Who is a Researcher? The Invention of a Myth

Nothing against the Myth when one confesses that he or she is its creator

(^{Corazza, 2020b}, p. 22).

It is a national consensus that the knowledge produced in most areas of Humanities, in which education is included, is located in the post-graduate studies, which makes it confused with the scientific policy of the country (^{CAPES, 2017}; ²⁰¹⁹). Thus, it is inferred that, in order to become a researcher, it is essential to enter through the narrow door of a stricto sensu course; in it to be able to remain; to investigate, preferably with a research group aimed at the same authors, themes and problems; and produce articles, chapters, dissertation or thesis – depending on the level of the course – at the time determined by the rules of the promotion and evaluation agencies. And, if everything goes well – in the countless dimensions of a life, which involve the private and the public, the micro and the macro policy – this researcher, becoming a PhD, will contribute to the “[…] expansion of the post-graduate system as a whole” (^{CAPES, 2017}, p. 03). This is because this is the basic condition for its feedback, after all, it is in the post-graduate programs that those who, in the future, will act on it and follow with the studies¹ are post-graduated.

Evidences indicate that this is the trend: it is necessary to climb the university steps, as a student, until you become a doctor to once again apply for a position in higher education, but this time, to ascend to a place “on the other side”, the side of the professor-researcher – as, the Brazilian post-graduate studies system does not dissociate the teaching from research and vice-versa. This trend seems to follow a “natural” course: the applicant approved and admitted in the career staff, after a set of published papers and having met the minimum requirements of a post-graduate program, finally becomes a stricto sensu – professor-researcher-advisor. However, this place will never be safe or guaranteed, because self-preservation in it will depend on many other personal and collective efforts, to research, publish, compete for research public notices, if any, and, perhaps, become “productivity researcher”, condition that also have their categories and levels. This is all based on the contribution of initiatives responsible for promotion, so that the material conditions of the universities are up to the demands of the studies capable of responding to the problems of their time and pushing the knowledge frontiers.

Briefly, this is the common place of what turns out to be the process of graduating a researcher who only comes to its end when the professional life itself is finished. They are decades of collective effort for Brazil to have reached a post-graduate format that, as Ribeiro says (apud ^{Sem Ciência..., 2021}), is the only level of education that “[…] shoulder to shoulder with developed countries,” having reached “[…] 11th position in the world in terms of qualified scientific production.” This commitment, mostly financed with public funds², in the area of Education, resulted in coverage of post-graduate programs in all the states, and considering the latest consolidated data of 2019 there are “184 programs, 88 of them with Master’s and Doctorate degrees, 48 with Academic Master, 1 with Professional Master’s and Doctorate and 47 with Professional Master’s degree” (^{CAPES, 2019}, p. 03). There are still asymmetries in the presence of post-graduate studies, especially in the northern region of the country, however, the opening up of possibilities to continue the studies, which are more strongly linked to research in the stricto sensu, becomes a reality for more interested parties.

Despite these numbers and the vertiginous growth³ in the offer of stricto sensu courses, according to the Report of the 3rd Cycle of the goals Monitoring of the National Education Plan – 2020 (^{INEP, 2020}, p. 337), only 2.8% of teachers working in Basic Education, until 2019, had a master’s degree and 0.6% doctorate in different areas, not specified in the document. This does not, however, mean that teachers of this level of the educational system have not continued their studies at the post-graduate level. However, according to the report , 41% of the teacher with a post-graduate degree (equivalent to 933,810, out of 2,259,308 teachers in Basic Education), 37.9% has specialization courses in lato sensu programs. In addition, the 2019 survey shows that “[…] the teachers’ participation in continuing education courses is increasing, reaching 38% of the teaching staff in the same year” (^{INEP, 2020}, p. 18). The meager indexes of basic education teachers having studied stricto sensu post-graduate degree studies seem to corroborate what the research by ^{Oliveira, Silva and Moura (2019, p. 15)}, in the Article Pós-graduação stricto sensu e educação básica: que relação é essa? (Stricto sensu Post-graduate Degree Studies and Basic Education: What relationship is this?), notes: despite the verification that in the last two decades there has been a process of closer approximation between the two levels of the education system, the question of the researchers’ and teachers’ formation with a focus on teaching in higher education still predominates, as well as the dissociation between theory and practice, which leads teachers to consider “[…] that stricto sensu formation is not for those who are acting in basic education”.

