Introduction

The history of teacher education courses in Brazil dates back to the nineteenth century, when the first Normal Schools were created, which is complicated by their entry into universities, in which there is now a more diverse educational offer that included not only the more general training present in the Normal Schools, but from specific areas of knowledge as well. Their inclusion reflected the demands that arose with the very transformations that occurred in the education system in the transition to the twentieth century.

With the advent of ‘colleges’, the ‘unidocent’ model for the serialization of educational institutions gradually ceased to be adopted (^{Saviani, 2007}). More and more teachers are required in specialized fields of knowledge, especially in secondary education, which is in tune with the very transformations that modernity produces in social life, based on the centrality that experts now have (^{Giddens, 1997}).

This was not a process of heterogeneous occurrence throughout Brazil, with several temporalities in its production. Certainly, the major centers eventually developed a model to be followed, especially in the case of the University of Brazil and the University of São Paulo, consolidating from the 1930s and 1940s a bachelor’s degree in a specialized field that preceded a didactic formation even in the case of the pedagogy course.

In the specific case of Santa Catarina, the experience of the so-called Santa Catarina Faculty of Philosophy (FCF) is noteworthy. Since the 1950s, it tried to respond to the demand for teacher education in the state, as well as the production and reproduction of local cultural elites. (^{Oliveira, 2018}). However, it is from the 1960s onwards that it starts offering a course in ‘didactics’, which in fact aimed at guaranteeing a ‘pedagogical’ formation for teachers trained in higher education, as well as a course in pedagogy, albeit as a baccalaureate.

Although this constituting a broader theme about the history of teacher education in the state, in the present work I limit myself more specifically to the analysis of the teaching of sociology in the course of ‘didactics’ which will be offered since 1960 at the Catarinense Faculty of Philosophy, but also considering the teaching of sociology in the pedagogy course, considering that the two chairs were taught by the same teacher. For this endeavor, I take as empirical basis the ‘teaching reports’ produced within this course, in order to try to capture the dynamics produced in this space, as well as the theoretical and thematic lines that were outlined in this course. The analysis undertaken aims, therefore, to carry out a sociological reflection on the history of the teaching of sociology in teacher education in Santa Catarina.

It is important to indicate from the outset that the present analysis is limited to the debate that has been elaborated about the history of the teaching of sociology in Brazil, a debate that has gained more and more prominence in both the social sciences and education field (^{Oliveira, 2013}). Therefore, it is, especially with this bibliography, about the history of the social sciences in Brazil and the history of the teaching of sociology that this text dialogues, without disregarding other debates that are relevant for a better understanding of the scenario in question.

The Catarinense Faculty of Philosophy in the context of higher education

In the light of the political, social and cultural transformations that Brazil underwent throughout the twentieth century, certainly the decade of the 1930s is one of the most decisive moments, since it marks the end of the Old Republic and the beginning of a new page in terms of federative pact, marked by the crisis of the traditional oligarchic system. In Santa Catarina, despite the distance from the federal capital and from São Paulo, there was also impact of these transformations.

One of the most significant aspects, at the point that interests us here, is the founding in 1932 of the Faculty of Law of Santa Catarina, which had as one of its supporters José Arthur Boiteux (1865-1934), who had also participated in the creation of the Catarinense Academy of Letters (ACL) in 1924. The fact was widely reported in the República, O Estado and A Pátria newspapers, which were the periodicals with daily circulation in the State Capital.

Also noteworthy is the fact that many of those involved in structuring higher education in Santa Catarina were part of other cultural institutions, such as the Santa Catarina Historical and Geographic Institute (IHGSC), founded in 1896, the Santa Catarina College, founded by Jesuit priests in 1905, in addition to the ACL itself. This shows how all these constituted spaces for the circulation of local cultural elites, who in many cases had done part of their academic formation abroad, in the capital of the country, or even in neighboring states, such as Paraná.

