The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (CF88) is a Political Charter
by Doctor Vinício Carrilho Martinez [i], M.A. Claudia Pires [ii] and Flávia de Almeida Montingelli Zanferdini [iii]
Edited and reviewed by Giovanna Imbernon
Our first goal is to disseminate the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (CF88), nationally and internationally, in what brings or holds at its core – its meaning as a political charter. Many aspects stand out, from the prevalence of social justice (Articles 3, 170) to the evident defense of fundamental rights, including participation, emancipation, social inclusion, and a constitutional structure ensured through the civilizing process (Preamble, Article 215 and 225).
There is no place for the poor and workers in 21st-century Brazilian society[1]. It means that on Labor Day – under the government that took the side of the State – no regulation against forced and slave labor will be bright in [2]. By the way, what do slave-like work conditions mean? Nowadays, we use escapist parables to deny and run away from reality. Recalcitrant slavery in 2021 does not need technicalities nor analogies. It needs legal and institutional measures to fight it and effective penalties.
Claiming “terrorism in the countryside,” state terrorism is regulated by refusing to set rules to the worst of crimes: slavery in the 21st century. Likewise, the fascist closure, indigenous leaders were investigated by the Federal Police precisely because they filed a request at the ICC for serious investigations on the burned Amazon[3].
The imposition of an irrationality that forces the country to sink as an international pariah, because of a state and government that take sides and, consequently, condemn the people, but not its ruler. This is the outcome: we can say that national fascism weakened Max Weber’s (1979) concept of state, considering the rule of law collapse based on rational-legal domination.
The popular May 1st protests took crowds to central beaches and avenues throughout the country, soaked by the frenzy (“viva la muerte”) of denying life – obediently following the state machinery of misinformation: enough proof of the irrationality of “our” rule of law. Or we can say that political irrationality is further proof that the state of exception is highly contagious and became part of popular political culture.
However, looking back to 2012 – before the naive revolution of 2013 – we may say that Late Modernity not only confirmed the state of exception as the driving force behind rational-legal domination (Martinez, 2010) – as a huge and forceful stock and contribution of extraordinary power to the rule of law (national interest) – and capable of imposing itself as an institutional coup in 2016, as well as, once again, weakened Weber’s concepts.
Thus, we can also conclude that, if the political exception – or exception to politics, because it occupies the public sphere to claim a military intervention – is a political power strategic weapon (National Interest Law); exception inoculated in unconsciousness.
Popular politics is capable of leading a subject to proclaim in these negative manifestations of life and public health, “I authorize the president to kill me.”
Brazil has never known the democratic rule of law; the country only had flashes of an anti-slave political consciousness; it never understood the exercise of democracy and rights – 2013 was just one more example. One cannot use political freedom to defend the institutional coup of 2016 – the impeachment process against Rousseff –, nor democratic freedom of expression will be used to legitimize the end of this same democracy.
Only the logic of the exception allows procedures to become more relevant than their ends – to the point of denying the proposed end. After all, it is an element of irrationality caused by the exception to subvert the logic that “the end justifies the means”. In simple words, we can conclude by saying that only in the exception “the means stand up against the ends”, in this case, the so-called “freedom” used incites the end of freedom.
Restrictions, violations, constitutional misappropriations – the re-election amendment, the social barrier clause designated as the reserve of the possible and many of the following, ending in 2021 – are treated here as constitutional misrepresentation, allowing procedures to become more relevant than the ends – to the point of denying those purposes.
Finally, we conclude that the rule of law based on the CF88 brings together freedom, democracy, dignity, social justice, popular and political participation constituting the public space and that, it should be said consciously, “no one is given the right to deny dignity”. That is, once again, it turns out because the Constitution of 1988 is the largest and most fruitful one when seen as a political charter.
[1] https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/leonardo-sakamoto/2021/04/30/com-declaracoes-toscas-guedes-deixa-claro-lugar-de-pobre-na-sua-sociedade.htm.
References
Canotilho, José J. G. 1999. Estado de Direito. Lisboa: Edição Gradiva.
Häberle, Peter. 1997. Hermenêutica Constitucional: a sociedade aberta dos intérpretes da Constituição – contribuição para a interpretação pluralista e “procedimental” da Constituição. Porto Alegre: Sérgio Antonio Fabris Editor.