Due to the scenario above, it can be said that the herculean work of constitution and strengthening of the national post-graduate studies system and the indices of basic education teachers who attended it – having completed their research and returned, or entered, to the teaching of children, young people, adults and elderly – these are conditions for a myth to be constituted and publicized. This is the myth that seems to justify the current idea that the professional universe of education is divided into two castes: on the one hand, they circulate, create and produce the rare intellectuals they research and, on the other, they concentrate a great mass of teachers who only teach⁴. There are certainly other factors that are necessary for this myth to have gained indisputable truth, such as economic, labor, political, etc., which further strengthen its incontestability and justify the belief in this division that ultimately facilitates and gives comfort, both those who delegate the function of research, thinking, to create, write, publish to a few, assuming, for themselves, the function of “simply teaching”; how much those who accept this function as exclusively theirs – perhaps by a desire for distinction and the need for a sense of superiority, or even by belief in that myth – take on such separation, with pleasure, without even questioning such distribution and even sometimes considering the requirement of teaching less than research.

Here, a strident voice, coming from one of the very well-evaluated folds of the post-graduate system, of the high ranking of the productivity researchers, emerges to depressurize this truth: “[…] teaching without research does not exist, never existed, nor will it exist”; “[…] every teacher is a researcher; he or she has a researcher spirit; he enters into becoming-researchers, while he or she educates. If not, how would he or she teach? What and how would he or she teach?” This voice says what it says, from these places that have given it the determination of a position that thinks teaching and research mediated by a hyphen that prevents its untying and supposes a relationship of reciprocity. Position that can only feel, think, problematize, do, write and say “research-teaching.” This position is the condition for the deconstruction of the myth, through other evidences sought, found, invented, encouraged and collected by the researcher-teacher Sandra Mara Corazza⁵ (²⁰¹³, p. 93-94). By dedicating her life to teaching-research, in contrast to the consensus of the existence of the castes, she has bequeathed to us an idea of educational research, whose greatest merit seems to be in the indefinite article that accompanies it, capable of outcropping practices and other proliferating ideas about research in human and social sciences in general, expanding the plural framework of visions on the subject, inaugurated in Brazil by ^{Azanha (2011)}, in his professor habilitation thesis, of 1992, Uma ideia de pesquisa educacional (An idea of educational research). This article is dedicated to dealing with one of the conditions for the composition and realization of Corazza’s idea of teaching-research of the difference, without which, it seems to us, she would not have created or updated it.

It is already important to state that, in the specific case of the idea of teaching research that Sandra Corazza produced in her vidarbo (life-work), there is a supplement: something excessive overflows from her texts and trials that reaches their readers and prevents them from remaining passive in accepting the myth of the separation between research and teaching, as well as limiting themselves to perceive them as yet another component of the series of pedagogical extravagances. This is because the hyphen of the idea of teaching-research (or research-teaching) is the very power of search joy, the pleasure of involvement in digging, and the contentment of finding treasures to be shared in a class, in a text. To experience this power that makes a professor becoming researcher implies a losing oneself and to finding oneself that leads oneself to the invention of solutions and puzzles. Creation that requires from him or her, more than anything, a sensitivity capable of allowing him or her to feel something that until then did not exist, but that is there, whether it be “in a spoken or written phrase; in the gaze or smile of someone; [In the euphoria of a student who reports that silence was the first thing that existed]; in a ray of light; in an hour of the day” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 94). After all, something always passes on the transversal direction of those who are alive and have no way of passing. It passes despite the condition of the contemporary world in which we live, through the Integrated World Capitalism⁶ (IWC), of which educational territory is often at the service of its center, especially when it suffers DISTANCE LEARNING type deterritorializations that hold all those involved to dominant semiotic, shaping them “[…] to perceptual codes, language codes, interpersonal relationships modes, authority, hierarchy, all capitalist technology of dominant social relationships” (^{Guattari, 1985}, p. 51). Therefore, although the IWC strives to build dykes of all kinds (visible and invisible, the more imperceptible, moreover, the more effective), to maintain order and prevent feeling, if you think, if you say, write and live beyond your codes; even though it preaches the living in invisible bars (moral, curricular, temporal, territorial, economic, etc.) and separates them from what they can, to better control them, the power of life is overflowing, infiltrates by some fissure and ends up uniting what was separate, including hyphenating teaching and research.

Pedagogical Language Practices

I really wanted texts that would provide unprecedented pearls of writreading, that would lead us to travel on the interstices of the language and of thinking, that’s when and where life passes!

(^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 209).

The production of the idea of research-teaching practiced and launched by Corazza on the coming, had as a condition a specific relationship with the pedagogical language, which, by choosing education as a profession and passion, became its language. This relationship was that of a foreign in her own language, which meant putting it in stutter and thus making it capable of producing other effects. To a large extent, one can say that the myth of the castes of researchers and teachers is one of the effects of a certain type of practice of this pedagogical language, which divides the world into superior and inferior. ^{Corazza (2000)} understood that this language, when it does not stutter, practices a “naturalistic, essentialist language”; it is guided by the belief that “[…] its language describes reality as it is” (^{Corazza, 2000}, p. 90), assuming that social reality is something also natural, “[…] innocent and immutable, [such] as the very idea it makes of nature”; and behaves like a “closed and stable system”, whose meanings would be invariable (^{Corazza, 2000}, p. 91). The biggest problem with this practice of the pedagogical language is that it contributed to the production of the exclusionary reality that extends to this day, and that in such a distant past, educated “[…] subjects who put the Auschwitz crematoria into operation” (^{Corazza, 2000}, p. 99). Something repeatable in this third decade of the twenty-first, in which neo-Nazi cells spread under the light of day, and torture is publicly praised, without constraints – or is anyone still doubting the power of that return?

