Questõesde CÁSPER LÍBERO 2012

A schematic summary would say as follows: At a founding time, romantic fiction saw the peculiarities of the Brazilian family life under the picturesque and the national identity signs, over which it laid some more or less feuilletonist fabling. The combination, in line with the needs of the young country, was very successful. Although irreverent, the emphasis on mirroring and its somewhat regressive accomplice character formed a positive sign on our particular traits. One generation later, Machado used in a different manner the same thematic, ideological, and aesthetic complexity, this time without the covering mists of local color and patriotic self-congratulation. The large Brazilian family was now observed from the point of view of the enlightened dependent, who was part of it and transformed it into a problem. This is a special system of relationships, with its own structure, resources and problems, which needed to be analyzed. Its difference was a sign of primitiveness, because the tacit measure of the dependent was the Rights of Man, which were effective, in principle, in other regions. The narrator’s fondness shifted to the heroine’s struggles against injustice, which was also portrayed in a feuilletonist fashion. As for the opposing side, it was inevitable that the conflict arrangement, as it developed from book to book, made more visible the negative traits of the landowner. These traits absorbed and reflected precisely, as a fault, the absurd lack of balance between the classes. Using the consequences of this very lack of balance, which gave no signs of internal regeneration, Machado invented the formula that would characterize his mature works and make him a great writer. He did not surrender to the easy delights of romantic picturesqueness. Likewise, he now renounced the unanimous fondness towards the moderate narrator and his good causes.

The new artistic device dealt indirectly with dependents’ frustrations and directly with their abandonment by landowners – the peripheral society incapable of integration resonated. The scope of the formal arrangement, which challenged the secular spirit’s superstitions, especially the trust in progress and in benevolence, is uncomfortable to this day. The insinuating personification of an elite narrator enviably civilized and deeply involved in oppressive relationships, which he arranges and judges himself, is a chess move that disarranges the narrative board, making the game more real. The process challenges readers in every line: it teaches them to think by themselves; to discuss not only the issues, but also their presentation; to consider the narrators and authorities – always the interested party – from a distance, even if they are eloquent; to doubt the civilizing and national commitment of the privileged, particularly in young countries, where this intention plays a major role; to feel an aversion to the imaginary consolations of romanticism, manipulated by the narrative authority to its own benefit. The process teaches, above all, that the combination of the cosmopolitan and the excluded spheres may be stable, without a feasible solution. This demonstration is a juicy one because it illustrates and examines the nation’s “delicious” mechanisms – to use the Machadian term – of the non-bourgeois reproduction of the bourgeois order. However, the demonstration is also universal to some extent, because globally, unlike what it seems, this reproduction is the rule, not the exception.

The heroines of the first novels are not very interesting because their precarious social status is distorted by the romantic cliché. Their vicissitudes, however, stress the antagonistic class traits, whose figure has literary originality. In the novels of the second phase, once the angle is inverted, it is the poor who appear in the subjective mirror of owners, where the prisms are either that of bourgeois individualism or of paternalistic domination, according to the selfish convenience impudence. The dependent becomes extraordinarily relevant in that light. They are portraits of the powerless that get no recognition for the value of work, no rights protected, and no compensation by divine providence. It is the social vacuum generated by modern slavery to freedom without possessions, another issue that, mutatis mutandis, lives on.

In the same line of advanced resonance of the primitiveness, notice how the extra bourgeois aspect of local issues works, and also the narrative relationship itself: at times it is only a shift in the rule; at times it is a movement in its own right, which escapes the dominating definitions and discovers unknown land. To give an idea, compare the part of authority in the definition and dissolution of characters, themselves or others; the relationships between personal separation and the experience of time, between command and insanity – often by the ones in charge; the extra scientific dimensions of science, with its authoritarian and sadistic roles; the overall difference that generates a point of view, etc. In this manner, Machadian fiction and the advanced literature of his time converged – both tried to release other realities under the bourgeois reality. As a mere indication, it is worth mentioning a few similarities, rather at random, in the innovative field, such as Dostoievski, Baudelaire, Henry James, Tchekov, Proust, Kafka, and Borges. Machado’s classical derivations are countless and have led critics to find his merit there, which hinders the understanding of the up-todateness and advanced character of his experimentation. 