Likewise in the case of school education there were intense processes of modernization underway, especially from the reform of education carried out in 1935, known as ‘Trindade Reform’ (^{Decree No. 713, 1935}), promoted by Luiz Bezerra da Trindade, who was then Director of Public Education of the State of Santa Catarina, the Normal Schools were transformed into an Institute of Education, introducing in their curriculum the so-called ‘Ciências Fontes da Educação’, such as pedagogy, psychology, biology, history, philosophy and sociology (^{Daniel , 2003}). This reform also took as its model the Pedro II College itself, located in Rio de Janeiro, which had been impacted by the reforms promoted by Francisco Campos (1891-1968).

Other events also mark the process of state modernization and cultural agitation, such as the realization in 1948 of the Santa Catarina’s History Congress and the creation of the Santa Catarina Museum of Modern Art in the following year.

Between the 1940s and 1950s, the Faculties of Economic Sciences (1943), Pharmacy and Odontology (1947) and Medicine (1955) were created. In the case of the FCF, it was created in 1951, but its activities began only in 1955. The minutes of the FCF’s creation mention its possible incorporation to a future University of Santa Catarina, as well as the existence of a Faculty of Philosophy of Santa Catarina, created in 1948, but that never started its activities.

In the founding minutes of the FCF, dated September 8, 1951, it is stated that this institution aimed to “[...] provide the opportunity for scientifically oriented studies for those who, until now, only as self-taught reach the spheres of high culture” (Faculdade Santa Catarina de Fisolofia, 1951, s/p). Despite being a private institution with a strong Catholic orientation, there was also public funding for its operation. As one of its purposes would be the training of teachers for primary and secondary education, it was possibly expected that a significant part of its public would be held by graduates of the Normal Schools. Initially the FCF offered the courses of Philosophy, Geography and History, Classical Letters, Neolatine Letters and Anglo-Germanic Letters.

As this article will focus its analysis on the history of the sociology teaching of the didactics course, which started in 1960, it is interesting to note that only the philosophy course had a sociology chair, which had an annual character and was taught in the freshman year. The first responsible for the chair was Edmundo Acácio Moreira (1914-1986), who had a degree in law, something quite common among the first systematizers of sociology in Brazil (^{Cigales & Engerroff, 2016}). He also circulated extensively through other institutional spaces, since he was a professor at the Santa Catarina Law School, a member of the ACL, and had been on the first board of the Sectional Council of the Brazilian Order of Attorneys of Santa Catarina, having been its first vice president.

Despite initial expectations, with 40 vacancies per FCF course open, the reports presented indicate a relatively low demand for such courses. The selection competition provided for both essay and oral exams, from points drawn, varying the contents according to the intended course. In the first year there were only 80 approved, after a second qualification competition, a number that decreased dramatically in the following years. In addition, the qualification rate for the sophomore year was extremely low.

I hypothesize that part of this FCF ‘failure’ to regiment a larger number of students, at least at this early stage, was due to the enduring of the Normal School as a space for teacher training, as well as the Faculty of Law in the formation of cultural and political elites. Obviously, FCF had a distinct profile from these two other institutions, however, it is possible that the consolidation of this unique formative model took time to consolidate itself.

If we understand the institutionalization of the University as a late process in Brazil as a whole (^{Mendonça, 2000}), it is significant to realize that in Santa Catarina this is a phenomenon that takes time to consolidate, occurring only in the 1960s, following the model that had been widely adopted in Brazil, the junction and federalization of isolated colleges, turning them into universities. In the analysis undertaken by ^{Cunha (1983}) referring to this period, it is indicated that this expansion would be a response to a series of factors, such as the displacement of the social ascension channels of the middle classes, the expansion of secondary education, the equivalence process from the technical courses to the secondary course, mainly starting from the Law of Guidelines and Bases of 1961.

The creation of the didactics course

Apparently, there was a high expectation for the FCF to actually offer higher education qualifications for teaching, as this would be one of its purposes explicit from its inception. The suppression of this demand would occur through the widely adopted model of the country, known as ‘3+1’, in which the student would first take a bachelor’s degree, and then a one-year ‘completion’ course, this model had been popularized from the National Faculty of Philosophy (FNF) of the University of Brazil, since the late 1930s.