The practice of the closed language itself also resulted in resentment and unhappiness in the teaching profession; more sad effects and passions – of death and even, overall of “love” to education – than joyful affection that invigorate life in a vigorous and exuberant way in the educational field, whether be in classes, meetings, and in continuing formations, on writing about on them. This is because the stable practice of the language is nourished by the habit and constancy of the professional routine that it makes, those directly involved, to repeat […] “the same acts, demand the same conduct, teach the same contents, ask the same questions and formulate the same solutions to many generations” (^{Corazza, 2008b}, p. 02). By the speech, above all, the same truth is reproduced to the detriment of writing, and phono centrism is strengthened. What image can be created of this practice and its practitioners other than a “[…] poor, mediocre, undivided image of ourselves, which makes us think of what has already been thought, to say what has already been said, to do what has already been done” (^{Corazza, 2008}ª, p. 03)? And this is not only in the basic education school, also in the university and in the post-graduate school, because it is not a “level” of education, but also in the use and practice of the educational language – which, at the “higher level”, leads to read and write in the same formats as ever; to attend, invariably with gaps, the metrics coming from above; to be bound by consensus and to develop “[…] deep myopia for what is far away, at the same time, that a non-listening of what is interesting, exceptional, in what we live everyday” (^{Corazza, 2008b}, p. 02).

Moreover, texts produced by the educational language’s essentialist practice raise their products to majoration and modeling, reinforcing the belief and functioning of the myth of castes. This elevation ends up making the texts express nothing more than doctrines easily converted into dogmas that normalize, codify, reinforce structures and markers of power – like Author, Theory, Work, School, Teacher, Student – who, by their abstraction, result in the reduction of the power of the thought of those who read them, making them follow them and repeat them without variation, but re-producing the already thought and said, through the fulfillment of transcendent rules that make their readers stay around the center of re-presentation, re-cognition and majority pattern, preventing them from becoming experimenting readers-writers:writreader⁷.

It has been a long time since the conception of the language as a stable, homogeneous and synchronic system of rules has been questioned. This since it was assumed that the spheres of human activity, in their many forms, are necessarily related to the use of the language. This led to the understanding that it is something alive and, as such, is constantly changing, according to the uses and circumstances in which it is practiced (^{Bakhtin, 1997}). Education, as a conditioned human exercise made possible by language, is by its nature a territory of multiple linguistic practices, which, by its ability to vary, imply and even require heterogeneous uses, because “[…] there are many passions in a passion, and all kinds of voice in one voice, all a rumor, glossolalia” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 1995b}, p. 13). The concreteness of the heterogeneity of the language and the uses that are made of it, for any life, including, and above all, in the educational field, could be sufficient reason to reject the essential and abstract perspective of the pedagogical language, but this is not the case. It is then up to spectate for what has already been made of it, in addition to the aforementioned naturalistic use; to turn attention to practices that abdicate from the exaltation and the majoration of texts and references, from the uses that make them sacred. Because it is not a text or a discourse that are sacred, but the ways in which someone deals with them that either sacralize them or not. As well as looking at their effects and products, realizing powers for other practices. After all, nothing will be won or created if only “[…] condemnations of the practices of one and the other” are cast (^{Guattari, 1985}, p. 28).

In the circumstances, interests and limits of this Article, it is appropriate to ask, then, what enabled the creation of an idea of research-teaching of the difference that experiences other powers in the midst of education and the practice of educational language? How did Corazza put the pedagogical language to stutter? What did she do? In a perspective of transcendental empirical research, which favors the perpetual mobility of the real – because it takes the difference as first and absolute, without relation to a model, with an identity – the question to be answered is: what was the first condition for the creation of the idea of research-teaching of difference and what is the condition for it to be updated by its participants? Beforehand it is stated that, for one case and another, the condition is the same, as it is warned that this is not the only condition, but that it is the one who gains exclusivity in this Article.