A schematic summary would say as follows: At a founding time, romantic fiction saw the peculiarities of the Brazilian family life under the picturesque and the national identity signs, over which it laid some more or less feuilletonist fabling. The combination, in line with the needs of the young country, was very successful. Although irreverent, the emphasis on mirroring and its somewhat regressive accomplice character formed a positive sign on our particular traits. One generation later, Machado used in a different manner the same thematic, ideological, and aesthetic complexity, this time without the covering mists of local color and patriotic self-congratulation. The large Brazilian family was now observed from the point of view of the enlightened dependent, who was part of it and transformed it into a problem. This is a special system of relationships, with its own structure, resources and problems, which needed to be analyzed. Its difference was a sign of primitiveness, because the tacit measure of the dependent was the Rights of Man, which were effective, in principle, in other regions. The narrator’s fondness shifted to the heroine’s struggles against injustice, which was also portrayed in a feuilletonist fashion. As for the opposing side, it was inevitable that the conflict arrangement, as it developed from book to book, made more visible the negative traits of the landowner. These traits absorbed and reflected precisely, as a fault, the absurd lack of balance between the classes. Using the consequences of this very lack of balance, which gave no signs of internal regeneration, Machado invented the formula that would characterize his mature works and make him a great writer. He did not surrender to the easy delights of romantic picturesqueness. Likewise, he now renounced the unanimous fondness towards the moderate narrator and his good causes.

The new artistic device dealt indirectly with dependents’ frustrations and directly with their abandonment by landowners – the peripheral society incapable of integration resonated. The scope of the formal arrangement, which challenged the secular spirit’s superstitions, especially the trust in progress and in benevolence, is uncomfortable to this day. The insinuating personification of an elite narrator enviably civilized and deeply involved in oppressive relationships, which he arranges and judges himself, is a chess move that disarranges the narrative board, making the game more real. The process challenges readers in every line: it teaches them to think by themselves; to discuss not only the issues, but also their presentation; to consider the narrators and authorities – always the interested party – from a distance, even if they are eloquent; to doubt the civilizing and national commitment of the privileged, particularly in young countries, where this intention plays a major role; to feel an aversion to the imaginary consolations of romanticism, manipulated by the narrative authority to its own benefit. The process teaches, above all, that the combination of the cosmopolitan and the excluded spheres may be stable, without a feasible solution. This demonstration is a juicy one because it illustrates and examines the nation’s “delicious” mechanisms – to use the Machadian term – of the non-bourgeois reproduction of the bourgeois order. However, the demonstration is also universal to some extent, because globally, unlike what it seems, this reproduction is the rule, not the exception.

The heroines of the first novels are not very interesting because their precarious social status is distorted by the romantic cliché. Their vicissitudes, however, stress the antagonistic class traits, whose figure has literary originality. In the novels of the second phase, once the angle is inverted, it is the poor who appear in the subjective mirror of owners, where the prisms are either that of bourgeois individualism or of paternalistic domination, according to the selfish convenience impudence. The dependent becomes extraordinarily relevant in that light. They are portraits of the powerless that get no recognition for the value of work, no rights protected, and no compensation by divine providence. It is the social vacuum generated by modern slavery to freedom without possessions, another issue that, mutatis mutandis, lives on.

