Discourse Society 2015 Lacerda 74 94

Discourse & Society2015, Vol. 26(1) 74 94 The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0957926514541346das.sagepub.com

Rio de Janeiro and the divided state: Analysing the political discourse on favelas

Daniel S LacerdaLancaster University, UK; Capes Foundation, Brazil

AbstractThis article analyses the discourse on favelas produced by Brazilian society and consumed in the political field of local administration. The ideological conception of favelas (slums) determines the creation of public policies that reinforce the prejudicial notion of favelas. This work employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyse several texts extracted from mass-media stories and press releases of the Rio government. It shows that the state of praxis reproduces the understanding of slums as a phenomenon detached from the rest of society. This alienated vision impacts on different utterances blaming the poor (analysis 1); perpetuating poverty (analysis 2); and reinforcing exclusion (analysis 3).

KeywordsBrazil, critical discourse analysis, dialectical relational approach, discourse historical approach, favelas, political discourse, Rio de Janeiro, slums

Introduction

Brazilian society is strongly marked by class issues, thus yielding a social apartheid legitimized by discursive praxis (Resende, 2009). Favelas (Brazilian slums) are arguably the strongest representations of such segregation, and analysing the constructed imagina-tion of favelas helps to show this. If we consider them as a social phenomenon, providing a definition of slum or favela entails considerable difficulty. Davis (2007) recovers

Corresponding author:Daniel S Lacerda, Lancaster University, Charles Carter Building, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK. Email: [email protected]

541346 DAS0010.1177/0957926514541346Discourse & SocietyLacerdaresearch-article2014

Article

at University of Bucharest on July 11, 2015das.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Lacerda 75

multiple definitions of slums, mostly related to moral judgements which see them as loci of criminal activities, and depict, according to the United Nations (UN) Population Division, such territories as places of disease, overcrowding, insecurity, informal hous-ing and poverty. In Rio de Janeiro, as in many other places, favelas are referred to in terms of their physical and social deprivation (lack of), and this deficit perspective is usually used to describe them (Davis, 2007; Neuwirth, 2005). But beyond the technical definition of favelas, what is at stake here is how they are discursively constructed and reaffirmed.

The hegemonic understanding of favela has been challenged in the last few decades, and favela is today a changing place. However, its biased account is still part of the imaginary of many people, and is especially present in political utterances (arguably to collect electoral dividends and financial support from those who fund elections). Such accounts are often impregnated with a moralizing content in terms of the codes for urban occupation. The appeal to hegemonic moralizing discourses to address material class-based differences is a recurrent political strategy, which has also been identified in other contexts (Bennett, 2013). In general, they are part of a discursive logic of exclusion. As stated by Wodak (2007: 643), the practices and politics of exclusion are inherently and necessarily rooted in language and communication. This article assumes not only that language is the main arena of dispute where ideological clashes take place, but also that social struggles and structural contradictions (e.g. affluent zones depending on a cheap labour force but providing no suitable accommodation or transport for them) are dialecti-cally related to the political organization of state (Gramsci, 1971). For this reason, the article analyses the political discourse on favelas which represents an arena of dispute on the meaning of favelas across the whole city of Rio, and beyond. This process involves revealing the ideology imbued in political discourses, which are related to the reproduc-tion and abuse of power (Van Dijk, 1997; Wodak, 2011).

In Rio, the present time is historically important for this analysis. In what seems to be the first time in more than 100 years, favelas are the focus of the main public programme of a state government. Through the programme for pacification of favelas, the state-level administration acts together with the other two jurisdictional levels of government (city and federation) in a rare political confluence that aims at breaking the logic of violence existing in many parts of the city. This political turn remains contested in terms of underlying motivations, though, especially considering the major events of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games (Cunha, 2011; Fleury, 2012; Lacerda and Brulon, 2013; Leite, 2012).

This article analyses the discourse produced in Brazil and consumed in the political field of local administration, with emphasis on the context of production and consump-tion. In light of this objective, the following questions were formed and guide this article: (1) How does Rios government understand what constitutes favelas? (2) How differently does the government see slum inhabitants in comparison to residents of wealthy areas? (3) How are favelas acknowledged on the political agenda of the gov-ernment in Rio? To address these questions, this work, employing CDA methodology, uses several texts extracted from mass-media stories and press releases of the city administration.