We need to specify the praising tone to the image of stuttering, the ambition and the incentive to get the language to stutter. After all, from the speech-language point of view⁸, stuttering is a fluency neurodevelopmental disorder to be treated. It leads the neurobiological apparatus, intended for the control/rhythm/processing of prosody (speech component that organizes the enunciates, shaping the way of speaking, through articulatory modifications), to function in an anomalous way. The brain cannot reproduce the pattern of the current language, causing the rhythm and cadence of the language to fail. The praise for stuttering in the relationship with the educational language, practiced by Corazza, a first condition for the creation of her idea of teaching-research, stems from several references, nevertheless it still has a relationship with the language not engendered, according to the standard. In this case, it is the pedagogical language, in its normal use, that suffers blows and fractures, which allow the idea and practice of teaching research to be aired.

Although sometimes neologisms have been created by Corazza to express ideas and “[…] enlarge the borders of the watchwords” (^{Redin, 2022}, p. 938) – as is the case with “artistage”⁹ and “writreading”, marks of her inventive thinking – it is not the speech that stutters, the words are not stuttered, but the language itself that is put into continuous variation of the most determined on the essentialist Major Language. It is a practice that establishes relationships of “[…] dynamic and creative fruition with the unpublished” not yet updated in the texts, subjects, selected ideas (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 65). Practice, carried out through exercises and scriptural experiments, which “makes the language stuttering as such” and thus puts it to tremble “from high to low”, with a view to unbalancing the stability and harmony assumed by the hegemonic practice of the language, in order to reach an idea (^{Deleuze, 1997}, p. 123-124). This is, for ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1995b)}, the practice of creators, whether they be writers, filmmakers, scientists, philosophers, etc.; proper of those who inaugurate something unprecedented in the world, impossible to achieve without breaking or distancing themselves from the stability of the correct ways of thinking, feeling, speaking, writing in the corresponding field.

In Crítica e clínica (Critical and clinical), in the text “Stuttered...”, Deleuze shows the operation of language stuttering with many cases of writers who innovated the forms of expression and content in literature upon stammering (Balzac, Kafka, Melville, Kleist, Artaud, Céline, Becket). It also makes references to other fields of creation to indicate that the condition of a science’s progress is to enter “distant regions of equilibrium”. It presents the case of British John Maynard Keynes, who would have made the political economy progress, insofar as subjected it to “[…] a boom situation and no more balance” (^{Deleuze, 1997}, p. 124). In addition, Keynes revolutionized economic thinking in that he thought of the countermeasure of self-regulating advocates of market freedom, as well as securing the provision of jobs to workers, provided that they were flexible and accepted jobs and wages far from their liking. With a macroeconomic perspective sensitive to the dismay of the conjuncture constituted of starving workers, willing to perform functions in exchange for tiny wages, Keynes destabilized the hegemonic doctrine of his time when he presented the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Currency¸ in which he also developed, the prospect of “the involuntary nature of unemployment,” with which he argued that if the economy became entirely dependent on market mechanisms, it could perpetuate the unemployment situation of the labor force. In Deleuzian terms, Keynes found the language of economists to be free, and considered their heretical, acute and unacceptable ideas, because they were able to “[…] irreparably compromise the foundations of the dominant tradition” (^{Fracalanza, 2010}, p. 201). An example that shows the stuttering deal with the economics language is the deliberate choice of the term “involuntary” to refer to unemployment, he forced

[...] the comparison with the voluntary unemployment of the dominant tradition which conceived it as the result of a rational – and maximizing – choice of some workers who, by virtue of their individual preferences, refused to accept the jobs available by confronting the wages they offered with the painful effort required to consume their workforce

(^{Fracalanza, 2010}, p. 200).

It seems appropriate to state, in the Deleuzian record, then, that the Keynesian “heresies” were produced under the condition of a “creative stuttering”, inside the language of the economy that was pushed to its limit, which, as Deleuze shows to occur with several other “artists” of language, grew by the means: “[…] like the grass, which makes the tongue a rhizome rather than a tree, which puts the language into perpetual imbalance” (^{Deleuze, 1997}, p. 126). The artistators who act as foreigners in their own language submit linguistic elements to a treatment of continuous variation – not to submit to the domain of the constant forms – which produces a foreign language within the meaning regime in which they were initially enrolled. This is a “[…] minor use of the major language in which they are expressed entirely”; they are great because “they undermine this language” by means of “dynamic combinations in perpetual imbalance” (^{Deleuze, 1997}, p. 124); they make it “run away” from the harmonic system and Ordinator of the “Empire of the Royal Language” that tends to imprison forces and becomings, but that, despite its officiality, “[…] is always susceptible to intensive use, which makes it run along creative lines that form, even if slowly, relative and absolute deterritorializations” (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 232).