In the same line of advanced resonance of the primitiveness, notice how the extra bourgeois aspect of local issues works, and also the narrative relationship itself: at times it is only a shift in the rule; at times it is a movement in its own right, which escapes the dominating definitions and discovers unknown land. To give an idea, compare the part of authority in the definition and dissolution of characters, themselves or others; the relationships between personal separation and the experience of time, between command and insanity – often by the ones in charge; the extra scientific dimensions of science, with its authoritarian and sadistic roles; the overall difference that generates a point of view, etc. In this manner, Machadian fiction and the advanced literature of his time converged – both tried to release other realities under the bourgeois reality. As a mere indication, it is worth mentioning a few similarities, rather at random, in the innovative field, such as Dostoievski, Baudelaire, Henry James, Tchekov, Proust, Kafka, and Borges. Machado’s classical derivations are countless and have led critics to find his merit there, which hinders the understanding of the up-todateness and advanced character of his experimentation. 

A schematic summary would say as follows: At a founding time, romantic fiction saw the peculiarities of the Brazilian family life under the picturesque and the national identity signs, over which it laid some more or less feuilletonist fabling. The combination, in line with the needs of the young country, was very successful. Although irreverent, the emphasis on mirroring and its somewhat regressive accomplice character formed a positive sign on our particular traits. One generation later, Machado used in a different manner the same thematic, ideological, and aesthetic complexity, this time without the covering mists of local color and patriotic self-congratulation. The large Brazilian family was now observed from the point of view of the enlightened dependent, who was part of it and transformed it into a problem. This is a special system of relationships, with its own structure, resources and problems, which needed to be analyzed. Its difference was a sign of primitiveness, because the tacit measure of the dependent was the Rights of Man, which were effective, in principle, in other regions. The narrator’s fondness shifted to the heroine’s struggles against injustice, which was also portrayed in a feuilletonist fashion. As for the opposing side, it was inevitable that the conflict arrangement, as it developed from book to book, made more visible the negative traits of the landowner. These traits absorbed and reflected precisely, as a fault, the absurd lack of balance between the classes. Using the consequences of this very lack of balance, which gave no signs of internal regeneration, Machado invented the formula that would characterize his mature works and make him a great writer. He did not surrender to the easy delights of romantic picturesqueness. Likewise, he now renounced the unanimous fondness towards the moderate narrator and his good causes.

The new artistic device dealt indirectly with dependents’ frustrations and directly with their abandonment by landowners – the peripheral society incapable of integration resonated. The scope of the formal arrangement, which challenged the secular spirit’s superstitions, especially the trust in progress and in benevolence, is uncomfortable to this day. The insinuating personification of an elite narrator enviably civilized and deeply involved in oppressive relationships, which he arranges and judges himself, is a chess move that disarranges the narrative board, making the game more real. The process challenges readers in every line: it teaches them to think by themselves; to discuss not only the issues, but also their presentation; to consider the narrators and authorities – always the interested party – from a distance, even if they are eloquent; to doubt the civilizing and national commitment of the privileged, particularly in young countries, where this intention plays a major role; to feel an aversion to the imaginary consolations of romanticism, manipulated by the narrative authority to its own benefit. The process teaches, above all, that the combination of the cosmopolitan and the excluded spheres may be stable, without a feasible solution. This demonstration is a juicy one because it illustrates and examines the nation’s “delicious” mechanisms – to use the Machadian term – of the non-bourgeois reproduction of the bourgeois order. However, the demonstration is also universal to some extent, because globally, unlike what it seems, this reproduction is the rule, not the exception.

The heroines of the first novels are not very interesting because their precarious social status is distorted by the romantic cliché. Their vicissitudes, however, stress the antagonistic class traits, whose figure has literary originality. In the novels of the second phase, once the angle is inverted, it is the poor who appear in the subjective mirror of owners, where the prisms are either that of bourgeois individualism or of paternalistic domination, according to the selfish convenience impudence. The dependent becomes extraordinarily relevant in that light. They are portraits of the powerless that get no recognition for the value of work, no rights protected, and no compensation by divine providence. It is the social vacuum generated by modern slavery to freedom without possessions, another issue that, mutatis mutandis, lives on.