76 Discourse & Society 26(1)

There are clear features that characterize CDA, for example the interest in unravelling and scrutinizing power relations and intricate ideologies composing discourse. This work will rely on two different CDA traditions: the discourse-historical approach (DHA), which focuses on the political field and draws on argumentation theory (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001); and the dialectical-relational approach (DRA), unfolding from the Marxian tradition and exploring relations of dominance, difference and resistance (Fairclough, 2001).

Following the three proposed objectives, I will try to demonstrate in three separate analyses what the current discursive practices of the government represent to favelas: (1) the criminalization of poverty, (2) a divided state and (3) the reinforcement of exclusion. In doing so, I expect to contribute to an understanding of the current political manoeu-vres to hide favelas and their poverty, and reveal the dynamics of exclusion that occur even within public favela programmes. The article begins with the historical context of favelas in Rio. It then presents the methodology used for the current study and proceeds with an analysis of utterances in three different sets of texts. Finally, it offers a critical assessment of the impact of such vision on the materiality of favelas.

The context of favelas

Slums are a worldwide phenomenon. The increasing urbanization of cities in countries such as Brazil, India and China created world mega-cities, and in 2007, for the first time in human history, the urban population outnumbered the rural (Davis, 2007). An analy-sis of this dynamic is offered by Davis (2007: 26) who presents the impressive numbers of slum creation: more than 200,000 slums in the world house more than 1 billion peo-ple. Brazil contributes greatly to this figure. According to Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE, 2013), more than 20%1 of Rios 6.2 million city inhabit-ants live in favelas.

Any discussion about favelas can be associated with inequality and income distribu-tion. This is a material consequence of favelas being inhabited by the poorest. As explained by Hulme et al. (2009), poverty research needs to focus on poverty dynamics, and examining its evolution over time is shown to be crucial to understanding the pro-cesses of poverty persistence. In this case, it also means examining the perpetuation of inequality that is attached to this poverty. Let me now proceed to a short description of the historical trajectory of favelas in Rio. Rios landscape is strongly marked by the pres-ence of favelas and, in recent decades, they were brought into the spotlight in the issuing of public policies, particularly in the field of public security.

The first catalogued favela in Rio was Morro da Providencia, which housed ex-soldiers who had fought against a national riot (Guerra de Canudos) in the state of Bahia at the end of the 19th century (De Oliveira, 1985). In the first half of the 20th century, slums were depicted as places of bums, smugglers and vagabonds. Morro da Providencia was occasionally called social hell by the elite (Valladares, 2000: 7), as if it were occu-pied only by bums and criminals, even though the first census in 1950 showed that more than 90% of its population were active and productive labourers (Valladares, 2000: 24), highlighting even then the high disparity between prejudice and reality.


Lacerda 77

The first popular settlements were more widely known as cortios, and were also a solution for housing thousands of ex-slaves who were freed in 1888 and had no means of living out their freedom in an unfamiliar territory (Valladares, 2005). Since their very origins, slums in Rio have been places for the most excluded of society. Slums assumed the geography of favelas as their predecessors (cortios) were destroyed and targeted by hygienist evictions. Thus, since their early presence, favelas have been regarded as socially invisible and were marked by the nature of their illegality.

According to De Oliveira (1985), only in the 1940s did favelas come to be acknowl-edged as an existent urban phenomenon, probably because they were too big to remain ignored. This period coincided with the Brazilian economy undergoing a productive transformation that shifted labour power from rural activities to industries and concen-trated more and more people in the cities. Unsurprisingly, the city was unable to offer housing for all these people, and in 1950, 7% of the city population were already living in favelas (De Oliveira, 1985: 11). During this period, favelas became the object of inter-vention by the State and Civil Society (e.g. the Church, political parties). For Valladares (2000), this period particularly marks the beginning of official knowledge about favelas, when different professionals started to discuss favelas, and the favela became an object of university study. From informal solution to the issue of lack of accommodation, the status of favelas changed to being one characterized as a social problem.

In 1937, a law forbade for the first time the creation of new slums. It was the begin-ning of the overt criminalization of such spaces. Historically, since this first enactment, recurrent public policy regarding favelas has been enacted to control their growth (De Oliveira, 1985), thus resulting in massive campaigns for eviction and demolition of poor houses. Such initiatives characterized the main governmental picture for these dwellers, especially during the 1960s: the era of clearances, in which many actions of eviction were performed by the government. The dwellers waged resistance from the 1950s to the 1980s, organizing communities and building concrete houses. They fought against the homogenization of favelas as spaces of deficit, as not only realized in collective think-ing but also even transposed to official public reports for decades (Silva, 2003). This prejudicial perspective of favelas took away their urban legitimacy in a time when policies for eviction needed to be justified, particularly during the non-democratic period (19641985).