Although there are “several ways to grow by the medium or stuttering” (^{Deleuze, 1997}, p. 126), there is a common position among the artistators: they are situated on the edges of the language, on its periphery, being bound to it “by a hand or a foot...”. This position is called by ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1995a, p. 47)} of “schizo position”, when they present, from Elias Canetti, two types of multiplicity – pack and mass – the characters of one and the other, as well as the pack individuals’ behavior, in contrast to the distribution of the mass subject, which occupies a “paranoid position”. The image Canetti uses is quite emblematic to also express the position of a teacher-researcher of the difference: “He will be inside and soon after on the edge and soon after inside. When the pack circle around their fire each may have neighbors on the right and left, but the back is free, the back is exposed to wild nature”. Resorting to this characterization and distinction contributes to understanding and realizing the complexity of the stuttering practice of the educational language. It was not by chance that Sandra denominated her guidance and research group as “flock”, the BOP (Acronym standing for her guidance and research group)¹⁰.

The pack consists of individuals who remain solitary, although they are with others. Each individual participates in the flock while performing “his or her own action,” remaining on the periphery as a research-learn-write-teach. Occupying such a position, subject to the gusts of external forces that bring novelty – not without danger, because they are wild – is already resisting the logic that sustains the myth of castes varieties based on identity and subjections to established powers. Logic that tends to foster sadness and resulting in creative depotentialization, physical and mental illness, due to authoritarianism, productivism, harassment and other types of violence (cf. ^{Goulart; Antunes, 2020}). Following this logic and believing in the myth of the castes system is similar to the behavior described by Canetti of a mass subject: “[…] individual identifications to the group, from the group to the boss, from the boss to the group; being well fused with the mass, approaching the center, never staying on the periphery, except providing service under command” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 1995a}, p. 47). It is important to remember that the first book organized by Sandra, with texts of her counselees, Fantasias de escritura (^{Corazza, 2010}), is a statement of the position of each in pack, which have common elements placed in continuous variation, according to the differentiating wild forces with which they relate. The opening of the book, which she called the “Conversation”, is a single paragraph that says how she conceived the relationship of teaching-research of difference with her guidelines, whose reference is the second plateau of Mil platôs (A Thousand Plateaus) (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 1995a}).

How does the Idea of Teaching-Research Difference work?

Circumscribing the limits of an education,

which has life as its main subject,

we value multiplicity and

we operate as resistance and struggle

against the sameness, mediocrity, and injustices

(^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 100).

As the position of the teaching-research of difference, by its nature of pack, it is schizo, this is also the characteristic of its writing. Therefore, to the writing-schizo, which is “artist writing”, the question is: “how does it work?” (^{Corazza, 2006}, p. 26) and not “what does it work for?” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 87), even because the “what for?” shall be determined by the readers who will, or will not, hold this writing in connection with other elements. For this writing

[...] only positional functions are worth in the same educational complex, renunciation of any interpretation, exclusive option by the operative utilization. Machining of a writing, which is only productive, expressive or representative. Privilege of use; productivity in relation to expressivity; operative use to the detriment of exegetic sense. Pursuit of a logic of invention. Writing that does not come out of reason, but renews the art of thought by resending ‘thought for art’

(^{Corazza, 2006}, p. 26).

Before showing how the research-teaching idea works, through its operative use, which is presented mainly in the form of written “products”, it is necessary to mark the sense of “productivity” used by Corazza. It should not be confused with the productivist logic that has taken over the academic life. In the first pages of anti-Édipo: capitalismo e esquizofrenia (Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia), ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2010, p. 11)} demarcate the position that guides the book thesis: “[…] this works everywhere […]. There are so many machines everywhere, and without any metaphor: Machine machines, with their couplings, their connections […] something is produced: machines effects and not metaphors”. This is how a schizophrenic, non-sick hospital rag, relates to nature, to the outside of personal identity formed by life in society (family, religion, etc.): “[…] less than the distinction man-nature, less than all the markings that such distinction conditions”; he lives nature as a “[…] production process. There is neither man nor nature, but only a process that produces them in one another and engages the machines. There are everywhere producing or wishing machines, schizophrenic machines, the whole generic life”. This implies suspending, even, the distinctions between “me and not me, exterior and interior”, because in this connection relationship, they “mean nothing else” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 2010}, p. 12). This results from a cosmological perspective in which there are only processes (cf. ^{Guerrezi, 2020}), in which “[…] everything is production: production of productions, actions and passions; production of records, distributions and markings; production of consumption, volume, anguish and pains” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 2010}, p. 14, authors’ emphasis). It is in this record that also the teaching-research processes that he writes are thought and forged: nothing more, not less, than the immanent longing realism of those who teach and research, part of a “single and the same essential reality of the producer and the product. Production as a process exceeds all ideal categories and forms a cycle to which the desire relates as an immanent principle” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 2010}, p. 15). Homo natura that wishes and researches and learns and educates and writes and... Productive connections in process, without final goal. Therefore, the schizo position, schizo-writing should be understood as a healthy schizophrenia: it “[…] is the universe of desiring producing and reproducing machines, the universal primary production as ‘essential reality of man and nature’” (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 2010}, p. 16).

