Introduction: Opening the curtains of the spectacle: what body is this?

We begin the opening of this introduction with "Opening Curtains of the Spectacle" as a way to present this majestic experience of producing this master's dissertation in this 2-year postgraduate course. Joy and pleasure for teaching have always been latent in early childhood education and it will be precisely on this space that we will genuinely discuss it, considering it to be the fundamental stage for the development of our children.

We know that the challenges faced in teaching are not small in relation to the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular classrooms, since public policy investments for the inclusion of students with disabilities in classrooms. Teachers do not yet consider themselves fit to cope with the demands of inclusive teaching.

Faced with this assertion, we have the need to discuss and promote reflections on inclusive education in the school with theoretical experiences and contributions that may be considered in the ongoing formation of teachers that bring significant elements to their teaching practices.

Acting as pedagogical coordinator at a Municipal Infant Education Center (CMEI) in the city of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil, I see the need for a continuous training in services that could be materialized in teaching practices about the difficulties of working with children who had some disability. These children did not participate in the activities of the wheel, the park, the moments of bodily activities. They were there, missing other children, playing and interacting alone, without establishing relationships, bonds and affections.

Concerns emerged as to why these children did not participate in such rich times of interactions? How this person was considered in school? What conceptions of the body did the teachers face to the deficiency? What relationships and experiences were established with this detached and individualized body? It was necessary to seek answers to so many anxieties.

In times of a plural, globalized and diverse society of concepts, we went in search of what the body is. Speaking about the body from the biological point of view, we will find the understanding that the body is a living organism, composed of cells, which form tissues, organs and systems, forming this physical and visible unity to the eyes. Expanding from the viewpoint of Physics, the body is any matter that occupies place in space. Entering into the universe of Philosophy, body is the whole being that constitutes the individual.

Without demeaning the concepts presented, since they are essential to the areas in which they apply, the body we wanted to lecture extrapolates this biological and functional dimension. In this respect we present the following understanding:

[...] a body is not just a body. It is also your environment. More than a set of muscles, bones, viscera, reflexes and sensations, the body is also the clothing and accessories that adorn it, the interventions that operate in it, the image that is produced from it, the machines that are connected to it, traces that are exhibited in him, the education of his gestures... In short, it is an unlimited number of possibilities always reinvented, always to be discovered and to be discovered. It is not, therefore, the biological similarities that define it, but fundamentally the cultural and social meanings attributed to it (^{GOELLNER, 2007}, p. 29).

The philosopher and phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty helps us to understand the body as a result of the interactions between the biological and the cultural, live and senses, constituting the whole existence and experience of affections and stories. It is all our experiences of sense and meaning that constitute us as persons in the world (^{MERLEAU-PONTY, 1999}).

The author presents, in his epistemology, an understanding of man as an integral subject, as a being in the world that establishes relations with his environment and the body is a fundamental condition for our existence. We are essentially corporeal beings and through this the outside world is perceived, it is through this that we interact with our social, natural, cultural environment (^{SILVA, 2011}). We can also say, according to the epistemology of ^{Merleau-Ponty (1999)}, that body is all that is lived, experienced, affected that has sense and meaning.

This body can not be considered as an isolated physical matter, under the view that only disciplined and "perfect bodies" can learn. Under this assertion we see the body dissociated from reason and emotion, in which body is body, mind is mind. It is clear that we face a learning without body, a very present conception in Cartesian thought, that the knowledge of the world was established in a fragmented way by means of quantitative measurements. With this, it is through the body that the world is known and the world is incorporated into the body through its established experiences and relationships (^{MENDES; ARAÚJO; DIAS; MELO, 2014}).

Faced with these already explained meanings, we will not find an exhausted and exact definition of body, but we point out an understanding that comes closest to the author's epistemology “body is a living experiential structure, in which the internal and external, the biological and the phenomenological communicate without opposition" (^{NÓBREGA, 2005}, p. 605).

Starting from this apprehension of body considered as experience, perception, sense and meaning, we intend to discuss our reflections throughout this article, establishing a dialogue with Inclusive Education, under the perspective that there is no human gesture, even if distracted or intentional, a word, a given silence that does not have a meaning (^{MERLEAU-PONTY, 2006}).

