicate the situation, the reformulation of Secondary Education (2018) took place 10 years after the law for the inclusion of Philosophy and Sociology (2008), and the dispute over these disciplines since 2018 faces another political situation, of conflicts regarding theories and policies mainly associated with gender and race, of combating human rights.

If the synthesis of education for citizenship and democracy appeared as the principle and manifest destiny of Brazilian society in the 2000s, the relativization of Social Sciences and Philosophy, in the post-truth era (^{McIntyre, 2018}), imputes new problems to this process of institutionalization in Secondary Education, scheduled for 2023. In this context, the Federal Institutes (IFs) and the institutions of the Federal Network of Professional, Scientific and Technological Education represent, in terms of public education, the survival of the disciplines of Philosophy and Sociology in technical courses integrated into the Secondary Education, provision of Middle Level Technical Professional Education (EPTNM). In these institutions, these subjects are present in the curriculum, with specific syllabuses for each area and are taught by teachers with related qualifications. Thus, the permanence of these subjects in Secondary Education represents a distinguishing feature in Brazilian public education. However, the pressure to adapt federal institutes to the new BNCC is getting stronger and they are seeking to incorporate training itineraries, reducing disciplinary specialization in Secondary Education. Possible damages related to the incorporation of BNCC by the IFs require specific analysis, which is not proposed here.

In view of the scenario outlined, this paper problematizes the conditions for the permanence of the disciplines of Philosophy and Sociology in Secondary Education in a context of democratic crisis, firstly, in what regards to the fields of Philosophy and Sociology, based on the compromise of the main themes and the political tensions for the permanence of these subjects in basic education, and, secondly, it aims to reflect on the survival of the two subjects in integrated Secondary Education in the Federal Network. The path proposed here for this analysis was to start from a brief outline of the Olavo-bolsonarist ideology around education, seeking to analyze the links between the political field of progressivism and these two disciplines in Basic Education. As we will see, the debate and formulations of each field, Philosophy and Sociology, moved between 2008, when the inclusion of these two subjects occurs in Secondary Education, and the 2018 reform, a transformation still in progress and that continues to this current scenario of democratic crisis. In the second moment, we analyzed the relationship between the entry of these disciplines in Secondary Education and the transformation in the fields of Social Sciences³ and Philosophy, seeking to point out reflections on the institutionalization of these disciplines in basic education during this period. We identified the questioning of the canons accepted by these disciplines, the political objectives formulated and the curricula still being adapted. In the third moment, we suggested some observations about the survival of Philosophy and Sociology in the Federal Network, positioning these disciplines based on the reading of the democratic crisis scenario carried out here. What matters is to present elements that reinforce the presence of Philosophy and Sociology in the Federal Network in an adverse political context, and that they signal a trait of distinction in public Secondary Education.

The rise of authoritarianism and the Olavo-bolsonarist discourse around education

The rise of authoritarian governments and ideologies observed in recent years can perhaps now be seen as one of the greatest and darkest legacies of neoliberalism. It is true that the contours of this ascension differ around the world and need to be understood in pace with specific social, geographic and historical arrangements. However, there are also generic aspects that have been pointed out by different thinkers. In general, we observed an uneven and combined process, which, at least specifically in the Brazilian case, was largely grounded in a cultural war (^{Cesarino, 2019}; ^{Rocha, 2021}) that had education as one of its central axes.

Before presenting more specific arguments from this constellation, it is worth remembering some more generic aspects of the new authoritarian solutions and some of their specificities. From this broader point of view, the trends of post-2008 neoliberal capitalism appear as one of the most recurring hypotheses to explain the phenomenon, which contributed to breaking with what Nancy ^{Fraser (2017}) calls progressive neoliberalism. The alliance between the neoliberal economy and some partial recognition policies, unlinked to redistribution, would have associated 'truncated ideals of emancipation and lethal forms of financialization', but this model ended up being rejected by Donald Trump electorate in the United States, for example, in favor of an authoritarian neoliberalism. Wendy ^{Brown (2019}) also glimpses a new form of neoliberalism associated with the expansion of far-right ideals and calls “Frankenstein neoliberalism” the new and radical association between the exploitation of capital and the denial of social and collectivity

One of the aspects that most intrigue analysts is the fact that contemporary authoritarian solutions neither are based on the violent seizure of power nor on overt dictatorships, as occurred during the Cold War, but on voting and the consequent subversion of democratic institutions by elected leaders, in a gradual, subtle and even legal way (^{Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018}). This deterioration of democracy anchored in elections has as one of its pillars the constitution of a neoliberal subjectivity. Wolfgang ^{Streeck (2019}) argues that neoliberalism set in motion since the 1970s brought with itself the notion of global governance, free trade agreements, privatizations, labor market flexibilization, cost reduction and the decline of unions and political parties. With the reduction in the need for human labor, the promises of prosperity for all were broken and what Streeck calls post-factual politics was inaugurated. It would be marked by lies created by experts to account for citizens' frustration. However, says Streeck, the losers of globalization have increasingly taken over social media, at the same time as they have returned to the polls to express their discontent. Authoritarian leaders knew how to channel this discontent that germinated in democracies neutralized by capital.