^{Corazza (2013)} introduced and put into operation the notions of process and production in the teaching-research of difference when, for example, she rehearsed Deleuze’s meeting with education and dealt with classical pedagogical categories and, by praising them, modified them by creating ex-centric senses when she made them stutter. There are many categories she has dealt with, following examples of children and curriculum:

While intensive mapping of affections (active and joyful, passive and sad) , children produce educational constellations, which fill their social deambulations. They speak and write through indefinites, which consist of that form of expression that precedes the manifestations of their child subjectivity, making them preindividual singularities and prereflective consciences without the Selves. Therefore, children love the indefinite One-Child, which is how they speak as sensitive; which leads them to the conclusion that they are also artists

(^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 21-22).

And it is so strong that this Desiring-Curriculum, which is only concerned to be evaluated by what it produces and by the effects it causes: if they are important and interesting, notable and potentiators of more life

(^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 32).

Situated on the edges of the educational field, more specifically of pedagogy, Corazza subverted and de-functionalized the pedagogical language, making it avoid the Royal-Language, scrambling the “cards of communication”, producing paradoxical senses of other pedagogical canons – also the didactic, the professor, the teaching, the class, the method, etc. She disseminated “permanently circulating significations”, insofar as she positioned herself “[…] at the limit point between the logocentric discourse and the plural ones for coming”. It was these plurals, and what she did with them, that put the educational language to stutter, as it provided space, in classes and texts, to wild forces that gushed out. Without leaving the educational field, she moved toward them, always with the impression that she dragged herself “like a slug” (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 187), contrary to the feeling of her readers that, with each text, are surprised by new streams that “define tomorrow” teaching-research and education; therefore, “[…] her texts do not always fit in the history in which research thinks education today” (^{Olini, 2017}, p. 16).

The plurals with which she dealt to forge her teaching-research she grouped them into the broad spectrum of what she called “Thinking of Difference,” in which philosophers, writers, artists, poets, etc. fit – for whom “[…] thinking and living, working, and writing, studying and researching are one thing only” (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 227). All ideas teaching artistators called by her as “educators,” even if they are not or have not been professors. In common among them, which can be taken as a criterion to occupy the spectrum, there is the “[…] participation of a collective gesture, whose motto consists in the simple word of Nietzsche, although endowed with infinite power: ‘A new way of feeling, a new way of thinking’” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 35). The common gesture of these educators implies that they provide participants with the idea of research-teaching of difference, impulses to make the educational language tremble, even if the shaking is minimal, providing new means of expression in education, creators of passages from “Life that crosses the livable and the living” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 36).

Teaching-research acts and forms in the nullification of transcendent senses built by other research ideas; it is not done and thought as if “[…] research was a passage of the non-knowing to knowing” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 36). It is formed while it is invented in the neighboring position where its “artisan” is situated. In this teaching-research process, the professor-researcher is an artisan who becomes “[…] an esthete, a researcher of words, phrases, images, to act on the limit, on the extreme edge, that separates knowledge and ignorance, and transforms them” (^{Corazza, 2013}, p. 35). The choices, always arbitrary, of works, authors, themes, portions of theories that the artisan does will determine the “[…] relationship of belonging to a culture, formed by those who have studied and used such theorization, by those who have already researched, in other ways, the raw object, etc.”. In this arbitrary practice, the professor-researcher will fall into the “[…] field of research practice in Education. And this is not a little crap!” (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 84). This is what enables him or her to name himself or herself “teacher-researcher”, not his or her titles, positions, categories, honors, impacts, qualis and scholarships.

Sandra had immense concern for her ideas to gain up to datedness, to come to the public, to be shared and tried, to see if they worked, to modify, to vary, to use them, to continue with them, or to abandon them. It interested her that her texts would work and serve for research by other professors-researchers, because for her it was important to “discover how and where the texts extend, how they work and what they serve, what gears they put in motion, in their extra and intratextual practices” (^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 177). She read varied styles at the same time. Many and many. Little of her world was excluded from the composition of her writing, either in the form of content or in the form of expression. This trait has given strength to her production, especially for the creation of the two concepts that mark the Corazza’s vidarbo teacher-researcher, of the last twenty years: teaching artistry and writreading. The variation of the form of expression guarantees the use and radicalism of what Deleuze and Guattari (1992; 1995b) wrote about the becoming of the concept in a philosophy and history of philosophy, as well as the thesis that the form of expression pulls the form of content, modifying it and inaugurating something until then unthought. It was also a strategy of unfolding, without facilitating, both the components of the concepts that she created, and the teaching-research itself, produced alongside and with her flock mates. These developments were made by replays constantly varying: she created mannerisms in writing and speaking, related to others and new “educators”, invented parallel songs that sometimes won a chorus of multiple voices, others, when she was convinced of the strength she carried, remained soloist, like Josefina, Kafka’s singing rat, until someone sensitive to her song approached.