A body that tells its story

Searching in history for primitive societies as our starting point, society was formed by nomads. From its beginnings, the body was a fundamental element to its own survival, given the need to hunt, run, duel, compete, among other actions. Those with strong, robust and healthy bodies gained prominence, being considered individuals able to achieve daily subsistence.

Given the difficult conditions of subsistence and constant displacement, the group members were already aware of those who did not fit into the social context, suffering from early exclusion practices. In this context, people were sick, weak, old, wounded and people with any kind of disability, since they were persons who could not contribute socially to their civilization. Such an organization already signaled that incapacitated bodies did not fit the tasks of society, becoming dependent and often submissive to the problem of survival.

Studies and records show that people with disabilities have existed in the world ever since, and the lack of knowledge and resources within these primitive civilizations made the shortcomings more fatal. The few who were able to survive, were left to their own devices in regard to acceptance, tolerance, elimination, contempt, and often death (^{GAIO, 2006}).

Bodies with some deficiency could not see possibility of life, for they were incomplete and defective bodies for this society. Thus, social relations were already consolidated by the body. According to the historical analysis of ^{Foucault (2001)}, the body was already consolidated as an instrument of power, as well as production, oppression and exclusion.

These "excluded and imperfect bodies", gain new notoriety. The monstrous expression gains firmness in the chapter of this story, occupying a concept of grotesque body, out of the norms of normality, seen as an abnormal body.

Not enough of all this process of exile, already seen as a socially underestimated body, we still have the beginning of the spectacularization of bodies that involved the repudiation of the exaltation of bodies considered deformed were displayed in public squares, bars, theaters, private halls, in circuses of horrors, as products of malignant form or aberrations of nature (^{TEIXEIRA, 2010}).

Included in this scenario, were people with amputated parts of their bodies, children with microcephaly, "bearded women", Siamese women, "owl man", "lobster boy", "camel woman", "elephant man", among others, who received nomenclature according to their physical condition (^{CORBIN; COURTINE; VIGARELLO, 2008}).

With bizarre looks, the body was worshiped as a veritable spectacle of horror, a banality routine of amusement for the growing capitalism that emerged with the industrial revolution. The body with deficiency, was considered a body of an everyday monster, a trivial monster. "The abnormal will continue to be a pale monster for a long time" (FOULCAULT, 2001, p. 71).

Not only the villages with the living scenes, the exploitation of the material forms of a visual mass culture gain more and more space. Postcards, photographs come to show the eccentricities of the body, the propagation of a normal body, so the monstrous body comes to confirm the rule of abnormality in face of the perfect body without any deficiency.

The body of popular attention, known as the sick body, is gradually becoming a medical interest. Thus, society is faced with the return of the mutilated post-war, psychic sufferings and once again the vulnerability of this body from a social, cultural and stigmatized perspective.

In this understanding, the first fruits of the right of participation in society emerge, leaving aside segregationist policies, emerging the process of integration of these persons in society. In this perspective, the disabled body will not recognize itself as a victim of its disability, but according to the sociological impositions determined by society (^{DINIZ, 2007}).

Faced with the discrimination suffered, the social stigma, conceptions and nomenclatures about this body and disability, we needed to evolve towards the cripple, from the exceptional person, person with disability, with special needs until we reach the person with disability today.

The body has passed through the most varied conceptions. This was because each time it had been conceived according to the relation that the human being established with the world. Thus, to speak of the history of the body, in turn, of the body with disabilities, is to understand that this is a product of social, cultural, political and religious actions of the human being and encounters at different moments of civilization (^{GAIO, 2006}).

The various forms of perceiving the body, with and without disability, emanated in society as a means of diffusion of exclusion, control, power, repression, punishment, mutilation, spectacularization. All of this trajectory influenced directly and indirectly the conceptions of corporal education in our society today. In front of the disabled person we know that we have yet a lot to go forward

The methodological way

A scientific research is mainly a systematized work that follows strict procedures, which the researcher is imbricated in the whole construction process of elaborated knowledge In the search for such relationship, inclusive education is not only a simplistic approach to the education of children with and without disabilities, but also a contribution to the training of teachers who work with these children, which formation could materialize in their pedagogical practice.