In the same line of advanced resonance of the primitiveness, notice how the extra bourgeois aspect of local issues works, and also the narrative relationship itself: at times it is only a shift in the rule; at times it is a movement in its own right, which escapes the dominating definitions and discovers unknown land. To give an idea, compare the part of authority in the definition and dissolution of characters, themselves or others; the relationships between personal separation and the experience of time, between command and insanity – often by the ones in charge; the extra scientific dimensions of science, with its authoritarian and sadistic roles; the overall difference that generates a point of view, etc. In this manner, Machadian fiction and the advanced literature of his time converged – both tried to release other realities under the bourgeois reality. As a mere indication, it is worth mentioning a few similarities, rather at random, in the innovative field, such as Dostoievski, Baudelaire, Henry James, Tchekov, Proust, Kafka, and Borges. Machado’s classical derivations are countless and have led critics to find his merit there, which hinders the understanding of the up-todateness and advanced character of his experimentation. 

A schematic summary would say as follows: At a founding time, romantic fiction saw the peculiarities of the Brazilian family life under the picturesque and the national identity signs, over which it laid some more or less feuilletonist fabling. The combination, in line with the needs of the young country, was very successful. Although irreverent, the emphasis on mirroring and its somewhat regressive accomplice character formed a positive sign on our particular traits. One generation later, Machado used in a different manner the same thematic, ideological, and aesthetic complexity, this time without the covering mists of local color and patriotic self-congratulation. The large Brazilian family was now observed from the point of view of the enlightened dependent, who was part of it and transformed it into a problem. This is a special system of relationships, with its own structure, resources and problems, which needed to be analyzed. Its difference was a sign of primitiveness, because the tacit measure of the dependent was the Rights of Man, which were effective, in principle, in other regions. The narrator’s fondness shifted to the heroine’s struggles against injustice, which was also portrayed in a feuilletonist fashion. As for the opposing side, it was inevitable that the conflict arrangement, as it developed from book to book, made more visible the negative traits of the landowner. These traits absorbed and reflected precisely, as a fault, the absurd lack of balance between the classes. Using the consequences of this very lack of balance, which gave no signs of internal regeneration, Machado invented the formula that would characterize his mature works and make him a great writer. He did not surrender to the easy delights of romantic picturesqueness. Likewise, he now renounced the unanimous fondness towards the moderate narrator and his good causes.

The new artistic device dealt indirectly with dependents’ frustrations and directly with their abandonment by landowners – the peripheral society incapable of integration resonated. The scope of the formal arrangement, which challenged the secular spirit’s superstitions, especially the trust in progress and in benevolence, is uncomfortable to this day. The insinuating personification of an elite narrator enviably civilized and deeply involved in oppressive relationships, which he arranges and judges himself, is a chess move that disarranges the narrative board, making the game more real. The process challenges readers in every line: it teaches them to think by themselves; to discuss not only the issues, but also their presentation; to consider the narrators and authorities – always the interested party – from a distance, even if they are eloquent; to doubt the civilizing and national commitment of the privileged, particularly in young countries, where this intention plays a major role; to feel an aversion to the imaginary consolations of romanticism, manipulated by the narrative authority to its own benefit. The process teaches, above all, that the combination of the cosmopolitan and the excluded spheres may be stable, without a feasible solution. This demonstration is a juicy one because it illustrates and examines the nation’s “delicious” mechanisms – to use the Machadian term – of the non-bourgeois reproduction of the bourgeois order. However, the demonstration is also universal to some extent, because globally, unlike what it seems, this reproduction is the rule, not the exception.

The heroines of the first novels are not very interesting because their precarious social status is distorted by the romantic cliché. Their vicissitudes, however, stress the antagonistic class traits, whose figure has literary originality. In the novels of the second phase, once the angle is inverted, it is the poor who appear in the subjective mirror of owners, where the prisms are either that of bourgeois individualism or of paternalistic domination, according to the selfish convenience impudence. The dependent becomes extraordinarily relevant in that light. They are portraits of the powerless that get no recognition for the value of work, no rights protected, and no compensation by divine providence. It is the social vacuum generated by modern slavery to freedom without possessions, another issue that, mutatis mutandis, lives on.