Nevertheless, when in 1958 the first groups of the FCF were graduating, there was not yet the long-awaited ‘didactics course’; the delay was apparently caused by difficulty in hiring teachers for the subjects, as one of the minutes of the College’s board, dated 1957, indicates “[...] it was not yet possible to request authorization for the operation of the Didactics course because, despite all the diligences made, the Board of Directors did not succeed in finding teachers for General Didactics and Psychology Applied to Education” (^{Santa Catarina Faculty of Philosophy, 1957 s/p})

It is on March 28, 1960 that the first classes of the didactics course began, which had 48 students from the different courses offered by the FCF. In this first year 10 were graduates of philosophy, 5 of geography and history, 4 of geography, 12 of history, 1 of the classical languages, 13 of the neolatine languages and 3 of the anglo-germanic languages. In the following years the number of enrollments declined, which also reflects the decrease in enrollment in the following years of the FCF. It is also in this context that the pedagogy course is created, also as a baccalaureate. The students of this course should later also take the didactics course.

The course consisted of the disciplines of sociological foundations of education, biological foundations of education, applied educational psychology, school administration and comparative education, general didactics, which accompanied the model instituted by the FNF, as well as special didactics: a) of geography and history ; b) of letters; c) of philosophy. The teachers of the first three subjects were from Florianópolis, while the others came from São Paulo, Curitiba and Rio de Janeiro, which demonstrates the production of some effort towards ensuring specialists in these areas for the course to function.

In order to ensure the practicality of the course, the state government authorized the use of the facilities of the Dias Velho School Group. It is important to note that ^{Decree-Law no. 9053} of March 12, 1946 obliged the Faculties of Philosophy to maintain an application gymnasium, aimed precisely at the practice of didactics. Although the legislation dates back to the 1940s, it is only with the creation of the didactics course that this issue emerges as a necessity.

^{Campos (2011}) links the emergence of these application gymnasiums to the context of the escolanovista⁶ ideal, whose milestone is the advent in 1946 of the application gymnasium of the University of Brazil. Furthermore, according to the author, the authorization for the operation of the application gymnasium in Florianópolis occurs only in 1961, however, only in 1963 that the teachers began to receive gratification for the classes taught. The first director of this institution was Professor Jamil El Jaick, who had been hired as a General Didactics teacher for the didactics course offered by FCF.

The consolidation of the didactics course, with all the infrastructure that required its operation, consolidates, therefore, already in the process of federalization and incorporation to the newly created Federal University of Santa Catarina, having been the first Faculty to be transferred to the ‘University City’.

The influence of the ideas present in the escolanovista movement is not only evident in the concern with the experimental character of the didactics course, but also by the disciplines that made up the course curriculum. The presence of the disciplines of sociology, biology and psychology applied to education seem to point to the idea that teacher education should address the issues that arise in the student’s reality at the biological, social and individual level, which would be made possible through scientific training.

There is also some continuity of the didactics course in relation to the curriculum that is now adopted by the Normal Schools in Santa Catarina from the Trinity Reform, still in the 1930s, which, in a way, allows us to realize the idea of consolidation of a modernizing project in the educational system. What interests us here is the shape that the sociology discipline takes on in this context, which will be explored in the next topic.

Notably, it is recognized that there are not only continuities, but also discontinuities in relation to the different proposals for teaching sociology, considering the very transformations sociology underwent between the 1930s, the period in which the first social science courses in the country were created, and the following decades, when the first generations of professional social scientists began to produce their research and disseminate their results, which was also accompanied by a significant expansion of the publishing market in this area (^{Villas Bôas, 2007}).

The teaching of sociology in the didactics course

As already indicated, in Santa Catarina sociology begins its teaching mainly linked to the Normal Schools in the context of teacher education, although it was not limited to this. In the context of the Trinity Reform, at the vocational Normal Schools, there would be three weekly sociology classes in the first year, and three more weekly classes in sociology of education in the second year.

