Processos de construção da fórmula “ideologia de gênero”

Abstract

The term “gender ideology”, as popular as it is vague and controversial, permeates many environments, from catholic masses to legislation bills. In this research, we utilize tools from Discourse Analysis (DEUSDARÁ; ROCHA, 2018; SANT’ANNA, 2003; MAINGUENEAU, 2008) in order to accompany the process of construction of the object “gender ideology”, and its consolidation into a formula (KRIEG-PLANQUE, 2010). We adopt cartography (PASSOS, KASTRUP; ESCÓSSIA, 2015) as an ethical-political stance towards research, valuing the process over the establishment of goals, and the analysis of implications over the guise of neutrality. In a first moment of analysis, we will focus on the circulation of the term “gender ideology” and its rise to the status of formula. For that, we will travel through a vast and heterogenous discursive network that entails – among other actors – institutions of the Vatican, smaller church communities, state policy, several academic fields and news articles, always following a thread: the use of the formula “gender ideology”. In a second movement, we will analyze the process of construction of the object “gender ideology” through language. To this end, we will have, as our primary analytical corpus, texts whose authors, self-described as “against gender ideology”, try to define and present “gender ideology” to its readers, as to alert them of its dangers. In these texts, we will examine linguistic strategies employed for the construction of “gender ideology”, focusing on some effects of meaning brought forth in this process – “gender ideology as a threat to children”, “gender ideology as anti-science” etc. –, and denouncing the use of reported speech to bring forth those meanings, be that in the form of misleading to erroneous interpretations – as they do, for example, by establishing a likeness between the works of Judith Butler and John Money –, be that through overt tampering with citations from various authors, such as Karl Marx and Kate Millett. Throughout the analysis, we can observe the potentiality of language as intervention to construct reality, as the analyzed texts are responsible for creating the very object they denounce. We also offer some possibilities to utilize the potentiality of language as intervention in order to fight the concrete, negative effects that the circulation of the formula “gender ideology” causes not only on women and LGBT people, but also to the children whose creators of the term claim to protect