In this pace, it is worth better questioning the relationships between these phenomena and education, using the Brazilian case as a reference. In recent years, these authoritarian movements formed by hordes of citizens frustrated with the unfulfilled promises of neoliberal prosperity, but unable to recognize their enemy in the economic order, began to conceive enemies to stand against. If in central countries the enemy constantly appears personalized in the figure of the immigrant, in countries like Brazil it has taken on other contours, delineated especially from the concept of ‘cultural Marxism’. According to this perspective, after redemocratization, the left wing would have stopped preaching strictly communist ideas linked to the workers' movement and started disseminating ideas about family, sexual morality, the bases of criminal and civil law, etc. Gradually, it would have occupied sectors such as the press, the judiciary and the university. The self-styled philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, for example, defines cultural Marxism as the ‘destruction of civilization’. Through this form of action, it may be said that gender ideology, 'abortism' (as he refers to the struggles for the legalization of abortion), 'gayzism' (as he calls actions linked to the lgbtqiapn+ movement) would have acquired centrality.

Some authors argue that the concept of ‘cultural Marxism’ would have initially been disseminated by the U.S. alt-right since the 1990s (^{Mirrless, 2018}). Others will say that, since the 1920s, right-wing Brazilian thinkers would have anticipated, in an autonomous and original way, 'right-wing social diagnoses and response strategies', including the 'defense of the family' and 'morality' to combat ‘cultural Marxism’ through an inverse 'culture war' (^{Wink, 2021}).

What is certain is that the axis of education is considered central to these movements and disciplines such as Philosophy and Sociology appear as crucial targets to be fought. It is in this sense that Olavo de Carvalho, probably the greatest ideologue of bolsonarism, mentioned a 'brutal marxist politicization of schools', an effective control of the 'education system' by the left wing, a 'general stupidification of kids' via “[... ] hegemony of the 'constructivist' doctrines of Jean Piaget, Emilia Ferrero, Paulo Freire and tutti quanti” (^{Carvalho, 2016}, p. 77).

It is as if education incorporated all the agendas excoriated by the regressive movements of the contemporary Brazilian extreme right. Thus, agendas linked to the emancipation of women, the lgbtqiapn+ movements, the valorization of racial and cultural diversity, the fight against inequalities and differences, etc., are stigmatized as corrupting the values ​​of families, Christianity, meritocracy, etc. In this sense, there are statements such as “[...] don’t be surprised when your child comes home from school sure that Pythagoras’ theorem is an arbitrary cultural imposition, that Jesus Christ was gay or that there are concentration camps in Israel. After all, reality is pure construction” (^{Carvalho, 2016}, p. 77). Movements such as ‘School without party’ and the defense of Homeschooling are also associated with this way of viewing the educational system as an institution co-opted by the left wing.

It is worth keeping in mind that the threats to the disciplines of Philosophy and Sociology were conceived during the Bolsonaro government under such authoritarian guidelines like those. But why do these disciplines haunt the far right wing so much? When we recover their specific trajectories of insertion in Secondary Education, it is possible to understand that contemporary authoritarian ideology takes them as a scapegoat precisely because they are closely linked to markedly democratic educational perspectives, even though their insertion course in the national curriculum was still under debate. before the approval of the Secondary Education Reform.

Social Sciences and new emergencies for Education

Social Sciences were born in the 19th century as an attempt to understand and control an increasingly complex social reality, which had changed dramatically in recent centuries, as a consequence of transformations in technology, forms of economic production and social relations. It was at a time when social forces openly revealed themselves generating new configurations of life, new institutions and forms of political participation, originalities and impasses of civil, urban-industrial, bourgeois or capitalist society that Sociology, specifically, has consolidated itself as a peculiar species of thinking about the modern world. Such situation began to challenge thinking in a new way, based on epistemological suggestions presented by several thinkers (^{Ianni, 1989}).