^{Daros, Nascimento and Daniel (2000}) point out that the teaching of sociology at the Florianópolis Institute of Education during this period had an eminently Durkheimian orientation that enjoyed a prominent presence in the books of Fernando de Azevedo (1894-1974)⁷, while at the Heart of Jesus College, the discipline was understood as an aid to pedagogical studies, including the existence of records of Sociology Clubs, especially the presence of sociological books by Alceu Amoroso Lima (1893-1983), who recurrently adopted the alias of Tristan de Athayde in his publications (^{Daros and Pereira, 2015}).

This diversity of orientation reflects the very disputes that existed in this field, which perceived different purposes for sociological knowledge. The production of a certain ‘Christian sociology’ in this period can still be perceived through the production of sociology textbooks, which focused mainly on complementary courses, which were a prerequisite for access to higher education until 1942, and on the Normal Schools (^{Meucci, 2011}).

Other factors lie at the bottom of this relationship between sociology and education in Brazil, which at least since the Manifesto of Pioneers of New Education in 1932 are viscerally linked. Renowned authors from the social sciences, as in the case of Gilberto Freyre (1900-1987), came to work in the normal courses teaching sociology, demonstrating how relevant the insertion in the educational field was at that time for social scientists⁸.

n the following decades, the attempt to articulate education and the social sciences gained prominence, highlighting the experience of the Brazilian Center for Educational Research (CBPE)⁹, idealized by Anísio Teixeira, also linked to the escola nova. This Center aimed to conduct research that could underpin educational policies, gravitating around it important social scientists of the time, since this center had a bold proposal to articulate the social sciences with education (^{Silva, 2002}; ^{Bomeny, 2003}) . Although the discussion on the relations between Sociology and Education in Brazil is not pursued here, which would require a new work, pointing to these questions allows us to understand a little of the debate that occurred in the national scenario, as this process followed the expansion of sociology chairs in Brazil.

In higher education in Santa Catarina there were chairs of sociology at least since 1943 at the Faculty of Economic Sciences, and from 1955 at the FCF, along with the philosophy course. This implies that there was already some routinization of sociological knowledge in that context, with the circulation of categories, theories and authors. From the discipline program of Professor Edmundo Acácio Moreira, focused on the philosophy course, it can be inferred that the disciplinary boundaries were not so clearly delimited at that time. This also points to the various temporalities that the social sciences had in their institutionalization process, since in other centers there were already social science courses, as well as the granting of the title of master and doctor in this area by some institutions, such as São Paulo Free School of Sociology and Politics, the University of São Paulo and the University of Brazil.

I want to make it clear that the teaching of sociology in the didactics course possibly occurred in dialogue with what was being done locally and nationally. Both graduates of the Normal Schools, in the post-Reforma Teixeira context, who became FCF students, and the graduates in philosophy by this institution, came to the chair of sociological foundations of education with some prior knowledge of sociology.

The first teacher to take up this position was Emiliana Maria Simas Cardoso da Silva, who had a triple intellectual background in Philosophy from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (1954), Law from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (1956) and Didactics from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (1957). She also studied at the Oswaldo Aranha Normal School, between the late 1940s and early 1950s, where she possibly had her first contacts with sociology. Therefore, although she did not have an academic formation in the social sciences in the strict sense, she had a formation that developed, precisely, in important frontier spaces of sociological categories, such as the Normal School and the Faculty of Law. In addition, in the didactics course, which she had access to at PUC Rio Grande do Sul, there was the discipline of sociological foundations of education (^{Bastos, 2016}), which followed the FNF model.

It can be inferred that Emiliana Silva reproduced part of the training received in the courses she taught, however, to better understand this process would require a closer examination of the training she received in the institutions through which she went, especially PUC RS. Nevertheless, it is valid to recognize that at that time there was still an incipient publishing market in Brazil and a restricted university field, so that the production of some centers of knowledge occupied relatively hegemonic strategic positions that delineated a certain model of knowledge production in the field of sociology, establishing an agenda of themes and authors to be read and debated.

At least since 1956, the FCF required teachers of all subjects to send to the board a ‘detailed report on their teaching’, which should specify the taught part of the program. As the subjects had an annual character, there should be two reports to be delivered, one at mid-year and one at the end. This report did not have a fixed model, which produced some heterogeneity in the available data regarding the programs. Amid the material provided by the UFSC Central Archive, two reports were found, one dated June 8, 1960, the other dated October 31, 1960, both addressed to Henrique da Silva Fontes, then director of the FCF.

