This work examines the socio-historical conjuncture that led to the emergence and consolidation of a new discourse in the order of discourses on the management of natural resources in the Brazilian Amazon - the discourse of radical refusal to the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Complex (CHBM). This situation dates to a conflict started in the late 1970s when the Brazilian government proposes an inventory of the Xingu basin to assess its hydroelectric potential, reaching the 2000s with changes in the country's economic policy based on the strengthening of the neoliberal model and the opening of the Brazilian government to private companies for the exploitation of natural resources. We identified the birth of the resistance of indigenous groups with emphasis on the Kayapó people, later strengthened with the alliance sealed between this and other segments impacted by the Belo Monte project, on the occasion of the Xingu Vivo para Sempre Encounter held in 2008. We analyze, therefore, the historical facts that culminated in the emergence and circulation of this discourse, as well as its ideological foundation, the possible transformations it suffered over time and the discursive processes that derive from it. We made a descriptive dive in the indigenous social formation, seeking to compare it to the capitalist social formation, which allowed us to envisage, based on the Peucheutian studies, that the resistance we investigate is born in a non-place under the aegis of other rituals of interpellation, introducing itself within the practices and possible rituals in the capitalist social formation. Our analytical course showed us that discourse of radical rejection to the CHBM undergoes transformations from the advent of that imaginary alliance that, from a discursive point of view, sealed an alliance not between empirical subjects, but between different positions of subject and allowed the invasion of other knowledge into the FD that determines this discourse. The discursive corpus of this research is constituted by discursive materialities of differentiated semiotic nature and we adopt as a procedure of construction of this corpus the notion of cut proposed by Orlandi (1984), as well as the discursive sequence proposed by Courtine (2014) and the procedures of the analysis followed the triangular approach proposed by Lagazzi (2005).
|