If the themes that stand out in the classics are capitalism, religion, social classes, individualization, bureaucracy, among others, the importance of these authors is due to being responsible for symbolizing, condensing and representing a series of different commitments, for offering a single and permanent contribution to the science of society. However, contemporary sociological theory points to the multiplicity of themes, problems and objects that emerge from a theoretical accumulation that is in consonance with the claims and tensions promoted by the demands of new configurations and demands present in society.

In the same sense, João Marcelo ^{Maia (2011}) points out that this theory, a set of systematic and general statements supposedly universalizable, endowed with a high degree of abstraction, which seeks to answer basic questions that motivate knowledge about society, is not composed of a great theoretical paradigm shared by the scientific community, but from a plurality of them. The ground on which the contemporary theoretical discussion rises itself justifies the exercise of re-reading and interpreting these works. The project of intellectual autonomy is not oriented towards the production of national or indigenous theories, in the author's understanding, but rather towards the investigation of alternative traditions to the hegemonic discourse that can be incorporated into the shared repertoire of Sociology as a 'truly global' science.

The last few decades have been marked by a great concern in rethinking the theoretical and methodological assumptions on which the scientific understanding of the world is based, from a sociological perspective. As has been increasingly demonstrated, social theory bears the mark of a Eurocentric and androcentric bias, according to ^{Alatas and Sinha (2017}), hence the need to question its alleged universality and objectivity. The reactions to this contemporary crisis are varied, however, one element seems to be shared by all of them, the expansion of the canon. Therefore, reflecting on the articulation between the macro-founding plan of Social Sciences and its translation into the emerging plan of new social orders and structures is fundamental to thinking about the relationship between the classics of the academic subject with realities beyond the European context.

Very influenced by this perspective that sought to expand the canon, not replace or disregard it, Celso ^{Castro (2022}) organized the collection entitled ‘Beyond the canon: to expand and diversify the social sciences’. The book consists of 16 chapters, and its central objective is to broaden the vision of canonical sociology, exclusively hegemonic, of European or North American tradition. The researcher emphasizes that the male and female authors mentioned in the work should also be part of the gallery of authors that we commonly see as classics. Castro points out that in Brazil this discussion is still new, despite the debate on racism, feminism and southern theories having entered the Social Sciences research agendas.

Among all the authors who gained centrality in the collection, we mention the Englishwoman Harriet Martineau, the Haitian Anténor Firmin, the Indian Pandita Ramabai, the North American W.E.B. du Bois, the German Marianne Weber and the Mexican Manuel Gamio. Among the topics debated by these intellectuals we have: morals and customs, problematization of the racial hierarchy based on biological theories, the oppression of Hindu women and the social construction of childhood, urban sociology, authority and autonomy in marriage, prejudices that fall on indigenous people , that is, themes that, according to the organizer of the collection, serve to expand and color the Social Sciences, in addition to being contributions provided in the same context as authors considered classics, such as Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber, who produced their theories that are still seen as unique today.

Raewyn ^{Connell (2012}) comments in her text ‘The Empire and the creation of a Social Science’ that we have strong reasons to doubt the conventional portrait of the creation of Sociology. To do so, we need to analyze the history of the discipline as a collective product, the shared concerns, assumptions and practices that built the subect in various periods, as well as the format given for its consolidation as a science.

We observe that this debate, on the necessary renewal of Social Sciences and humanities as a whole, gains more and more strength and vitality from a transnational movement towards a consensus that the epistemic assumptions of a theory and its pedagogical triggering must pay attention to the diverse identity policies. These expressions invite us to think about the need to change the institutional order of the spaces that reproduce hierarchies, mainly the school and the university.

In the Brazilian case, in the last three decades we have seen important advances in the creation of public educational policies that brought the racial hierarchy into focus, such as ^{Law nº 12.711/2012}, which created the policy for reserving places for black, mixed-race and indigenous public school students throughout the federal higher education and Secondary Education system, and ^{Law nº 11.645/2008} which determines the inclusion of Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous people History and Culture in Basic Education curricula. Furthermore, sexuality also began to be discussed in the school environment from the 1990s onwards, through the National Curricular Parameters, which proposed that the theme was worked on transversally, covering all subjects, in line with a broad view of sexuality, including its cultural, social and historical character (^{Brasil, 1998}).

In this sense, we observe the heuristic potential surrounding studies on the need to insert new themes in basic education from Sociology, in what relates to the articulation between social demands of populations traditionally excluded from curricula. Based on social policies achieved in recent decades, these studies boosted the training of students and researchers who brought these views to the educational space, which began to be based beyond canonical texts, also considering decolonial, post-colonial, subaltern, afrocentric, feminist and queers authors.

This is a very favorable context for professional activity in basic education, mainly due to the intersection between new ways of learning, from the incorporation of emerging themes of the contemporary agenda, and from teaching Sociology to a generation of students who carry out tensions resistant to logic hegemonic forms of agency in society.