Häberle, Peter. “A dignidade humana e a democracia pluralista – seu nexo interno,” in Direitos fundamentais, informática e comunicação, eds. Ingo Wolfgang Sarlet; Frank I. Michelman … [et. al]. 11-28. Porto Alegre Livraria do Advogado, 2007.
Martinez, Vinício C. Estado de Exceção e Modernidade Tardia: da dominação racional à legitimidade (anti) democrática. Tese de Doutorado em Ciências Sociais. UNESP/Marília, SP: [s.n.], 2010, 410 páginas.
Weber, Max. 1979. Ensaios de Sociologia. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores.
[i] Doctor Vinício Carrilho Martinez: Associate Professor at Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Head of BRaS’ Constitutional Studies Research Group, Member of BRaS’ Academic Committee, and Associate Editor of BRaS-J. https://www.defesadacf88.ufscar.br
[ii] M.A. Claudia Pires: Head of BRaS’ Communication and PR Department, Head of BRaS’ Social Media Studies Research Group, Member of BRaS’ Academic Committee, Associate Editor of BRaS-J.
[iii] Flávia de Almeida Montingelli Zanferdini: Judge, Ph.D., and Professor of Undergraduate and Graduate Programs in Law the University of Ribeirão Preto (UNAERP), member of Bras’ Constitutional Studies Research Group, and of BRaS-J’s Advisory Board.
Changing the conversation surrounding immigration
by Isabella de Sousa Gonçalves*
Edited and reviewed by Anna Paula Bennech and Giovanna Imbernon
Political Agenda
In the Global South or the Global North, we repeatedly see negative discourses about immigrants. The recent growth of a populist wave enhanced the division of society between friends and enemies as one of its core aspects. Populist political leaders share similarities, such as rhetoric nationalism, and anti-pluralism (Araújo and Prior 2020). Migrants and refugees are constantly targeted in those discourses, outgroups separated from the country and described as outsiders and enemies. For instance, the populist wave and nationalist discourses against immigration were the main factors for the United Kingdom Independence Party ascension and the results of the Brexit referendum (Evans and Mellon 2019).
In Brazil, Bolsonaro’s campaign used the same rhetoric even though immigration was not at the center of his agenda, as he was also targeting other groups, such as indigenous people, the LGBT+ community, and women. But in 2016, while he was still a member of the Federal Chamber of Deputies, he voted for the Immigration Law and stated: “See if we Brazilians have any opportunities out there. There is no reciprocity. It is a crime what they are doing here with this law, opening the doors of Brazil to the whole world. All kinds of scum will come here now!”[1] As president, Bolsonaro withdrew Brazil from the UN Global Compact for Migration[2].
During the Brazilian past governments, the political agenda regarding immigration was more optimistic. In 2009, for instance, Lula approved an amnesty law to regularize thousands of refugees and undocumented immigrants. In his speech, the ex-president thanked “all the immigrants who helped and continue to help build our country.” He defended that “irregular migration is a humanitarian issue and cannot be confused with criminality”[3] and criticized the unfair migration policies adopted by some rich countries. Following his agenda, Dilma also favored opening the country to immigration in her discourses (Cogo 2018; Dadalto 2013). Finally, Temer sanctioned the law that defined actions for emergency assistance to immigrants[4].
Legacy Media
However, even during left governments in Brazil, research on immigrants and refugees representation demonstrates that legacy media historically represents the topic negatively. In both western and non-western countries, media portray immigration similarly, often following a pattern of misconception. Journalists often talk about refugees referring to them as immigrants or the other way around, as seen in researches analyzing media representation about immigrants in Brazil (Brignol & Costa, 2018; Lima & Campos, 2015). But we do not have to look at the scientific literature to identify this misuse of concepts: we just need to glance at news articles. The strategy is to avoid word repetition, but the outcome is the difficulty separating different groups and the standardization of views. An example from The Guardian is shown in the illustration below:
Another pattern is the negative representation. Immigration is frequently associated with problems. Immigrants are portrayed as threats that harm the economy and the host country’s culture and the source of health problems, such as Ebola, Covid-19, and others (Lawlor 2015; Cogo and Silva 2015; Ranincheski and Uebel 2018). Refugees are habitually associated with a vast mass of victims needing help, and they are uniformized (Kaleda, 2014; Morais & Santos, 2017). Journalists rarely give voice to immigrants and refugees, and official sources speak for them. The outcome is silencing the protagonist’s stories and a constant separation between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Walls are then created through metaphors, and divisions are established in symbolic ways.