We chose the research based on the qualitative approach, believing in the valorization of the relations between persons, researchers and their surroundings, as well as the implications in the teaching-learning process (^{OLIVEIRA, 2016}).

Deriving from qualitative assumptions, we opted for the development of an action-collaborative research, with the perspective of collecting systematic information with the purpose of promoting social change (^{BOGDAN; BIKLEN, 1994}).

In this perspective, ^{Ibiapina (2008)} affirms that to do collaborative research is to contribute to the development of a critical and reflexive attitude about the practice itself, favoring dialogue and the exchange of experiences, supported by the action-reflection of the own doing. In this type of research, both persons (researcher and researched) play an important role in making decisions and in seeking answers to the problem.

The research was carried out in the Municipal Center of Early Childhood Education (CMEI), located in the eastern part of the city of Natal / RN, under the responsibility of the Municipal Education Department. The choice for early childhood education was given at first, because it is the space of professional performance of the researcher, but also because we consider it a very important stage for the development of children. Thus, in the first half of 2017, a survey was made with this Secretariat, in the search of which Municipal Center of Early Childhood Education had the highest number of children with Down syndrome enrolled in the network.

Despite being a medium-sized school, it had 3 classrooms, attending 5 classes, in 2017, with 101 children enrolled, of these, 7 were children targeted by special education, 3 children with Down syndrome.

The faculty was formed by 5 effective child educators, 1 child educator on temporary contract, 6 trainees, undergraduating students of Pedagogy, to collaborate in the daily work of the institution. Throughout the intervention, the directors, the pedagogical coordinator, the children's educators and their respective class assistants participated actively, with 15 persons taking part in the research.

In view of the aforementioned methodological support, we legitimized as research procedures for data construction: the analysis of the Institutional Political Project (PPP); participant observation; the registration in the field journal; semi-structured interviews; workshops and intervention proposal.

As for the moments of direct observation, they occurred during the last three months of 2017, after approval by the Research Ethics Committee, under the opinion no. 75927317.7.0000.5292. The observations were systematized with 16 meetings in the classroom, on alternate days, so that the researcher could observe the various moments, considering all the practices developed in the routine of early childhood Education.

At the end of the observation process, we started the interviews, with the aim of apprehending the person’s various understandings about Inclusive Education, body, child, Down syndrome and learning. In particular, specific and important concepts that guide the planning of the intervention proposal preparation and collaborate with our categorization process.

The interviews were done individually with the respective persons, according to the teacher's planning day, with the possession of the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE), as approved by the Ethics and Research Committee, evidencing the anonymity of each person in order to better understand the investigated reality, we began collecting and tabulating data. Having as reference the content analysis (^{BARDIN, 2016}), we configured the teacher intervention proposal of the research. We began our categorization process as follows: body-movement, body-language, body-inclusion, body-learning.

Analyzing the interviews’ speeches, the records of the observations based on field journal and categories already listed, we began the systematization of the intervention proposal, thought workshops.

There were 8 formative meetings, built collaboratively with our reasearched persons in the 1st workshop entitled "Workshop on Sensitization", considered one of our main workshops, because it was a mobilization, where we present the first looks and finds to the analyzes constructed and the possible issues to be addressed. It was necessary to explore the various concepts of body; break with the idea that learning only occurs with written activities; open a dialogue to live bodily experiences; discussing what is Down syndrome and Intellectual disability, always dialoguing with the specificities of doing in Early Childhood Education and under the understanding of an inclusive perspective.

The formation proposal permeated didactic and dynamic strategies, with playful activities, videos, studies, dynamics, oral and dialogued expositions, and drawings, which did not constitute a boring formation, since the persons had already had a work schedule, or still would have. Thus, the collaborative research relationship, the formative moment, should be a space for learning and pleasure.

For the realization of the workshops, the researcher appropriated the elaboration of a portfolio for each person. We chose the portfolio to be part of the research because it is a very rich tool of records of actions and reflections between researcher and persons. The portfolios were very illustrative, a peculiar characteristic of the experiences of childhood education and were identified by color, representing the anonymity of the persons. They have the proposal of the research with the justification, guiding question and its respective objectives. Before starting, each workshop was placed the "call to thematic", as a way to stimulate the curiosity of each proposition, beyond the agenda of each workshop, printed slides and texts of theoretical foundation of each theme.