Displays

WAYS TO USE (the philosophy of difference)

[…] 10) The problematic will be seen,

its operation and articulation,

its syntax and conditions of existence

(^{Corazza, 2008a}, p. 67).

According to the teaching-research idea in the education of difference, the evaluation of a text is done based on the criterion of shaking and shifting the boundaries of content and expression in the plane or in the field in which it operates. How much stuttering is promoted in the language of this field? This criterion is not separated from the artistic merit that is considered in the metastability of the author’s set of texts – artistic thought in broad sense, including the choice of source, style, distribution of words about paper/canvas. Therefore, it is up to the researcher-professor to make continuous variations in the set of texts that he or she produces, that is, to create a kind of metastable system, out of a balance point – what will be called, without pretensions, “work.” Question of invention, of plural arrangements with different “writing subjects”: “Everything that leads us to nothing, waste and small things without importance, finally, all things thrown out can converge to the same point, the starting point of writing” (^{Costa, 2010}, p. 05). How did this work with Corazza? Here are two cases of Corazzas’ metastability.

1. In 2002 it came to the public the notion of “teaching artistry” (^{Corazza, 2002}). Long before it was being machined, of course. It began to entitle the name of the DIF Research Group – also created that year – as of 2003, with the complement “teaching artistries, confabulations, variations” (^{Zordan, 2022}, p. 266). In 2006, Artistagens: filosofia da diferença e educação (Teaching Artistries: philosophy of difference and education) (^{Corazza, 2006}) was published, in it the concern for research ties with a teacher’s artistic life, unthinkable without writing. On the first page she states that a professor who does not write does not love the teaching she performs: “3. Of love. – She was a professor for thirty years. He had at least thirty classes and more than a thousand students. So she retired and went to take care of the three grandchildren. She did not leave a single text behind. After all, do you need more proof of her di-s-love with the profession?” (^{Corazza, 2006}, p. 6). After this aphorism, the most direct way to determine who does teaching-research is: the one who also writes when inventing and teaching. Teaching Artistry is one of the exponents of the metastability of her work. Composed of aphorisms; poems; dissertation of an enigma that only is revealed in the last paragraph; a settlement of accounts with Freud; a curricular thesis created from the third chapter of anti-Édipo, “Selvagens, bárbaros, civilizados” (The Anti-Oedipus, “Wild, barbaric, civilized”) (^{Deleuze; Guattari, 2010}) and, finally, of ‘A tetratology for thinking, chez Deleuze’. Teaching Artistries is the very expression of the courage to vary the style in philosophy that the honored philosopher defended, but never did so with such radicalism in terms of form of expression. Corazza experienced and showed how the operative use of a philosophy can be, to the detriment of the exegetic sense. She continuously varied over the Deluzian concept of “thinking,” in each of the four parts of its whole, not telling with whom or what she did. “My readers pull themselves!”, Sandra said – more or less like Elena Ferrante who says to do enough for her readers when writing her books, we don’t want her to reveal her identity on top of that. She didn’t tell, but left footprints. They are there, at least: reason and unreason, pairing up; Joyce; Becket; Nietzsche; Deleuze; Guattari; Spinoza; and, the most surprising of all companies: Plato! Yes, Sandra engineered What is philosophy?, by Deleuze and Guattari, through a legitimately platonic dialog. It causes immense surprise why Sandra did not like Plato, but recognized him as a great creator. It is a book that is worth being (re)read, because it is always a new reading that is made of it, especially to the scholars of Deleuze, because this is the most Deluzian Corazza’s books (^{Heuser, 2022}); also, a book that makes the work of the philosopher “tremble from top to bottom,” available to everyone.

