It is that the autonomy is not a definition of the characteristics of the individuals, but the way with that these if constitute of the form of if relating. (2002, P. 197). When we affirm that somebody possesss autonomy or is independent, we imagine that this possesss an absolute freedom almost that to act or to develop definitive task or activity. We associate its form of being to somebody that possesss ' ' poder' ' thus to proceed or to be. A citizen capable to move different obstacles that if present for its potentialities or qualities of one determined function that occupies. This conception ' ' absoluta' ' , ' ' idealista' ' of autonomy, when in the real and concrete dimension of the relations with the world and the people not effective.

The autonomy does not have to see with the inquebrantvel of the conditions and the absence of unreliabilities, but with the chance and the desire in such a way to consider the certainties how much to the unreliabilities in substance of professional work, facing them and problematizando them. To recognize them, to understand them and to understand to we ourselves between them are not possible without other perspectives, other colleagues, other people. (CONTRERAS, 2002, P. 211). Absolute autonomy is not possible, whenever we will be to speak in autonomy we have that to consider it relative. In accordance with Cassol (2006), the autonomy cannot be considered absolute, nor neither full. Of this form one would be contradicting the present dialectic of the existence human being and, therefore, in its relations and interactions with the way. It is not possible to plenificar the citizen with a period of training of full autonomy, nor permanent. The proper fact of the individual to conquer the citizen condition condition that for the proper essence will not leave to never escape if constitutes in relative autonomy.

Comments are closed.