Thus, Sociology is a science that has the specificity of raising questions all the time, by resizing explanatory principles and theories, producing new interpretations, reincorporating controversies and methodological debates:

It turns out that Sociology can both decant the tessitura and dynamics of social reality and participate in the constitution of this tessitura and dynamics. To the extent that sociological knowledge is produced, it soon enters the texture of social relations, in the game of forces that organize and move, tension and break the tessitura and dynamics of social reality (^{Ianni, 1997}, p. 25).

By thematizing social reality in movement, we could bring to our analysis the following question: given the predominance of issues linked to so-called customary guidelines that revolve around debates hitherto discussed in different educational contexts as relevant, results of social transformations, generational, how to mobilize Sociology as a discipline, without disregarding its scientific nature, since the act of teaching implies the transmission of systematized scientific and cultural knowledge? Would we be losing space in the curriculum because we are polemicizing teaching, or because we would be getting too close to a teaching practice guided solely by the demands brought by new emerging actors?

This situation puts us before a theme to be faced by us teachers in the area of ​​human sciences in contemporary times, which has an organic relationship between education, the situation and teaching: how to challenge the most diverse forms of conservative and retrograde manifestations in the midst of so many important achievements come from the educational field in the last two decades?

According to Iliezi ^{Silva (2010}), the relationships between the two fields of knowledge - science and education - and the relationships between scientific and educational areas and systems are also important elements when we think about the constitution of teaching in any discipline within curricula.

Discussions about teaching the subject of Sociology in Brazil already have a certain tradition, which, according to ^{Moraes (2003}), was initiated by Fernandes, in 1954, during the First Brazilian Congress of Sociology. At that time, Fernandes raised the issue of the presence of teaching the subject in Secondary Education as one of the topics of greatest responsibility for sociologists. This demand, raised in the 1950s, remains unfinished to this day. Currently, we are witnessing the resumption of questions about the presence/absence of the subject in the context of Secondary Education reform, which proposes that the new curriculum be guided by the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC).

We are facing a return to this debate that began in the last century, but contemporary times put us in front of challenges that until now seemed to be consensual. As ^{Pochmann and Ferreira (2016}) point out, equality should not be conceived as an abstract principle in education, but as a criticism of inequalities. Since:

Social differences should not be linked to birth, nor to parents' wealth, nor to cultural habits, nor to religion, nor to gender, nor to skin color, etc. All discrimination must be combated. Equal rights must guarantee the power of choice for each citizen. In its turn, justice is that one based on people’s contribution to the common good (^{Pochmann & Ferreira, 2016}, p. 1245).

If the principle of equality described here by the authors was quite consolidated in the collective mentality, what we have faced in recent years is precisely a situation that undermined concepts that had been discussed and proposed for years towards the consolidation of a democratic society.

It should be noted that this discussion on citizenship, democracy and equality has been intensely highlighted by different sectors of society, among which the main agents involved are students. Between 2015 and 2016 we had a series of occupations of Secondary Education students, in which tensions between the school and student segments from different parts of the country were publicized. The students took over the school in a broad sense, a phenomenon that should be read as a result of a broader political space and also as an effect of the street demonstrations that took place in 2013.

The occupations brought materiality to the criticisms and frustrations that have been documented in the literature regarding young people's relationship with school. The little response from educational policies to youth desires - and the growing presence of this population in schools - must have contributed to the outbreak of the conflict. The images offered by young people in occupations - acting, speaking, cooking and cleaning - contrast with the traditional images of silent students lined up in classrooms (^{Corti, Corrochano, & Silva, 2016}, p. 1171).

Collectively organized student occupations questioned educational policies based on new strategies and language. They could be seen as brand-new social movements (^{Gohn, 2016}), as they are marked by a more horizontal organizational ideology, from a new repertoire of action and systematic use of social networks. The students pointed out the need for discussion about democratic management, demanding participation from School Guilds and Councils, understood as fundamental bodies for democratic life in schools. A theme that emerges precisely from the tensions that arise from the structure of school organizations, in order to make them more open and sensitive to other knowledge and educational demands.

Human sciences produced in the 21st century, as a whole, arise as legitimate instances capable of enhancing the dissemination and routinization of emerging themes among the different sectors of society, mainly driven by the agendas of Secondary Education students. We can mention as an emblematic example of the change in forms of knowledge, school organization, the latest entrance exams and the National High School Exam (Enem) itself, which are increasingly bringing topics linked to issues of gender, sexuality, racism, among others.