It is noteworthy that most of it is a very succinct type of material, so that an even more detailed analysis of this material would not be possible. The exercise attempted here is to articulate the existing data in this material with a broader discussion that places teaching within the scope of the history of the social sciences, something that is not yet recurrent in the analyses that turn to the debate of these sciences.

In her reports Professor Emiliana Silva divides her activities between the pedagogy and didactics course, the first report indicates that she has taught six of the thirteen topics planned for the pedagogy course, namely:

1º - Sociology, its concept, historical development, division, hierarchy. Relationship of sociology with other branches of knowledge.

2º - The various sociological schools.

3º - Methods of investigation in sociology.

4º - Social facts - Classification and characteristics.

5º - The society and its elements. Social groups.

6º - Factors that influence social life. Factors: biological, geographical, political, cultural, religious and moral. Social morphology and physiology.

Although there is no explicit reference to Durkheim’s work, the use of Durkheimian categories such as ‘social morphology and physiology’ is clearly noticeable, and especially the idea of ‘social facts’, since for ^{Durkheim (1895-2007}) sociology is defined as the science that studies social facts. The influence of French sociology on the formation of Brazilian sociology is widely known, which is even more incisive in the field of education, as ^{Nogueira (2011}) points out, Durkheim’s own work, Education and Sociology, was much more reprinted in Brazil than in France during the first half of the twentieth century (^{Durkheim, 1922-2011}). Moreover, among the sociology manuals produced between the 1920s and 1940s the influence of this French thinker is also significant (^{Meucci, 2011}). It could also be inferred that even the discussion of the ‘method of investigation in sociology’ had a decisive influence by ^{Durkheim (1895-2007}), especially through one of his most famous works, The Rules of Sociological Method.

The beginning of her course from the relationship of sociology with other sciences was also a common concern at the time, especially given the incipience of sociological science in Brazil, and the very self-taught character that marks the beginning of the institutionalization of sociology in Brazil. It would therefore be necessary to indicate where sociology approaches and how far it is from other sciences. Also according to the teacher “The second unit was examined at length so that students had an overview of the most representative currents of contemporary sociology” (^{Silva, 1960}a, s/p). This point is significant in indicating that the course was not circumscribed to classical sociology, which was the main tonic of Edmundo Acácio Moreira’s course, which showed a certain affinity with the discussions also held in other regions of the country, which in the 1950s and 1960s began to incorporate the debate of contemporary sociology, especially from the German, French and American origins (^{Villas Bôas, 2006}).

Regarding the didactics course, she indicates that there were 19 units planned, of which four were ‘exhausted’:

1º - Sociology - social science. Concept, history, division. Relationship of sociology with other branches of education. Sociology as an autonomous science. Its hierarchy.

2º - The object of Sociology - Social fact: concepts, characteristics and classification. Difference between individual and social.

3º - The problem of method in sociology. General and special methods. Sociogram.

4º - The society: elements, social groups. Factors of social life.

Unlike the pedagogical course, despite the obvious approximations and similarities of expected content, there was a clearer interface with the issue of teaching, which is explained in the first topic. Notably, the course should encompass something of general sociology, for only philosophy training guaranteed prior contact with sociology at a higher level. Another element that already emerges with an orientation in terms of application is the idea of sociogram, because, as the teacher explains: “Some of the lectures were used to teach the technique of sociogram, as we chose it for internship work [...]”. She also indicates that the results went beyond expectation “[…] either by the proper apprehension of the technique of the sociogram, or by the presentation and care that the works revealed” (^{Silva, 1960}a, s/p).

The second report states that four more points were taught from the program planned for the pedagogy course:

1º The Man - First social reality. Primitive social groups. Hypotheses about the appearance of man.

2º Family - first social group. Origin and evolution. Marriage and Divorce.

3º Demography - Population and its distribution. Static and dynamic demographics.

4º Political organization of society.