Faced with the already explained, we present the organization of the training proposal:

During the 8 meetings, we always sought to dialogue in an inclusive perspective, reflecting on the disabled body, opening space to discuss the child with Down syndrome and his Intellectual disability, so that the disabled child could be seen beyond his physical and hypotonic body, but starting from the understanding of a curious, desirous, learning, perceptive and subjective body.

The meeting of voices, the encounter with the body

The researched persons signaled in their speeches a body compression very attached to the categories listed: body-movement, body-language, body-inclusion and body-learning. We know that this is very important for the development of the child, but it can not be decisive for such a dualistic understanding about the body:

Body is movement, the body can’t be really inactive, and if we do not stimulate the child, he will look physically and mentally bad (^{RED, 2018}).

[…]

Body is something that can’t be inactive, I think there is nothing worse than wanting a child or anyone to be still. The body asks for movement, it is part of it If you let this body stop, besides coming to a tiredness and a nuisance, the concentration that you expect won’t happen. His body is there... And the child is full of energy (^{ORANGE, 2018}).

[…]

Their greatest pleasure is to move, to play, to run. Body is... everything. We can’t think of working the mind dissociated from the body, but it is what we usually end up doing in school, concerned about being ready for elementary school. [...] I see that the body is in the center, I see the body as the center of me, I cannot think that the body is just the hand or the foot. How about the rest? (^{DARK GREEN, 2018}).

Having brought this encounter of voices, we have the clear idea that body is movement, but it can’t be seen only by this aspect. Because if body is movement, what about the children who are physically handicapped and unable to move? And the children with Down syndrome who have motor impairment, due to their hypotonia, having their mobility compromised, how they are seen in this approach?

Doing the analyzes of this category and taking the speech of the Dark Green teacher "that body is everything", we realized that we needed to concretize actions that allowed an amplification of that perception, that body is much more than movement and together we will dialogue with the fundamentals of ^{Merleau-Ponty (1999)}.

The comprehension of a body beyond the movement was already expressed in his teaching tasks, confirmed by the observations, from the child's welcome moment in class to the moment of the final round. But they were not intentionally materialized in the pedagogical action, as we can see in the speech below,

[...] the child is inserted into the world through his body, through experimentation, this phase of discovering himself, interacting with another, that he begins to have this contact with himself, everything starts with the body (^{LIGHT-GREEN, 2018}).

Thus, we needed to systematize this understanding of person-body and bring this reflection into the daily practice of early childhood Education. We do not have a body, but rather we are diverse bodies with potentialities and limitations, what makes us unique, as the philosopher says "I am not before my body, I am my body" (^{MERLEAU-PONTY, 1999}, p. 67).

The workshop on sensitization offered a better understanding of this body to establish this dialogical and dialectical relationship between body and consciousness, since our subjectivity is expressed in our self.

Our second category leads us to a scenario that has been established with a body understanding, that besides movement is also a body that speaks, so we call this category as a body-language.

We know that even before oral language manifests itself, children, from infants, express themselves through body language as their first world language. From an early age, the relations that the individual establishes with others and with the external environment are mediated by language and that can occur in different ways, but the center of this relationship is the body. With the body, the children discover the possibilities of the body itself, experiencing it as action and language. But body is much more than movement and language.

The 2nd workshop "Corps of horror" helped to broaden this understanding, starting from the corporal experiences that we promoted with the workshop. The experiences provided situations in which the bodies of the persons were getting to know each other, knowing about each other and, with that, several situations were problematized by the researcher and the persons responded in their own way and reflected "What body am I?"

[...] wow! How afraid we are of touching ourselves and touching each other's body [...] (^{YELLOW, 2018}).

With this fragment, other situations were problematized by the researcher, so our researched persons reflected why we were afraid to touch and be touched. The Dark Blue teacher reiterated:

[...] True, I had never stopped to observe this and, today, I realized that as much as we are here every day, seeing us, talking to us, how difficult that physical touch is. We just smile to each other, we laugh but we barely touch, I think it’s because of the rush of everyday life... The interesting thing is that, among children, they do not have this problem. They touch each other, hug each other, laugh all the time [...] (DARK BLUE, 2018).