In the same line of advanced resonance of the primitiveness, notice how the extra bourgeois aspect of local issues works, and also the narrative relationship itself: at times it is only a shift in the rule; at times it is a movement in its own right, which escapes the dominating definitions and discovers unknown land. To give an idea, compare the part of authority in the definition and dissolution of characters, themselves or others; the relationships between personal separation and the experience of time, between command and insanity – often by the ones in charge; the extra scientific dimensions of science, with its authoritarian and sadistic roles; the overall difference that generates a point of view, etc. In this manner, Machadian fiction and the advanced literature of his time converged – both tried to release other realities under the bourgeois reality. As a mere indication, it is worth mentioning a few similarities, rather at random, in the innovative field, such as Dostoievski, Baudelaire, Henry James, Tchekov, Proust, Kafka, and Borges. Machado’s classical derivations are countless and have led critics to find his merit there, which hinders the understanding of the up-todateness and advanced character of his experimentation. 

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

Nascido inicialmente das contradições entre uma ordem liberal formal e uma realidade escravista, o jeitinho transformou-se em código geral de sociabilidade.

Recordo um caso pessoal, passado há muito tempo. Eu trabalhava com Celso Furtado (rigorosamente antijeitinho), que recebia um diretor do Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento, por sinal um conterrâneo seu. Este, vendo-me por perto, e julgando que eu não era parte da conversa, pediu-me água. Pediu a primeira, a segunda e a terceira vez. Fui obrigado a dizer-lhe que não confundisse gentileza com servilismo, e que da próxima vez ele mesmo se servisse. Não ocorria àquele senhor que alguém que não fosse da sua grei pudesse tomar parte de uma conversa com altos representantes da banca interamericana. A origem do jeitinho, assim como a da cordialidade teorizada por Sérgio Buarque, se explica pela incompletude das relações mercantis capitalistas. Parece sempre que as pessoas estão “sobrando”. Elas são como que resquícios de relações não mercantis, não cabem no universo da civilidade. E às pessoas que sobram pode ser pedida qualquer coisa, já que é obrigação do dominado servir ao dominante.

Qualquer reunião brasileira está cheia de batidinhas nas costas na hora do cumprimento, impondo logo de saída uma intimidade que é intimatória e intimidatória. Um dos cumprimentos mais característicos de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, por exemplo, é bater com as costas da mão na barriga dos interlocutores. Mesmo em encontros formais, o primeiro gesto de Lula ao se aproximar de qualquer pessoa é tocar-lhe a barriga.

A matriz desses gestos encontra-se evidentemente no longo período escravagista. Nele, o corpo dos negros era propriedade, podia ser tocado e usado. O surpreendente é que esses gestos e costumes tenham persistido ao longo de 100 anos de vigência de um capitalismo pleno. O escravismo e a escravidão não explicam inteiramente a “longa duração” da informalidade generalizada e dos hábitos que a acompanham. Os Estados Unidos tiveram um sistema escravista que chegou até a organizar fazendas de criação de negros. A ruptura com o escravismo custou à nação norte-americana uma guerra civil que deixou marcas até hoje. Mas o jeitinho não foi o expediente que usaram para superar os problemas colocados pelo capitalismo que avança.

Aqui, o jeitinho das classes dominantes se impôs na abolição da escravatura. Primeiro veio a Lei do Ventre Livre: garotos e garotas negros eram libertados em meio à escravidão. Mas como inexistia a perspectiva de terem terra, emprego ou salário, a libertação não lhes servia para quase nada. 

Depois veio a Lei dos Sexagenários. Aos 60 anos, os negros que ainda estivessem vivos eram libertados. Ora, já se sabia que a vida média de um escravo não alcançava os 40 anos. Como mostrou Luiz Felipe de Alencastro em O Tratado dos Viventes, depois de décadas de labuta no eito, o consumo do trabalho pelo capital não era uma metáfora: o negro era um molambo de gente, e não um homem livre, mesmo quando libertado pela Lei dos Sexagenários.

