As obras disponibilizadas nesta Biblioteca Digital foram publicadas sob expressa autorização dos respectivos autores, em conformidade com a Lei 9610/98.
A consulta aos textos, permitida por seus respectivos autores, é livre, bem como a impressão de trechos ou de um exemplar completo exclusivamente para uso próprio. Não são permitidas a impressão e a reprodução de obras completas com qualquer outra finalidade que não o uso próprio de quem imprime.
A reprodução de pequenos trechos, na forma de citações em trabalhos de terceiros que não o próprio autor do texto consultado,é permitida, na medida justificada para a compreeensão da citação e mediante a informação, junto à citação, do nome do autor do texto original, bem como da fonte da pesquisa.
A violação de direitos autorais é passível de sanções civis e penais.
This doctoral thesis is based on the assumption that preconceived opinions about deafness continue to be repeated in assertions and felt by deaf people, despite the progress of discussions on differences. The main point of the research is how prejudice originates against/among deaf students. The purpose is to understand this phenomenon, describing it, identifying its expressions in the discourse of teachers, analyzing how deaf students perceive and assess this process and contributing to an education against prejudice. The prejudice concept was examined through different perspectives − Gordon Allport, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Hannah Arendt, Arnold Rose, Agnes Heller, among others. As prejudice is at times expressed in speech, interviews were regarded as an essential procedure. The participants in this study were: five adult deaf students, five teachers of deaf youngsters and adults, and five teachers engaged in Educação de Jovens e Adultos (EJA) Education of Youngsters and Adults who had never taught deaf students. Interviews were based on a socio-historical approach and, being semi-structured, they followed a guiding script. The conclusion was that deaf students have difficulty in perceiving prejudice because they do not share the language with the prejudiced person but, at the same time, they do notice the phenomenon through imaginary concepts and inferences. They perceived more prejudice against them in previous schools in which they interacted with students who were not deaf. On the other hand, they affirmed that even among deaf individuals there are prejudiced expressions, which proves they are not immune to prejudice, even suffering from it. They pointed out that they may react to prejudice with disdain, through dialogue, by means of legal remedies, blaming God or using physical violence. They affirmed that, even in times that supposedly value socio-educative inclusion, there is still no understanding, dialogue or change. In turn, teachers elaborate prejudice conceptions that do not directly match the prejudice they express. Half of them assumed to be prejudiced; however, in their discourse, consistent with the politically correct behavior, they showed their prejudice either in a secret or revealed way; sometimes implied and sometimes expressed. And, at times all that simultaneously, in a true hide-andseek game. The conclusion was that the experience with deaf students does not increase prejudice, but it may favor either its strength or its forced deconstruction.
The lack of interchange, on the other hand, tends to reinforce the continuation of past and not reelaborated judgments, thus blocking (new) personal experiences with deaf students.