We promoted a very rich debate, beyond our physical bodies, and the need to have this contact with the other, to go beyond the world of glances, but to enter the most direct contact, the touch. How to speak of body without your body? We start from the understanding that we are bodies that need to be seen, need to be felt, bodies that need to be touched (^{GAIO, 2006}).

From this understanding, we realize that there is often no room for the disabled person, since there is a stigmatized logic that outlines society and, to break this type of barrier, we need to assume the reality of bodies that, besides being seen, are also bodies that feel and touch.

We entered the discussion of the spectacularization of bodies, people who broke the paradigm of "perfect bodies," we were faced with a stigmatized body, stripped of its dignity, without the right to come and go, to participate in any social group and space, a body seen and understood in the discourse of monstrosity. We keep asking: "Do we find scenes like these nowadays? "

Silence hovered in the air ... The persons looked at each other, frightened looks, some startled with the scenes presented as if they did not believe this happened, then, I had to interrupt this silence, provoking new restlessness [...] (^{PEIXOTO, 2018}, p. 7).

That's when the Light-Blue teacher brought us the speech:

The images presented are in my mind. We come across this feeling of "horrors", we are never prepared [..] We do not have the knowledge about the syndromes and then, when we come in the classroom with a child with autism, Down syndrome, or other syndrome, you feel yourself in this state of "horror" because you do not know what to do [...] We are not aware, we are insecure, several things pass through my head, this horror extends to me as a teacher too, we experience this together with them, only in different ways (^{LIGHT BLUE, 2018}).

The fragment of the Light-Blue Teacher brings us to the reflection that, although these expositions have been extinguished, we still perceive situations that present themselves in a similar logic, categorizing the "perfect and imperfect bodies", bodies that still cause estrangement to social life, in ignorance.

The next workshop was the number 4, "Let the body speak", when the formative proposal begins to gain voice and take shape, as our researched persons elucidated the recognition of the importance of this formation, to understand the experiences lived that have direct and pedagogical praxis, according to the foundations of collaborative action research.

With the experience " Broken telephone body", we dialogue with an essential word in this experience: the perception. The experience showed our participants that we are not stagnant and discontinuous parts, the more repetitive, meaningless activities, the less meaningful for our children. We reflect when we only focus on cognitive activities, leaving the body out of the pedagogical action, as if they did not work together, as if they separated the moments: one time the moment of cognitive activities, other, the moment of activities that involve the body, in which the brain does not participate in the process.

According to ^{Merleau-Ponty (1999)}, the perception is constructed starting from the interactions with means and with the persons, being permeated byexperiences. My perception only concerns me, it is unique, so my perception is different from yours, because we have different ways of seeing the other. However, perception materializes in the body through the experiences we provide to our children, these relate to each other according to their abilities.

In face of these reflections, we have the following statements:

So we can say that every move made here, was made according to our perception (^{YELLOW, 2018}).

[…]

That explains why, when we do those school dance with our children, there is a child that does not do at all what the teacher determines, because everything depends on how he is involved in the process. I think we can not limit ourselves to what the child does just the way the adult wants (^{LIGHT-PINK, 2018}).

The excerpts from our participants speechs were cohesive, as we were facing new glances for our children and those gazes extended to the disabled child, because we know that there is a limit to them and it needs to be respected.

Light-Pink teacher was very assertive when she stated the situation of ready and stereotyped moves that we always want our children to represent. But how can we do this, if they themselves do not participate in the construction of this process, since there is no relation of meaning? What we go through are often ready-made expressions and we want our children to imitate them as they are.

The debate has moved to the reflections on the child needs to experience his body in a playful way and, in the school, the teachers give these experiences. We do not need to tell them how they should be, we should let our children manifest their essence, their freedom of expression, creation, and the body is part of that manifestation. The child will only become aware of his body by experiencing it in the most different situations and interrelationships, that is, by living his body.

We need our children to show us who they are. Let's put a little of our hearing and develop another type of listening, listening to the look, the movements, the different bodies that are in a classroom.