O que parecia cautela e previsão era, na verdade, o jeitinho (e o jeitão) em movimento. Gradualmente, até a chamada Lei Áurea, a escravidão persistiu. Isso criou uma superpopulação trabalhadora que o sistema produtivo não tinha como incorporar. Com a industrialização, tão sonhada pelos modernos, o problema se agravou. Tendo que copiar uma industrialização de matriz exógena, que tende sempre à economia do trabalho, os excedentes populacionais cresceram exponencialmente.

Assim, o chamado trabalho informal tornou-se estrutural no capitalismo brasileiro. É ele que regula a taxa de salários, e não as normas trabalhistas fundadas por Vargas. A partir daí todas as burlas são permitidas e estimuladas. A pergunta que um candidato a emprego mais ouve é: com carteira ou sem carteira? O funcionário com carteira resulta em descontos para a Previdência. Ou, se o salário for um pouquinho melhor, até para o Imposto de Renda. A resposta do candidato ao emprego é óbvia: sem carteira.

Quando o trabalhador ou trabalhadora que têm consciência dos seus direitos recusam o emprego sem carteira, às vezes, escutam “malandro, não quer trabalhar”.

Em qualquer setor, em qualquer atividade, o jeitinho se impõe. O executivo de terno italiano de grife, o apresentador da televisão e a atriz de um musical não são assalariados. São pessoas jurídicas, PJs, unicamente para que empresas paguem menos impostos. Advogados, dentistas e prestadores de serviços oferecem seus préstimos com ou sem recibo, e esse último é mais barato. Bancários, telefonistas, vendedores e outras tantas categorias viram sua profissão periclitar: eles são agora atendentes de call centers, terceirizados por grandes empresas. O jeitinho é a regra não escrita, sem exigência legal, mas seguida ao pé da letra nas relações micro e macrossociais. Está tão estabelecido, é tão natural que estranhá-lo (hoje menos do que ontem, reconheça-se) pode ser entendido como pedantismo, arrogância ou ignorância: “Nego metido a besta”, é a sentença. A não resolução da questão do trabalho, o seu estatuto social, é no fundo a matriz do jeitinho. Simpático, ele é uma das maiores marcas do moderno atraso brasileiro. (Francisco de Oliveira, revista piauí n. 73, outubro 2012, excerto). 

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

Nascido inicialmente das contradições entre uma ordem liberal formal e uma realidade escravista, o jeitinho transformou-se em código geral de sociabilidade.

Recordo um caso pessoal, passado há muito tempo. Eu trabalhava com Celso Furtado (rigorosamente antijeitinho), que recebia um diretor do Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento, por sinal um conterrâneo seu. Este, vendo-me por perto, e julgando que eu não era parte da conversa, pediu-me água. Pediu a primeira, a segunda e a terceira vez. Fui obrigado a dizer-lhe que não confundisse gentileza com servilismo, e que da próxima vez ele mesmo se servisse. Não ocorria àquele senhor que alguém que não fosse da sua grei pudesse tomar parte de uma conversa com altos representantes da banca interamericana. A origem do jeitinho, assim como a da cordialidade teorizada por Sérgio Buarque, se explica pela incompletude das relações mercantis capitalistas. Parece sempre que as pessoas estão “sobrando”. Elas são como que resquícios de relações não mercantis, não cabem no universo da civilidade. E às pessoas que sobram pode ser pedida qualquer coisa, já que é obrigação do dominado servir ao dominante.

Qualquer reunião brasileira está cheia de batidinhas nas costas na hora do cumprimento, impondo logo de saída uma intimidade que é intimatória e intimidatória. Um dos cumprimentos mais característicos de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, por exemplo, é bater com as costas da mão na barriga dos interlocutores. Mesmo em encontros formais, o primeiro gesto de Lula ao se aproximar de qualquer pessoa é tocar-lhe a barriga.