Apparently, while in the first semester the discipline of sociology turned to the delimitation of the discipline itself, in the second there was a more thematic emphasis, which turned to classical themes, which were also explored by other disciplines in other courses, such as the question of the origin of man, present in the chair of the physical anthropology program for the geography course, and in the chair of Brazilian ethnography for the history course. The family theme, which also encompassed contemporary issues such as the divorce debate, also seemed to be in tune with the Durkheimian framework pointed out in the first part of the program, although it cannot be said that this is a topic addressed exclusively by this sociological school.

Concerning the sociology program for the didactics course, the report indicates eight more points that were taught:

1º The various sociological currents.

2º Education as a social phenomenon. The sociological conception of the phenomenon of educating.

3º Education in primitive societies.

4º The integration of the individual in the group. The social development of the child.

5º The family. Educational social group. Origin of the family. The family and its educational background. Family educational rights.

6º The teacher as an agent of education. Qualities. The teacher as a social model.

7º School as a social institution. Difference between educating and instructing. Systematic and unsystematic education.

8º The community and education. The school as a miniature community. Urban and rural education. Relationship between the community and the school.

At the end, it is indicated that “The results of the Course were gauged through the students’ internship work in which they showed great achievements” (^{Silva, 1960}b, s / p). It can be inferred from this that the teaching of sociology focused on teacher education had, in this context, an eminently practical character, which should be evaluated not through theoretical works, at least not exclusively, but through the search for an applicability of sociological knowledge in educational reality. With this, it is also possible to perceive some influence of the escola nova on the conduct of these subjects.

The sociology course for the didactics course, therefore, sought to make a direct dialogue between sociology and education, discussing issues that went beyond an examination of school systems, entering a sociological reflection on the act of teaching, as well as on others. elements that affect the educational reality, such as the relationship with the community, the family, and the child’s development.

What can be perceived, therefore, is that sociology was perceived as a pragmatic, relating to the other sciences also taught in the didactics course, such as psychology, as the issue of ‘child development’ transpires. With this, it was sought to streamline and modernize teacher education, recovering a sense attributed to the introduction of sociology in the Normal Schools in the 1930s, which aimed to give it ‘sociological realism’ (^{Meucci, 2011}).

Notably, Santa Catarina was in a peripheral position in relation to the field of social sciences in Brazil, whereas in neighboring states there were already undergraduate courses in social sciences, such sciences in Santa Catarina were restricted to some chairs, having an auxiliary function in formative terms. It is only in the 1970s that there will be in Santa Catarina the creation of social science courses, at the University of the Planalto Catarinense, in the city of Lages, and at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, in Florianópolis, the latter being created at the Philosophy and Humanities Center, which originated from the FCF.

Concluding remarks

This brief work aimed to analyze the way in which the teaching of sociology in the FCF teacher education was given, which enables us to understand the dynamics of social sciences in the Santa Catarina context. Despite the widespread view that it is from the Rio-São Paulo axis, especially from São Paulo, that social sciences are consolidated in Brazil (^{Miceli, 1989}), it is interesting to note from this type of examination that in other spaces there was also an intense process of routinization of sociological knowledge.

Professor Emiliana Silva’s teaching reports on sociology point to a conception of sociology apparently linked to a more Durkheimian perspective, which would mark the scientific character of the chair. They also indicate an understanding of the sociology of education that goes beyond a sociology of the school system into a broader sociological reflection on educational processes, while the teaching of sociology for the pedagogy course turned to a broader discussion of the foundations of sociological science.

Last but not least, it is interesting to note that sociology represented a possibility of modernization of teacher education, which followed a broader model created from the FNF, to which Professor Emiliana Silva had access through the didactics course in PUC RS, although it cannot be assured solely from the material analyzed that there was a replication of her received formation. Thus, far from reproducing a ‘provincial’ model of scientific formation, the FCF didactics course, especially in the case of the sociology course analyzed here, points to a fineness with the academic debates held in the field of Brazilian social sciences. It thus distances itself from a spontaneous sociology (^{Bourdieu, Chamboredon & Passeron, 2007}), integrating the process of routinization and institutionalization of a scientific sociology, even though far from the major centers producing sociological knowledge in Brazil at that time.