Intertwining with other categories, we have the 6th workshop "Down syndrome: which body is this", this one had a more expositive and formative character, since the analysis of the field journal (^{PEIXOTO, 2018}) showed gaps about Down syndrome and their specificities. Here are some excerpts from the speechs:

I confess I know very little about Down's syndrome, I know that it has several levels. One lighter level, other more serious (^{LIGHT GREEN, 2018}).

[…]

I know they have fewer chromosomes, or is it more? Well, they have some characteristics and a slower development (^{YELLOW, 2018}). […]

That is a disease, and so... that has its limitations, and causes accommodation, that comes along with the syndrome, but I see that it has a great potential despite its limitations (^{PINK, 2018}).

We emphasize the statements of teachers Pink and Yellow, presenting that Down syndrome is not a disease, but a genetic alteration. Another point that needed to be well discussed refers to the speech of the teacher Green-water, which tells us that the syndrome has several levels. We return, once again, to the fact that we are not dealing with a disease but with an intellectual disability.

It is important to understand that they have motor, social, intellectual limitations, but early stimuli (we do not only refer here to clinical stimuli but affective, social, cognitive, bodily stimuli) contribute a great deal to their maturation.

The process of interaction with oneself and with others is fundamental, including the support of the family, healthcare professionals and educators in the process of promoting learning situations for development of children (^{PIMENTEL, 2012}).

Hence the need for experiences with the body to be explored from childhood, full of sense and meanings, so that children can fully develop in all their aspects. For this, we need to give all children the opportunity to live and to know different situations with their body and their corporeity. Living the body is the requirement of living the world (^{MERLEAU-PONTY, 2006}).

The last workshop, "Yes, place of learning", aimed to retake the concepts worked through the formative experience, through corporal experiences proposed by our participants could be developed with children with or without disabilities in early childhood Education.

The larger group was divided into 3 small groups and we had the opportunity to experience the following body experiences: “Circle game”; "Look at the chameleon"; "Let's get on the train". It was fantastic experiences. As a researcher, we were immersed in this playfulness and enchantment. It gave space for the groups to position themselves, presenting the reasons for the choices and what elements they would have been apprehended. The round-table discussion was open:

Look, at the beginning of the activity we had no idea what to do. We chose the “caranda dance” to help us, because the children like it. As we have said here before, singing with our children often only sits on the wheel and no matter how cool it is, we often forget to use the body, even for convenience, I think in the face of so much that we have to take care of and besides depriving ourselves, we deprive the children (^{LIGHT-PINK, 2018}).

[…]

True, fear is more in us than in them (^{BLACK, 2018}).

[…]

Wow! How we have sin (silence). We should provide more of this contact with the body in early childhood education, because we are always concerned with reading and writing [...] For children is a very rich moment and very pleasant (^{LIGHT GREEN, 2018}).

[…]

In our activities we live our corporeality, we use our perception, we feel lightness or agitation with the rhythm of each one, I perceive particularities, limitations ... It was these elements that I have learned in the workshops and, again, they are present in the activities (^{LIGHT BLUE, 2018}).

The speech excerpt from the teachers Light-Pink and Green-Water clarify how much we still have to move forward and dare in relation to the capabilities of our children. Simple activities of our pedagogical practice focus on writing registry, drawing and painting, free scribbling, leaving the students sitting, excluding the body from this process. We also reflect that disability is not in the person with disability, it is in us, in our silence, in our alienation, in the impossibility of seeing and feeling the other, and understanding their needs (^{PORTO, 2006}).

The Light Blue teacher highlighted aspects that were scored throughout the training, so that they could arrive at this understanding that we can not disregard the body in the school, because, in doing so, we are also disregarding learning, since there is no knowledge without the body (^{GAYA, 2006}).

The experiences lived through songs, singing, children's literature, play were permeated with elements of manifestation of the senses, enchantment, contributing to the child's development in aspects besides social and cognitive, emotional and affective aspects. There is no learning without bond, without affection and the playful is essential for this.

This was the role of action-collaborative research, which in this space, shared between theory and practices, action and reflection, were being developed new knowledge, becoming new persons.