A matriz desses gestos encontra-se evidentemente no longo período escravagista. Nele, o corpo dos negros era propriedade, podia ser tocado e usado. O surpreendente é que esses gestos e costumes tenham persistido ao longo de 100 anos de vigência de um capitalismo pleno. O escravismo e a escravidão não explicam inteiramente a “longa duração” da informalidade generalizada e dos hábitos que a acompanham. Os Estados Unidos tiveram um sistema escravista que chegou até a organizar fazendas de criação de negros. A ruptura com o escravismo custou à nação norte-americana uma guerra civil que deixou marcas até hoje. Mas o jeitinho não foi o expediente que usaram para superar os problemas colocados pelo capitalismo que avança.

Aqui, o jeitinho das classes dominantes se impôs na abolição da escravatura. Primeiro veio a Lei do Ventre Livre: garotos e garotas negros eram libertados em meio à escravidão. Mas como inexistia a perspectiva de terem terra, emprego ou salário, a libertação não lhes servia para quase nada. 

Depois veio a Lei dos Sexagenários. Aos 60 anos, os negros que ainda estivessem vivos eram libertados. Ora, já se sabia que a vida média de um escravo não alcançava os 40 anos. Como mostrou Luiz Felipe de Alencastro em O Tratado dos Viventes, depois de décadas de labuta no eito, o consumo do trabalho pelo capital não era uma metáfora: o negro era um molambo de gente, e não um homem livre, mesmo quando libertado pela Lei dos Sexagenários.

O que parecia cautela e previsão era, na verdade, o jeitinho (e o jeitão) em movimento. Gradualmente, até a chamada Lei Áurea, a escravidão persistiu. Isso criou uma superpopulação trabalhadora que o sistema produtivo não tinha como incorporar. Com a industrialização, tão sonhada pelos modernos, o problema se agravou. Tendo que copiar uma industrialização de matriz exógena, que tende sempre à economia do trabalho, os excedentes populacionais cresceram exponencialmente.

Assim, o chamado trabalho informal tornou-se estrutural no capitalismo brasileiro. É ele que regula a taxa de salários, e não as normas trabalhistas fundadas por Vargas. A partir daí todas as burlas são permitidas e estimuladas. A pergunta que um candidato a emprego mais ouve é: com carteira ou sem carteira? O funcionário com carteira resulta em descontos para a Previdência. Ou, se o salário for um pouquinho melhor, até para o Imposto de Renda. A resposta do candidato ao emprego é óbvia: sem carteira.

Quando o trabalhador ou trabalhadora que têm consciência dos seus direitos recusam o emprego sem carteira, às vezes, escutam “malandro, não quer trabalhar”.

Em qualquer setor, em qualquer atividade, o jeitinho se impõe. O executivo de terno italiano de grife, o apresentador da televisão e a atriz de um musical não são assalariados. São pessoas jurídicas, PJs, unicamente para que empresas paguem menos impostos. Advogados, dentistas e prestadores de serviços oferecem seus préstimos com ou sem recibo, e esse último é mais barato. Bancários, telefonistas, vendedores e outras tantas categorias viram sua profissão periclitar: eles são agora atendentes de call centers, terceirizados por grandes empresas. O jeitinho é a regra não escrita, sem exigência legal, mas seguida ao pé da letra nas relações micro e macrossociais. Está tão estabelecido, é tão natural que estranhá-lo (hoje menos do que ontem, reconheça-se) pode ser entendido como pedantismo, arrogância ou ignorância: “Nego metido a besta”, é a sentença. A não resolução da questão do trabalho, o seu estatuto social, é no fundo a matriz do jeitinho. Simpático, ele é uma das maiores marcas do moderno atraso brasileiro. (Francisco de Oliveira, revista piauí n. 73, outubro 2012, excerto).