This exercise suggests a seemingly obvious fact, but not always considered in our academic environment: people's involvement with sociological thought represents an opportunity to break with the isolation and bureaucratization of specialized discourses. The debate on the public dimensions of teaching, therefore, is not limited to disseminating sociological knowledge in a clear and accessible language for students. It refers, above all, to the movement towards opening up other ways of producing knowledge in the social sciences - with different engagements and responsibilities than those traditionally expected in university environments (^{Carniel & Bueno, 2018}, p. 682).

It means pointing out that Sociology was structured as a disciplinary field that contributes to the possibility of circulating academic knowledge beyond the university. We can mention, for example, the names of authors such as Lélia González, being theme of issues involving the intersectionality between race, gender and social class in Brazil. Carolina Maria de Jesus and the lyrics of the Racionais MC’s present on the list of entrance exams such as the State University of Campinas, for example.

Currently we observe that, despite the various achievements mentioned here, we are faced with contrary reactions, which can be noticed from movements such as ‘School without party’, responsible for introducing antagonistic curricular projects. The fractionation of Sociology contents in the training itinerary of Applied Human and Social Sciences in the new Secondary Education, factors about the Teaching of Sociology that still need to be researched, in measuring the effective presence in these itineraries, but which previously indicate the isolation of this area in middle level training, as well as Philosophy. Contemporary sociology that repositions itself in the face of canons, and opens up to multiplicities of authors and themes, with much more organic links to social reality and the current, peripheral, subaltern order, at the same time that it accentuates the relevance of intersectional, racial, gender themes, about social inequalities, work, culture, political action, social movements, which are some of the constitutive themes of the area, suffers the consequences precisely because these are its reflections. If the vigor of Sociology, as well as Social Sciences, is in providing a transversal dialogue, formulating questions about social reality that are fundamental to different areas of knowledge, this discipline and its contents, in the face of authoritarian advances, are weakened in basic education, which may be shadowed or even disappear in the new Secondary Education.

Inclusion and desertion of Philosophy in Secondary Education

When attempts to include Philosophy and Sociology as mandatory curricular components in Secondary Education were made, from 2006 onwards, the role of Philosophy and Sociology was reinforced as areas of knowledge necessary for the 'exercise of citizenship', as expressed in the article 36, paragraph 1º, section III, of the law on guidelines and bases of education (^{Law nº 9.394/96, 1996}), guaranteeing these components the quality of 'discipline', that is, their own and autonomous place in the basic curriculum.

At the time, Opinion nº 38/2006 CNE/CEB (National Education Council, 2006), in which the Ministry of Education (MEC) expressed its support for the inclusion of these subjects within the scope of Secondary Education, argued that Philosophy as a mandatory subject present throughout the entire itinerary would enable students to 'exercise citizenship' and to a 'critical thinking'. Later, in 2008, the Legislative power would ratify the Executive's position, expressing itself in favor of this inclusion based on the publication of Law nº 11.684/2008.

In addition to these arguments, the presence of Philosophy is claimed as a discipline responsible for fostering interdisciplinary dialogue between the components already present in the basic curriculum, as well as the dialogue between these components and the students' reality. Philosophy thus became, as Silvio ^{Gallo (2006}) argues, responsible for the development of critical thinking, interdisciplinary dialogue and preparation for the exercise of citizenship.

However, despite the noble functionality attributed to philosophical thought, it appears that the political problem when introducing Philosophy into basic education resided precisely in the attribution of 'functions' to the discipline, instrumentalizing it to the educational process and justifying it for its supposed usefulness. With a closer look, we can see that the attributions conferred on Philosophy (criticality and interdisciplinarity) should - or at least could - be present in all other subjects in the basic curriculum.

This stance in defining philosophy as responsible for critical and questioning thinking limits the possibilities of conceiving Philosophy in different ways. Among the main ways of conceiving Philosophy, we highlight its conceptions as a system of thought (systematic and elaborate thinking in order to differentiate and relate different areas of Philosophy), as a worldview (which allows a global way of understanding reality from a pre-defined perspective), self-knowledge (which enables a process of self-reflection, of turning towards oneself) and as life wisdom (which values the experiences of each person's trajectory to direct their conduct), as presented by ^{Franco and Marcondes (2011}). Such positions, however, are covered by a biased, little productive posture to conceiving the area, as it takes away its own historical, epistemological and methodological qualities.

If it were not enough, by attributing such responsibility as belonging eminently to Philosophy, an attribution that should permeate the other curricular components, the same arguments that led to the obligation of Philosophy in basic education would easily become the failure and incompetence of the discipline, considering that it would not be able to develop 'a function' that is not exclusively within its competence. This is how the “[...] defense of its importance can easily become a justification of its incompetence, validating its definitive removal from the school space” (^{Gallo, 2006}, p. 21).