Common sense associates Brazil with diversity and a welcoming culture. The myth of diversity grounds the denial of racism in Brazil, and it also hides the high levels of xenophobia. However, when looking carefully at media production, this is not the truth. Social representations have the power to build meanings, creating common cognitions, and producing social bonds that unite groups (Moscovici 2001; Wagner et al. 1999; Sêga 2000). Since communication has a role in anchoring hegemonic representations and causing cultural assimilation, we also see reflections of society itself when we look at the cultural productions. That is why language matters so much, and we must fight for fairer ways of representing groups. Legacy media has a pattern in representing immigration, but we must change how it is covered to take down symbolic and concrete walls.
Changing the conversation
Research on the representation of immigrants and refugees points out patterns, but they usually overlook ethical questions. Although scholars analyze media coverage, there is a lack of models on adequately talking about the subject. How can we change those patterns? What should journalists do to tell those stories in a more pluralistic way? Here are some tips not only to journalists but to the entire audience. We all have the power to spread misinformation.
-
Use the definitions of asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants. Misusing these concepts produces uniformization, and blurring these terms has serious consequences, such as undermining public support and withdrawing attention from the legal protections that each group needs.
-
Be aware that there are regulations, and the laws are different for each group. Countries deal with migrants according to their laws and processes, while refugees’ protection and asylum regulations are also defined by international law.
-
Be aware of human rights. All groups have rights and laws are regulating human movements. Sometimes, people simplify the conversation without being aware of the rules regulating the entire society.
-
Show empathy and avoid dehumanization, victimization, uniformization, oversimplifications, and heroization. The media sometimes depicts immigrants in heroical ways, showing that they could integrate, open their own business. Now and then, those narratives imply that they are responsible for their success. Those stories are anchored in a neoliberal meritocratic ideal and exempt the government from implementing essential public policies.
-
Always consider the bigger picture when talking about a humanitarian context. Refugees do not flee from their countries because they want but rather to survive. You should always reflect on the context’s complexity and the nuances involved in those stories.
-
Consider the leading voices. Are you talking about migrants? Why do we not use them as sources? The protagonist’s stories should be at the center of the conversation. The ones who lived the experience are the best to speak about it. Narratives should be representative.
-
Wording matters. Metaphors such as ‘floods,’ ‘waves,’ and ‘swarms’ share an idea of an invasion of water, disaster. Those kinds of metaphors and stereotypical representations can lead to hatred and hostility against immigrants.
References
Araújo, Bruno, and Hélder Prior. 2020. “Framing Political Populism: The Role of Media in Framing the Election of Jair Bolsonaro.” Journalism Practice 0 (0): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1709881.
Cogo, Denise. 2018. “O Haiti é Aqui: Mídia, Imigração Haitiana e Racismo No Brasil.” Chasqui – Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicación 139: 427–48.
Cogo, Denise, and Terezinha Silva. 2015. “Entre a ‘Fuga’ e a ‘Invasão’: Alteridade e Cidadania Da Imigração Haitiana Na Mídia Brasileira.” Revista FAMECOS 23 (1): 21885. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-3729.2016.1.21885.
Dadalto, Maria Cristina. 2013. “Imigração e Permanência Do Sonho.” Matrizes 7 (2): 249–63.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Jonathan Mellon. 2019. “Immigration, Euroscepticism, and the Rise and Fall of UKIP.” Party Politics 25 (1): 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818816969.
Lawlor, Andrea. 2015. “Local and National Accounts of Immigration Framing in a Cross-National Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (6): 918–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.1001625.
Moscovici, Serge. 2001. “Why a Theory of Social Representations?” Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, no. August: 8–35.
Ranincheski, S., and R. Uebel. 2018. “‘Polícia Federal Deporta 450 Imigrantes Ilegais Venezuelanos de Roraima’: Um Estudo Sobre Remediation, Positivismo e Pós-Positivismo No Jornal O Globo.” Diálogo, no. 37: 39. https://doi.org/10.18316/dialogo.v0i37.3879.
Sêga, Rafael Augustus. 2000. “O Conceito de Representação Social Nas Obras de Denise Jodelet e Serge Moscovici.” Anos 90. https://doi.org/10.22456/1983-201x.6719.
Wagner, Wolfgang, Gerard Duveen, Robert Farr, Sandra Jovchelovitch, Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi, Ivana Marková, and Diana Rose. 1999. “Theory and Method of Social Representations.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2 (1): 95–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00028.
