Sentido(s) de participação e controle em dicionários de/sobre saúde e língua

Abstract

The discursive question crosses the History of Ideas in Health, that is, the political, social and historical process of construction-institutionalization of ideas about/in health in Brazil, whose most recent milestone is the constitution of the Brazilian Sanitary Reform (RSB) and the Collective Health and, consequently, the Unified Health System. Particularly at RSB, the dispute for meanings was always on the agenda, both in the space for the production of new knowledge (which culminated in the constitution of Collective Health) and in the formulation of political strategies that would enable the advancement of the ongoing movement. It is in this double space that participation and control begin to circulate, as part of the RSB's claims, and since the first reformist conceptions, there was no agreement between the State (and its representatives) and the movement for the RSB, regarding this agenda. Bearing this in mind, and inserted in the line of research Politics and Management in Health of the Master's Course in Collective Health at the Federal University of Mato Grosso, the present study aims to understand the way in which participation and control mean/are meant in health dictionaries and language, between the 18th and 21st centuries. This is a discursive study, based on the theoretical-methodological assumptions of Michel Pêcheux's Discourse Analysis, in particular, based on the readings, displacements and theoretical advances produced by Eni Orlandi, in Brazil. The corpus of the present study is composed of 09 language dictionaries - Bluteau (1720), Moraes Silva (1789), Pinto (1832), Aulete (1881), Figueiredo (1913), Nascentes (1966), Aurélio (1972), Aurélio (1986) and Aurélio (1999) - and by 02 health dictionaries/DEPS - Pereira and Lima (2006) and Pereira and Lima (2008). The study made it possible to understand that participation refers to participating, as well as control refers to controlling, so that these entries are related. As an act and an effect, both participating and controlling imply action/movement, whose examples, mainly from the 20th and 20th centuries, mobilize economic-based meanings, which also support the denomination community/community participation. Participating, in its way of meaning, points to part, to communicate, to associate, which produce meanings of participating as a division and/or relationship. Control, on the other hand, points, among other things, to inspection, which implies examining, inspecting, observing, censoring, syndicating, and this penultimate definition was replaced by the last one, in the dictionaries created in the context of Brazilian redemocratization. This movement of reading the language(s) dictionaries is essential to broaden the understanding of how participation and control are meant in health, as it is necessary to take into account that these words already have meanings that cross them, even if unspoken. In health dictionaries, there are the entries social control and social participation, whose authors are located in the social and human sciences, and whose origin of the entries is attributed to sociology, which already defines a course of meanings, to the detriment of several other possible ones, such as those mobilized by community participation – whose basis is the international development project - and popular participation – which erupts with popular movements. Both social control and social participation, in the way they are said in the DEPS (2008) converge to the effect of institutionalizing participation spaces, such as health councils and conferences, and, for this very reason, are said to be synonymous. In this analysis gesture, we tried to show that words have a history, and that this history means when one or another word is selected. In addition, we try to show that they are affiliated to one or another region of meaning and, consequently, to one or another ideological formation, so that every taking of words is, at the same time, an affiliation to the meanings that it mobilizes. Thus, it is argued that any (health) policy is, rather, a language policy, a discursive policy, because, by “choosing” certain terms over others, by giving visibility to certain issues, silencing others, by “ choosing” a typology of participation over others, by “binding oneself” to a theory in the place of others, is already formulated from certain places, under given conditions: one enters the order of language, even if one does not say of/about her