Due to its supposed usefulness or functionality, Philosophy began to be reaffirmed in the social imagination as the discipline responsible for the development of critical individuals who are aware of their reality. Considering the subaltern reality in which the majority of public school students in the country survive, the subject came to be seen as a way through which such students would become aware of their living conditions and they would rebel against the forms of domination to which they are subjected.

This caricature of philosophical thought becomes more evident when contrasted with professional education. The implementation of this, almost always, results from the withdrawal of philosophical education. Based on a pragmatic technical perspective, professional education in Brazil was institutionalized to meet the demands of capitalism (^{Araujo & Rodrigues, 2010}), reinforcing a contrast or contradictory approach between education and work that persists to this day (^{Saviani, 2007}).

In other words, by concentrating efforts to conform subjects to market demands by offering quick and practical courses, historically Brazilian professional education has not been able to combine the omnilateral and comprehensive training of students with professional education, implementing educational projects that exclude itself: on the one hand, practical and technical training was proposed, on the other, theoretical and humanistic training was claimed. It is in this vein that educational dualism is perpetuated in educational structures and practices (^{Moura, 2007}).

Linked to theoretical and humanistic training, the concept of philosophical education would become incompatible with professional education of a practical and technical nature. In this sense, it is understandable to a certain extent the political efforts that neoliberal governments produced to exclude the subject of Philosophy from Secondary Education, concomitant with efforts to implement professional education. The usefulness of Philosophy would not be combined with the demands of the market.

The uselessness of philosophical thought in the face of neoliberal policies forces its desertion from educational curricula. A double effort is created to exclude Philosophy from basic education, on the one hand, with the rise of authoritarian governments and conservative agendas, with the consequent democratic crisis, at the same time that it is argued about the ineffectiveness of this discipline in the production of citizens critical to the exercise of democracy. Therefore, precisely the seizure of power by governments aligned with neoliberal agendas argues for their uselessness in training professionals capable of satisfying market demands.

In contrast to this movement of opposition between Philosophy and professional training, concomitantly with the obligation of Philosophy in Secondary Education, the restructuring of the Federal Professional Education Network took place in the country, through which the Federal Institutes (IF's) were created - ^{Law nº 11.892/2008}). The occurrence of this double movement in Basic Education forged a rapprochement between professional education and philosophical education which, as will be seen later, has, since then, been proposing an omnilateral or integral professional training. As defined by ^{Ciavatta (2005}, p. 2): “Integrated training suggests making human beings, who were divided by the social division of labor between the action of executing and the action of thinking, directing or planning, integrate and whole again”.

Considering that comprehensive training is indispensable for professional training, ^{Ciavatta (2005}) proposes that education needs to be supported by three dimensions: work, science and culture. In this last one, there would be the possibility of the experience of philosophical thought, as it does not need to respond to structural or institutional demands or functions. In the cultural dimension would be the processes of reproduction of life (and not just the processes of reproduction of production). By linking itself to the cultural dimension, Philosophy would expand the possibilities of reflection on individual and collective trajectories, on the meanings of life and human activities. This would make it possible to reframe and to give meaning to the everyday actions we do through work and explain it through science.

In view of this, and resuming the movements of desertion of Philosophy from the Secondary Education curricula, the alleged uselessness of philosophical thought could be converted into a movement in defense of the permanence of Philosophy in the Secondary Education syllabus, whether in professional education or in regular education. Recognizing that Philosophy is insufficient - at least alone - for the formation of critical thinking or for the exercise of citizenship is, on the other hand, to recognize that “[...] philosophy resists being protected, being instrumentalized. At least since Aristotle, philosophy has been characterized as an end in itself. Instrumentalizing it in an educational policy could therefore mean its own death” (^{Gallo, 2006}, p. 21).

It would be the possibility of converting the ‘failure of philosophy’ into potential for its permanence in basic education, it would be the opportunity to return to philosophy as a thought experience. The thought experience linked to the production of concepts, which is distinct from science and the arts, would configure the specificity of philosophical education. In order to rebalance the excessively scientific curriculum of basic education, that’s what would justify the permanence of Philosophy at this level of education (^{Gallo, 2006}).

The permanence of Philosophy in basic education as a possibility to exercise creative thinking through concepts - alongside disciplines such as Art and Sociology - would place it back in its proper place, without the need to attribute functions or goals to it, being justified by itself, in its specificity that distinguishes itself from all others. Finally, as Silvio ^{Gallo (2006}) argues, by recognizing that philosophical thought has an end in itself, Philosophy in Secondary Education would perhaps be one of the only opportunities for thousands of students who do not access higher education or who, when get to access, professionalize themselves in different areas, to have contact with this thought experience.