2. Corazza’s teaching artistry experiences produced the concept of “writreading”. In 2008 he appears, from the title, in Cantos de Fourour: escrileitura em filosofia-educação (^{Corazza, 2008a}), and becomes the operative concept that will make the inventions to come. It will always be present in her work and in the Writreading of Differences Research Network e: philosophy-education (CNPq), because it pleasantly and rigorously gives support to a plural and widespread knowledge, through a work of language. This book is where the wild forces that transverse the teaching-researcher’s body-thought appear the most. They gain varying shapes in their “cantos” and they are manufacturing the concept of writreading. True power plant. “Pedagogy of trauma”. It shows that “it is only possible to educate in abyss” (^{Costa, 2022}, p. 62, 64 and 67, author’s emphasis). But the second half of the book, composed of a set of thirty letters exchanged by S/Z, is the display that makes not only the educational language, but also the literary and philosophical trembles the most. The epistolary style is called into question while it is experienced in a time that has not yet arrived, between February and December 2050; through it issues are shown that led to the creation of the concept, its conditions of existence, its functioning with and in those languages, in conjunction with other concepts, including the artistage. Among the many other becomings of this concept and continuous variations, it became the proper name of the Teaching, Research and Extension Project “Escrileituras: um modo de ler-escrever em meio à vida” (Writreading: a way of reading-writing in the midst of life) submitted, approved and financed by the federal government, between 2011-2014, when, in four public universities, from three different states, it was appropriate and transformed by the “users” of the Project. In the midst of the many appropriations and metamorphoses it suffered, there is one that, by the surprise that it causes and its ingenuity, is at the same level as the Platonic dialog of Artistagens. In this case, the one who was called to compose and put the stuttering language was Martin Luther and his theses on the power and effectiveness of indulgences. But, instead of 95, there are “50 theses on writreading” and the “indulgences” charged by scientific academicism. While criticizing the academic ways of reading and writing, Corazza, in a becoming-Luther, says what writreading is about, highlighting its practices, relationships, risks, tensions, distances, vicinity, preferences, territories, anomalies. Before being published in the eighth notebook of “Coleção escrileituras” (^{Corazza, 2016}), the “50 Theses” were posted on the walls and doors of the building of the School of Education of Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS, initials in Portuguese from Brazil), where Sandra worked, with a medieval-style art, in addition to uttered and discussed by the author in Puebla city, Mexico, in September 2013, during a reading and writing congress. For its artistic merit and importance for the idea of research-teaching of difference, we recommend that the reader visit it¹¹.

The Rarity of an Idea

Then, once again, history is made. Everything the teacher built in life was made not only of letters or phrases or ink, but of her... and everything she didn’t even know within her there was

(^{Corazza, 2020a}).

Ideas are not in a starry sky waiting for contemplation of an elevated soul. It is only up to the species homo natura to create them. They are made, rarely. It is very difficult to have one. A few have. Knowing, living, learning, loving someone who had an idea is a piece of luck. Following its creation processes, a gift. Receiving from inheritance, a blessing. In the case of ideas, the inheritance is for every one of the species that they are interested in, because, although they are signed, after they leave the nest of their creator, they are not the property of anyone. They are over there to be explored, tried and tested. If they work for the power of life, may they proliferate. The idea of research-teaching of the difference that Corazza bequeathed to us potentiates the desired flows and gives them the strength to infiltrate and cross the hard disciplinary strata, epistemic blocks, formal standards and the organization of castes education. Impure, it intersects what has passed with the already thought, mixes them with what affects the professor-researcher, giving conditions for the production of possible worlds to come. This idea carries in itself a democratic-becoming that vehemently refuses the separation between teachers, who would be merely a belt of knowledge transmission, and researchers who would produce it; it affirms the nobility and dignity of the teaching function, intensified with the notion of “transcreation”, displaced by Corazza from the field of poetic translation and taken to education. In May 2014, in the municipality of Toledo/PR, Sandra introduced, to a group of eight hundred professors, the thesis that every professor is a trans creator researcher, in that he or she invents his or her classes, in which he or she does a translating work of the “starting language” – the knowledge, the subject that he or she translates – into the “arrival language”, that of the class. For the luck of the living, the conference O que se transcria em educação? (What is transcreated in education?) it has been recorded and is available on the internet, in it, the hyphen of the idea of teaching-research gains greater meaning than the hyphen exposed in these pages.

Finally, there may be readers who have arrived here and who remain unbelievers of that idea, just for the reasons and figures presented at the beginning of the Article, which are the “pure reality”. In addition, there is the reality of the professors’ daily life, whose material conditions, more and more precarious every year and to every neoliberal government that is installed in the palaces, make it more precarious, economically and temporally. With wage losses, the discredit and loss of time came, from the idleness necessary to research, plan classes, invent projects, write. The researcher-professor Sandra Corazza has never denied this, has always been at the forefront of the fighting trenches, but has also not accepted that this would be used as a justification for a professor not to write: reality is plurichromatic. Just visit the website with her production to find out the texts and books she wrote when she was a teacher of the early years of the public network. It can be said that for her, writing was “to write oneself,” inventing her life as a teacher, of which some sorrows were part that passed through her, for example, when she lost a student to the street. Carolina de Jesus, a scavenger woman, made her dream come true “ink dream”: she wrote her life and that of the country, since Um quarto de despejo (Child of the Dark) and shook the myth of the castes. Why don’t we write? Shall we try to make the myth of castes tremble from top to bottom, writing our teaching-research lives “[…] to turn our professor’s pain into a golden adornment as delicate as the cicada’s wing” (^{Corazza, 2019b}, p. 12)¹².