O dispositivo discursivo em processos de criminalização: uma análise cartográfica do Programa Nacional das Escolas Cívico-Militares - PECIM

Abstract

In the context of the resurgence of conservatism in national politics, after the election of an authoritarian government in 2018, a “new” policy for basic education is instituted: the partial militarization of municipal and state public schools' management, officially called the National Program of Civic-Military Schools – PECIM. Being a researcher interested in the criminal issue since the beginning of my academic journey, and also a public education worker, my curiosity was quickly drawn to this project: if, historically, the militarization strategies of everyday life have been implemented in the context of public security, and, on the other hand, if the militarization of education was being proposed as a public policy directed at people “in a situation of social vulnerability”, what relationships could be established between the discursive formulations of PECIM and the processes of criminalization? Drawing from the theoretical-methodological framework gathered by Cartographic Discourse Analysis (DEUSDARÁ; ROCHA, 2021) in dialogue with criminological studies, I sought to analyze discursive practices related to PECIM, in order to understand the possible productions of meaning provided by them. The analyses carried out pointed to the functioning of the discourses, in this context, as devices (AGAMBEN, 2005, FOUCAULT, 1977 [1994]) to capture the subjectivities of black and peripheral youth, the program's undeclared target audience (as well as the penal system's). From this observation, and taking into account the provocation made by professor Vera Malaguti Batista, based on Joel Rufino dos Santos and Alessandro Baratta, I began to question the possibility of a profanation of these discursive devices active in the criminalization processes, through the subversion of the idea of promoting the “right to security”: instead, that we should think about promoting the security of the rights. From this inversion of signs, I believe it is possible to produce, through new discursive practices, counter-devices that desecrate the racist and positivist permanencies of criminalization processes, in a return to the common sphere of what was sacralized by discursive devices