Customs are “smoke curtain” that help to galvanize base and “concurate” opposition, says anthropologist. Electing symbols is “typical of authoritarian governments, says Professor
São Paulo
The political news was dyed blue and pink and sprinkled with words and terms so far foreign to Brazilian vocabulary – “Cultural Marxism”, “Oikophobia” and “gender ideology”, which has been known since the electoral campaign. The symbolic flood was part of the Blietzkrieg of President Jair Bolsonaro in his early days of power, in which he edited provisional measure suppressing mentions to the Lgbtts population in the folder of human rights, as well as weaking the situation of Indians and Quilombolas and Abolish the Ministry of Culture and Labor. In the context of the colors was evident the repudiation to the red, associated with the PT and the “socialism” that say to have been installed in the country. The captain’s Chromophobia was from the already classic catchphrase “Our flag will never be red”, said in possession, to the exchange of chairs of the Alvorada Palace by Blue equivalents. The Minister of the woman, family and Human rights folder reinforced the message, establishing a palette of colors appropriate for each sex: “Boy wears blue, girl wears pink”. What is behind this strategy and what are the consequences of it, even for the opposition?
EL PAÍS was listening to some analysts to start the debate. First, he opines Roberto Romano, professor of ethics and philosophy at the State University of Campinas, the tactic is not new. “This has been a weapon of the entire government of authoritarian inspiration who wishes to impose symbols on the society he will administer,” Romano says. According to him, the practice comes from the “Middle Ages with the Holy inquisition of the Church”, and it is an “attempt to generate symbols that define a certain solidarity and support to a government that seeks legitimacy”. Romano points out that this strategy was used “in fascism, Nazism and Stalinism, with the manipulation of a plethora of symbols, ranging from gestures to colors, vestments, architecture.” “The authoritarian regime depends on the mastery of image and language. What we see in the Bolsonaro case is an attempt to pass key words that define adherence to the new rulers. It is the case of the term ‘ politically correct ‘, ‘ socialism ‘, ‘ cultural Marxism ‘ and ‘ gender ideology ‘, “he says.
The effectiveness of this symbolic discourse depends on the creation of an “enemy”. “Then you throw all the mistakes and weaknesses to the other side, and it shows how pure. They speak of ‘ disideologizing ‘ the state, as if the blue chairs were not ideological. They’re highly ideological chairs. School without a party isn’t ideological? The point is, as the cartoonist Millor Fernandes said, ‘ ideology is always that of others, ‘ says Romano.
If in the internal front, the enemy chosen by Bolsonarism is the PT and the fictional socialism that Lula’s party would have implemented in all the arms of the State, from education to Petrobras, the external enemy is “globalism”, criticized by the new chancellor Ernesto Araújo. “President Bolsonaro is releasing Brazil through truth. We will release the Brazilian foreign policy and free the Itamaraty, “he said at the inauguration ceremony. “The problem of the world is not xenophobia, but Oikophobia, which is to hate the home itself, the people itself, to tripudify the nation itself.” Finally, Araújo has amended a “our flag will never be red”, in line with the bolsonist discourse. But he did a caveat: “except if it’s the international one,” Your heart club.
For the anthropologist Piero Leirner, Bolsonaro’s symbolic strategy can also be linked to another, more complex. “It’s just another extension of the campaign tactics. Another one of these smoke curtains that forces a polarisation with ‘ identitarists ‘ sectors and all sorts of agents, be they politicians, blogs, press, and ‘ famous, ‘ says Leirner, professor at the Federal University of São Carlos and a specialist in military strategy . This would have two final goals, according to the teacher: “In the first place obliteration all the actions being carried out the touch of cash in the colonization of strategic sectors, such as energy, technology, education, geopolitics and foreign relations, medium Environment and welfare of the population that define critical points of sovereignty. Secondly, it continues to give fuel to the population that has been galvanised around these behavioral guidelines. ”
In Leirner’s evaluation, with this occurs the “confinement of opposition in a dome that is surrounded by these agendas, which is quite comfortable since, invariably, they are perceived as minority,” he says. “This makes it easy for the government to surf the consensus created during the campaign.” The Roman philosopher highlights the strength of this symbolic battle. “As Plato said, ‘ the opinion has an excessive glow. ‘ She convinces more than any scientific argument, which is tedious. But to make it work, it takes repetition. Repeat, repeat and repeat, “he says.
For Carlos Melo, a political scientist at Insper, the impression that this symbolic battle is predominant can be transient. “I think we’re looking for horn in horse head. What we are seeing is a total lack of concrete proposals: these factoids only gained attention because there was nothing more relevant, “Melo says. “The portion that sensitizing this rhetoric is very small, even among his constituents. Among the 57 million people who voted for Bolsonaro, how many do you really think the color of children’s clothing is relevant? or the color of the chair of the dawn? “he says.
The debate on the implications of the minister’s discourse also took place in the opposition lines, in a new round on the dichotomy, for many false-left intellectuals, between the minority defense agendas and the strictly economic agendas in the discourse Progressive. On the one hand, there are those who point out the potential reflexes in the practical life of this type of discursive battle-cite teachers who already feel in the classroom the weight of ideological surveillance and in cases of physical attack on LGBT groups, not to mention the implication in public policies Health and education. In the other, they believe that the centrality of behavioral themes, at least in the form of clash as it happens now, falls like a glove on the social networks of the President, does not aggregate large portions of the population and “steals” attention from other Stts. Judging by what happens in Donald Trump states, for example, it’s a dispute that’s not going to end so soon.