[1] Translation by the author. Original text: https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/bolsonaro-amplia-discurso-mas-passado-deve-cobrar-fatura-21115247
[2] https://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/brasil/2019/01/08/interna-brasil,729696/brasil-deixa-pacto-global-pela-imigracao-da-onu.shtml
[3] Translation by the author. Original text: http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/presidencia/ex-presidentes/luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva/discursos/2o-mandato/2009/copy_of_02-07-2009-discurso-do-presidente-da-republica-luiz-inacio-lula-da-silva-durante-cerimonia-de-sancao-da-lei-que-anistia-estrangeiros-em-situacao-irregular
[4] https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/temer-sanciona-lei-que-estabelece-acoes-para-ajuda-a-imigrantes.ghtml
* Isabella de Sousa Gonçalves is a Ph.D. student at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany holding a Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst Research Scholarship. She is currently researching stereotypical framing of migrants and refugees in media coverage. She holds a bachelor’s and master’s in journalism and Communication Sciences from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (Brazil).
This study was supported by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst Doctoral Research Grant (number 57507871).
Virtual visits during the Covid-19 pandemic
by Andreia Vicente da Silva*
Edited and reviewed by Anna Paula Bennech and Giovanna Imbernon
In early March, the Regional Council of Medicine of São Paulo (Cremesp) published a statement about virtual visits to hospitalized patients diagnosed with Covid-19 (Cremesp, 2021). One of the possible consequences of such instruction may be forbidding virtual visits to unconscious patients, especially intubated ones. The justification for the council’s advice is to preserve the right to the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, given the incapacity of voluntary consent from the patient. It is necessary to discuss this recommendation, which, if in practice, counters what has been understood as humanized care or “good death” (Menezes, 2004) practices and aggravates the isolation imposed by the Covid-19 context in Brazil.
The pandemic biosafety protocol has isolated patients in hospitals by preventing family members from visiting them to contain the spread of the disease (Brazil, 2020). Such a ban has caused enormous frustration for both the isolated ones and family members who, in general, are informed by doctors through phone calls about their relatives’ situation. In some contexts, when possible, health professionals, sensitive to the psychological consequences of family withdrawal, have started using cell phones, facilitating access and contact with patients. A good example is the project developed by professors and students of the nursing program of Unioeste at the Municipal Hospital of Foz do Iguaçu (Unioeste, 2021): interns mediate conversations using donated cell phones. The team prepares the entire action in discussions with family members and patients, being concerned about the exposure of hospitalized patients and the emotional state of those involved.
The debate about “modern death,” as a process that has intensified the loneliness of patients in hospitals, is already consolidated in the field of social health sciences (Ariés, 1982; Sudnow, 1967). The damage caused by the isolation of patients, excessive medicalization, and the intervention of machines to prolong the vegetative state have been widely documented (Menezes, 2006). As alternatives to these models, techniques of “humanization” and “palliative care” were developed, in which, among other rights, the interaction of patients with relatives and affective coexistence are guaranteed, even when they are unconscious and subject to institutionalized care by physicians (Monteiro, Magalhães and Machado, 2017; Machado and Menezes, 2018). The mandatory visits to hospitals, even in the ICUs, resulted from these efforts to restore the family to the central place in the patients’ process of health recovery or cases of inevitable farewell to death. The contemporary model of good death does not only treat the disease. The patient is perceived as a biopsychosocial-spiritual whole, a subject, and family members are inserted in the care team (Seymour, 1999).
One of the justifications for Cremesp’s instruction is that “the alleged interaction with family members would not be possible.” Such a statement seems to restrict social interaction to the context of consciousness, carried out intentionally by the patient. At this point, the social sciences can contribute to health professionals because the debate on social interaction can lead to other understandings. Social interaction concerns a series of possibilities for action in our daily lives (Goffman, 1967). Our senses are educated through socialization throughout our pathway to detect patterns of relationships and associate them with certain sensations and feelings (Collins, 2004). Our ability to identify smells, tastes, sounds, and colors that remind us of specific memories is remarkable. Although these associations are not always conscious, they are vividly identified with specific experiences. In other words, our senses are trained to understand and reproduce certain emotional patterns that tend to be repeated throughout our lives. For example, affective encounters are associated with feelings of happiness and generate positive emotions.
