Perhaps one of the few certainties we can tell today is that we are living in... uncertain times. We live in a time of often systematic questions about certainties, truths, interpretation - metanarratives - about the past and future of the universe, the earth, human societies and beings, and those concerning linear prediction of the future.

Some say we are living in a new era - postmodernity (LYOTARD, 1993); for others modernity is not over yet and its progress does not imply rupture (HABERMAS, 1990); or that postmodernity is only 'a state of spirit, rather than a crystallized reality' (ROUANET, 1987); and others emphasized that we live in a time of transition (^{GATTI, 2005}, p. 3).

On the plan of knowledge production, meta-theoretical approaches and theories are reviewed: Portuguese prefixes neo and pós designate contemporary strands of thought clashing to provide the dominant interpretation in our time (poststructuralism, post-feminism, postcolonialism, Neo-Marxism, Neo-Gramscianism, among many others). Sometimes, the rupture is indicated by the adjective critical: Critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism are some of the various ways of distinguishing the traditional from the contemporary, the past from the future in this labyrinth of theoretical productions and current political proposals. The previous knowledge is kept as traditional, and we propose the rupture of disciplinary barriers and the organization, to start using the chaos theory.

This theoretical production, which tries to catch and reflect about the complexity of our times, seems to me and others (CARLSON; APPLE, 2000), not only plentiful, but also complex and intensively abstract to be captured, aiming its application because of the use of new terms and concepts, its use with multiple meanings - for example the term identity, so current in debates about diversity. Each new text begins with an introduction to the meanings of current terms - difference, diversity, culture, hybridism, among others - and in the end we conclude that they are polysemic and polyphonic, or new neologisms are created.

For us, educators and researchers who hang out at the school yard, including graduate courses, the fact that we have to unravel these new tendencies (some call them trends) in human and social sciences, including education, it indicates a great amount of time and energy invested, not only because these debates have been less mindful of its implementation in daily and political practices, but also because they are mostly produced and written in western languages in hegemonic countries and many times refer to its peculiar situations. Therefore Barbosa ^{Moreira (2001}) highlights the space between the theoretical complexity and its impact on school practice: 'because of its complex and abstract character and scarce propositions for educational practitioners, discourse [about curriculums and multiculturalism] found in Brazil in the nineties did not manage to guide new practices and reforms' (p. 118 in the Brazilian edition).

In addition, this ferment does not belong exclusively to knowledge and discourse, but it is stirred and encourages other social, political and cultural practices: new ways of communicating and informing, new family arrangements, social movements, religions, ways of artistic expression, educational proposals, etc. Parodying Marx, "all that seemed to be solid and 'traditional' melts into air".

And we educators and researchers are amidst this intoxicating buzz. More than that: we are called upon to build the 'new world', or better saying, the 'new future for humanity', as we are one of the 'experts' out of modernity to teach new generations. The foreground position of education in crisis times is common-sense, even in uncertainty times. How can we account for this once the past 'melts' into air? Would there be anything honored, worthy, 'true' in the knowledge gathered by preceding humanity and lives with these complex times and could be passed down as legacy for future generations we are teaching? Or our uncertainties are so intense that make it difficult to or prevent from gathering honored and worthy legacy for young generations? Or will we give up this role of school education, that of systematizing and transmitting knowledge collected by the previous and contemporary humanity? Selecting, systematizing, organizing and proposing a centre of knowledge and educational practices for new generations would be like committing the sin of 'universalism'? How can we share the epistemological relativism to establish the curriculum for the education 'without emptying the content education'? (SACRISTÀN, 1996, p. 50).

I agree with the position of those who, albeit critiques we can address to modernity, assume that we also collect cultural, ethic, political and social legacy we should convey to young generations who build critiques and overcoming. From this legacy I emphasize our human community to be respected, and everyone's right to democratic quality schooling, including babies. I will return to it later.

Full text in PDF