Survival of Philosophy and Sociology in integrated Secondary Education

The subjects of Philosophy and Sociology survive in institutions of the Federal Network of Professional, Scientific and Technological Education (Federal Network EPCT)⁴ as mandatory subjects of the common core, present in technical courses integrated into Secondary Education. These are the only public institutions at Secondary Education level to regularly offer these subjects, and the same goes for the Arts subject, which has a similar trajectory. The characterization of this survival, which is due to the autonomy of the Federal Network, of non-adaptation to the determinations of the BNCC, is a distinguishing feature of Professional and Technological Education (EPT), and are elements that have not yet been sufficiently analyzed in the literature, which did not identify the political and social elements that support the permanence of these disciplines. Through the process of reformulating Secondary Education, the permanence was indirectly motivated by the own scientific field and professionals, as well as by forces outside these areas, given the Federal Government's impossibility of enforcing the BNCC over the Federal Network. If we look specifically at research in the areas of Philosophy and Sociology in the EPT, given the scenario of these transformations in Secondary Education, in the historical context described here, of the personification of an ideological enemy of these disciplines, we identify that research is practically non-existent, with a wide field of open investigation.

The debate about the importance of Sociology in basic education is present in several countries, as ^{Oliveira (2021}) points out, and is driven by area associations in defense of the teaching of this discipline. However, if we observe research in the area carried out on teaching, ^{Oliveira (2021}, p. 7) finds that they do not represent “[...] a central theme in the research agenda of this science [...]”, a finding that can be expanded to the area of ​​Philosophy. Likewise, the extent of the BNCC's changes to the Federal Network, the political conflicts, the disputes over the curriculum, as well as the survival of Philosophy and Sociology in Secondary Education in the EPT are questions yet to be asked. Researchers turned to the analysis of these disciplines in the EPT, based on questions such as 'what is Sociology for?' (or Philosophy) in the EPT (Oliveira, 2010), when they considered the inclusion of these disciplines as mandatory in the Federal Network, based on a proposal for unitary and polytechnic education, and which established a certain prestige for them in the technical courses integrated into Secondary Education, to the point that they remained in these curricula. Such presence, which is marked by a much higher workload compared to the experiences of Basic Education training itineraries, starting from the new Secondary Education, in the form that they are presented in most Brazilian states.

Based on the analyzes carried out here, firstly, on the political dimension, regarding the advance of the extreme right and the compromising of education from the 'cultural war', and, secondly, on the dimension of conflicts present in the institutionalization of Philosophy and Sociology in Secondary Education as subjects that are put in place as a safeguard for citizenship training and for democracy, since mandatory inclusion from 2008 onwards, we raise some questions to identify what causes this permanence in the Federal Network, in what context and how mediations are established with the field.

The autonomy of the Federal Network, whose objectives and purpose are determined by its creation law (^{Law nº 11.892/2008}), according to ^{Heeren and Silva (2019}), meant that the reform of the new Secondary Education did not reach these educational institutions, since that the Secondary Education reform law (^{Law nº 13.415/2017}) and the changes produced in the LDB do not make reference to Secondary Technical Professional Education in the integrated modality. The reform of Secondary Education caused fundamental changes in Professional and Technological Education beyond the Federal Network, as ^{Pelissari (2021}) points out, with the inclusion of the training itinerary 'Technical and Professional Training', opening up the possibility of qualification in some profession from the renewed Secondary Education. This change is associated with the new General National Curriculum Guidelines for Professional and Technological Education (^{Resolution CNE/CP nº 1, of January 5, 2021}, ^{National Education Council, 2021}), which created the 'concomitant' and 'concomitant intercomplementary' offer ', allowing the offer of EPT at a Secondary Education level by different institutions, with these institutions being able to carry out the simultaneous offer, 'integrated in the content', or not, with independent enrollments and itineraries. The new BNCC, the creation of the training itinerary associated with EPT and the respective flexibility in the professional training offer at Secondary Education level were changes made in the context of a crisis of legitimacy in the Human Sciences, and which are associated with political movements of cultural war and ideological battles, factors that have a decisive impact on the processes of knowledge dissemination in these areas, and increase tensions surrounding their didactic and curricular organization. We point out that the reality of the disciplines of Philosophy and Sociology in the EPTNM of the Federal Network, in its integrated modality, constitutes a contradiction with the reality of basic education and represents a very significant difference in comparison with the new possibilities of EPT at Secondary Education level, a distinction that is intensified because they are subjects that survive in EPT, as well as in all Brazilian education, always threatened and in a context of delegitimization of Human Sciences, tensioned in the relationship between State, Government and Education since the Brazilian political crisis of 2015 and the rise of the right wing and the deepening of authoritarianism.