Given this understanding of social interaction, which encompasses much more than a conscious decision, we can say that a social relationship built through affective bonds is preserved even in a situation of unconsciousness. The patient can feel and benefit from small care actions, such as listening to a song or even voice messages; a study of terminally ill patients confirmed that unconscious patients hear (Blundon and Ward, 2020). Likewise, Unioeste’s professors involved in the virtual visits project reported that some unconscious patients have their monitoring parameters altered when they hear the voice of a family member[1]. The interaction experience of the family with the patient through the virtual methods helps in the disease experience and initiates the anticipated grief process in the case of terminality.
Another point to be discussed is that, given the strict biosafety protocol in which the coffins are sealed and wakes are not possible (Vicente da Silva, 2020), video call is often the only possible way to interact with the terminally ill and to say goodbye. Depriving patients and family members of these meetings, which end life cycles, will deepen the pandemic crisis that we are experiencing. This suggestion exposes us all to a return to the experience of solitary hospitalized illness and death, which medical instructions, scientific research, and human rights standards have consistently sought to overcome. If this instruction becomes the norm, its result will be the intensification of the sick person’s suffering and the deepening of the complicated mourning epidemic, which is already verified in Brazilians’ everyday lives during this pandemic.
Sources
Radio H2Foz. #saúde. HUMANIZAÇÃO. April 26th, 2021. [internet]. 2021. [Retrieved on April 30th, 2021]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FCaepSc6k&t=371s.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Manejo de corpos no contexto do novo coronavírus covid-19. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Análise em Saúde e Vigilância de Doenças não Transmissíveis Brasília/DF. [internet] 2020. [Retrieved on August 14th, 2020]. Available at: http://www.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2020/marco/25/manejo-corpos-coronavirus-versao1-25mar20-rev5.pdf
Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo. Parecer número 131045. 11.03.2021 [internet]. 2021. [Retrieved on April 30th, 2021]. Available at: https://www.cremesp.org.br/library/modulos/legislacao/pareceres/versao_impressao.php?id=17998
Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná. ‘Humanização à assistência dos pacientes hospitalizados com covid-19, no Hospital Municipal de Foz do Iguaçu’. Central de Notícias [internet] 2021. [Retrieved on April 30th, 2021]. Available at: https://www.unioeste.br/portal/central-de-noticias/56950-projeto-da-unioeste-foz-do-iguacu-promove-visita-virtual-entre-pacientes-e-familiares
References
Ariès, Philippe. O homem diante da morte. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves: 1982.
Blundon, Elizabeth G., Romayne E. Gallagher, and Lawrence M. Ward. “Electrophysiological Evidence of Preserved Hearing at the End of Life.” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (June 25, 2020): 10336. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67234-9.
Collins, Randall. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Goffman, Erving. Interaction ritual: essays on the face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Pub Co., 1967.
Machado, Renata de Morais, and Rachel Aisengart Menezes. “Gestão Emocional do Luto na Contemporaneidade.” REVISTA CIÊNCIAS DA SOCIEDADE 2, no. 3 (August 24, 2018): 65–94. https://doi.org/10.30810/rcs.v2i3.622.
Menezes, Rachel Aisengart. Difíceis decisões. Etnografia em um Centro de Tratamento Intensivo. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz; 2006.
MENEZES, Rachel Aisengart. Em busca da boa morte. Antropologia dos Cuidados Paliativos. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond; Fiocruz, 2004.
Monteiro, Mayla C., Andrea S. Magalhães, and Receba N. Machado. “A Morte Em Cena Na UTI: A Família Diante Da Terminalidade.” Temas Em Psicologia 25, no. 3 (2017): 1285–90. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2017.3-17Pt.
Seymour, Jane Elizabeth. “Revisiting Medicalisation and ‘Natural’ Death.” Social Science & Medicine 49, no. 5 (1999): 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00170-7.
Sudnow, David. Passing On. The social organization of dying. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1967.
Vicente da Silva, Andreia. Os ‘ritos possíveis’ de morte em tempos de coronavírus. [internet] 2020. [Retrieved on April 11th, 2021]. Available at: https://www.reflexpandemia.org/texto-50
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FCaepSc6k&t=371s
* Andreia Vicente da Silva is an Assistant professor at the Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná (Unioeste). She holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences from the Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ) with an internship at the School for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences in Paris. She has experience with the Anthropology of Religion, with emphasis on Studies on Death Rituals. E-mail: deiavicente@gmail.com
BRaS Blog ISSN 2701-4924