The dialogue was based on the perspective that we needed to advance in the stereotyped look, demystifying the disabled child as a fragile and painful body. We needed to provide stimuli, experiences, interaction, autonomy and contact with the world, in the dialectic relationship between the body and the environment (^{CINTRA; VEIGA; OLIVEIRA, 2015}).

We could not leave and bring the unleashing discussion of all this collaborative experience: the body in an inclusive perspective, which had in the process of discussion from start to finish. We highlight the following excerpts from the speeches:

I'm seeing another person, for sure. The opportunities experienced go beyond a physical structure and independent of the physical and intellectual conditions that present themselves. Body is all that we live and this is only possible when we give possibilities to this body in a playful, pleasurable way. We have learned to see this body differently. Certainly, all this experience will make a positive contribution in my pedagogical work (^{BROWN, 2018}).

[…]

The workshops provided a meaningful learning. Today, I realize how much the body and the cognition are inseparable and that the body is all its expression, even with its limitations. We were offered the possibilities of working body and cognition through games, songs of wheels, dynamics, stories, which is ours to do in early childhood Education. This relation between theory and practice that we learn in the workshops is essential. Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this learning group (^{LIGHT PINK, 2018}).

[…]

I am very happy. I have always considered the issue of corporeality to be important and, with these workshops, I could either rescue my knowledge and put into practice what I already believe in my pedagogical work. If we do not practice, we forget. If it is so pleasant for us to move the body, imagine to the children who are so active and full of energy. This body can not stand still on the chairs with, just playing with plasticine. Yes, we need to move more and more to try and to dare. Thank you for these moments so rich of joy, relaxation, experiences and possibilities pointed out from our experimentation (^{LIGHT GREEN, 2018}).

The Teacher Brown and Light-PinK have pointed out the rupture of the conception that the body is only this physical matter. To this end, they appropriated Merleau-Pontian thoughts and expressions to register their body understanding, starting from the phenomenological perspective, in which the brain is not a part of the body, it is the body.

Under this understanding, they also point out to us that our cognition and body are intertwined all the time. It emerges from corporeality, expressing itself in perception, sensations, emotions, values, giving space for learning to materialize. Thus, perception involves contact, without a relation of listening, seeing, touching, feeling, it is not possible to know the other (^{CARNEIRO, 2012}).

The excerpts from the speechs show us that we, once again, have a dialogue with all our categories of analysis: body-language, body-movement, body-inclusion and body-learning, the result of interaction with the subjects of intervention, in the field of investigative activity, and this look from the outside to inside. We know that we are facing a process that is happening in the long term, but we believe that these new looks can be strengthened in our teaching actions contributing to more effective educational practices.

Closing the curtains of the show: presenting the considerations

Through this research, we seek within the qualitative approach, through the bias of collaborative research-action, to develop a dialogic and dialectical relationship, promoting the encounter of voices and the encounter with the body, constructing this discursive chain, in a relation of meanings to the teaching practice.

From the reflections on the analyzes carried out, we realized that we had a great way ahead, to provoke (dis) constructions of certain concepts, understandings which we know is not an easy task, since we speak of the marks of our histories, of our learning, our lifelong experiences, however, we had the challenge of provoking uneasiness.

There was no way we could speak of the body without experience it, and we needed to bring it into practice, so that would be perceptible to our participants that the child with/without disability has its singularities and particularities. We present experiences that the child can not be conceived in a fragmented way, we are historical, social and cultural beings and materialized in front of our lived experiences that pass through our body and the child with Down syndrome is no different, his body needs to be experienced.

We can not maintain ourselves in the classroom with reductionist conceptions between right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, efficient and deficient, normal and abnormal. We need to provide experiences, considering their possibilities, their stories as individuals, as well as in the collective, we need to consider this body as full of purpose, physical, intellectual, affective needs that is immersed in a certain context, apprehending new languages, transforming reality and acquiring conditions to deal with oneself, the other and the world (^{MERLEAU-PONTY, 1999}).

The workshops were formative moments of great value, with intense and pleasant experiences, sustained by rich learning opportunities, we narrowed this formation in the certainty that each workshop made its mark, each present interlocutor left his color, every word said, every silent silence, each smile given were revealing and encouraging, so we can, from now on, try to do otherwise.