The initial feature of this survival that we point out refers to the ability to defend the permanence of these disciplines by Philosophy and Sociology professionals working in the Federal Network, in a context of expanding opposition to this permanence in civil society. The professionalization of these teachers, the high qualification when compared to Secondary Education throughout the public network, which has the majority of masters and doctors working in these areas in the Federal Network, education professionals who have research and extension links, are elements that reposition Philosophy and Sociology in Secondary Education under other conditions, absolutely different from those actually carried out in basic education. The notion of field undertaken by ^{Bourdieu (2004}, p. 20) can contribute to this reflection. According to the author, field refers to the “[...] universe in which the agents and institutions that produce, reproduce or disseminate art, literature, or science are inserted. This universe is the social world like the others, but which obeys more or less specific social laws [... where we can observe...] this relatively autonomous space, this microcosm endowed with its own laws”. As external impositions and pressures on the field advance, of an institutional, political and economic nature, Bourdieu points to the act of refracting, of retranslating external pressures and demands, developing the autonomy capacity of this field. External pressures, which act heteronomously on educational institutions, in dispute with the autonomy of the field, mean that this field can be conserved or transformed. The ability of the areas of Sociology and Philosophy to escape these external social laws and maintain their positions in the EPT curriculum is politically threatened, and it is conditioned by the situation of 'dependence on independence' that Bourdieu points out, that is, the Federal Network has autonomy on curricula, but the State can impose new conditions at any time, establishing a new place for these subjects.

The defense of these disciplines in the EPT is not due exclusively to the factor of autonomy of the Federal Network, since the non-inclusion of the Federal Network in the reform of Secondary Education is not enough to explain the survival of Philosophy and Sociology, remembering that autonomy is under constant surveillance and threat, mainly in the period 2017-2022. We point to the capacity of strengthening the fields of Philosophy and Sociology based on the struggles waged by these areas within the Federal Network, which can be identified in two directions: in the reinforcement that Philosophy and Sociology provide to the principles of EPT in Institutes Federal, towards a political position based on the concepts of unitary, omnilateral and integral education. These conceptions come from social theories and formulations from Social Sciences and Philosophy, therefore, these areas strengthen the very identity of Integrated Secondary Education and EPT. At the same time, thinking from a Pragmatic Sociology, or from the uses of philosophical knowledge, we can see the prominence of philosophical and sociological analyzes in the contemporary world, linked to and disseminated in the fields of education, applied social sciences, as well as exact and natural sciences, with unavoidable formulations about human knowledge, life and social organization. The extension and permanence of the disciplinary form of Philosophy and Sociology, as operated today in the Integrated Secondary Education curricula of the Federal Network, does not present signs of vitality and political-pedagogical support, given the forces of the new High School. Pressures external to the field and the position of researchers and professionals in these areas in the face of a reformulation of Integrated Secondary Education will put to the test the defense of Philosophy and Sociology and the capacity to strengthen the offer of these disciplines, which fights against the delegitimization of civil society while once again competes with shading and minimum survival in basic education curricula.

Final considerations

In this text, we seek to bring some reflections on the teaching of Philosophy and Sociology in a context strongly marked by complex issues, especially in what concerns to the crisis of democracy. The recognition of both disciplines as a fundamental constituent part of thinking about social and educational change projects leads us to conclude that we are facing some dilemmas, among them the confrontation between interpreting reality simultaneously with the processes of change triggered by political, socioeconomic and cultural crises, and the search for space to remain in Basic Education, based on the interface between its strengths and disciplinary rigors and the emerging demands of society.

If in more than a decade as mandatory subjects present in Secondary Education contradictions present in Brazilian society, both in terms of the production of knowledge and pedagogical practice, and as a force able to drive the action of several emerging individuals in the national identity scene, we are currently faced precisely with social forces that repel the areas, and request the limitation of the circulation of knowledge produced in these areas.

Once again, the two disciplines have the function of questioning the peripheral character attributed to them in the school curriculum, in addition to discussing how the forms of political and cultural domination that have emerged in recent years have attempted to undermine the democratic field and slow down social change, impacting the processes of identity and recognition. Understood from this process of change, it is due to these two areas a reordering of the pedagogical action, once again envisioning a transformation, in the face of repeated threats and possibilities of sinking of these disciplines in Basic Education.