Since the end of the 1980s, slums have increasingly acquired the legal right of exist-ence, and the word urbanization initially regarded as the provision of public services and infrastructure has become more and more associated with favelas. This process was supported by an acknowledgement that the favela is the producer of its own culture, and a comprehension of its way of organizing has altered the understanding of its nature. Favelas could no longer be technically defined as the absence of urban order that had to be cleared out, and their relations with the city became much more complex. The various processes that contributed to this change, for the good and for the bad, were the expan-sion of public and private services within the favelas; the growth and verticalization of favelas; the popularization of new educational and cultural practices; the advance of social, economic and cultural heterogeneity; privatization of the residents associations; and the increased power of drug dealers (Silva, 2003).



The first urbanization programmes oriented to favelas began in the 1980s (Valladares, 2005: 23). Probably the biggest programme of the 20th century was Favela-bairro, which was launched in the 1990s and was partly funded by the World Bank. Despite many achievements and public apparatuses deployed because of this programme, it was not fully successful due to the lack of political articulation, a fragmentation of interven-tions and the non-existence of a security programme at state level to cope with the emerg-ing criminal gangs (Fleury, 2012: 197198). Because of increasing segregation and the lack of state control, slums were gradually being dominated by drug traffickers and mili-tias, who saw in the oppressed population and in the fragile institutional bonds of favelas the perfect environment to create their own ruling system. With this developing process, the term favela also carried a depreciative meaning of violence and criminality, as well as the prejudicial vision of poverty it contained already.

In the last few decades, the term favela has been replaced by euphemistic alternatives, such as Hill (Morro) and Community (Comunidade). The former derives from the fact that most favelas in Rio are located on hillsides, while the latter is linked to the word that dwellers use to call their own village. The objective of this transformation is to avoid, by any means, the original term associated with poverty and violence by the media and films, which recurrently represented these specific issues of favelas to the rest of the city (Ramos and Paiva, 2007: 7797). An example of such a manoeuvre was the case when the municipal government required Google to hide information about favelas from Google Maps (Antunes, 2011). Subsequently, the company started a project to prior-itize and qualify the information shown on maps of the city, displaying the names of the zones and removing any references to favela on the first zoom level. These lexical-semantic strategies resemble the early period of the favelas, when they could still be hidden from the city.

The mentioned strategy is part of one of the big priorities of the current administra-tion: to take advantage of the historically favourable conditions of the economy and political alliances with the federal government, and reorganize the city for the upcoming mega events, preparing it to welcome foreign capital. The biggest political programme, UPP (Unidades de Policia Pacificadora Pacifying Police Units), promises to consoli-date the state control on communities under the influence of criminal groups (State Executive Order no. 42787, 6 January 2011). The possible real intentions underpinning this manoeuvre have been discussed by several authors (e.g. Fleury, 2012; Lacerda and Brulon, 2013), and the arena for the battle to recover state control is also ideological. The following section explains the method that was employed to reveal the basis on which the government enacts public initiatives on favelas (the discourse on favelas).

Method

In order to reveal the discourse on favelas from the perspective of political administra-tion, this article contemplates three different manifestations, applying critical discourse analysis (CDA) in three separate analyses. As suggested by Wodak and Meyer (2009), the collection of data and contextual information depends on the research questions. The investigation starts with the identification of the problems, which are defined below in terms of three different research questions. These questions drive the analysis of the


Lacerda 79

involved social practices and their relationship with the associated semiosis (e.g. public policies). So, for each of the following research questions, a different approach to analy-sis has been used, to best fit the selected data set:

1. How does Rios government understand what constitutes favelas?2. How differently does the government see slum inhabitants in comparison to

residents of wealthy areas?3. How are favelas acknowledged in the political agenda of the government in

Rio?

To address question 1, the texts analysed are: (a) a newspaper story (886 words) describing the new city programme for favela urbanization, based on speeches by the mayor and his secretaries;2 and (b) an interview with the city mayor who was running for re-election: an excerpt (2 minutes) containing questions and answers regarding favelas has been transcribed.3 Given the nature of these texts, the discourse-historical approach (DHA) (Wodak, 2006, 2009, 2011) was used, along with the commonly associated tech-niques of argumentation analysis (Neagu, 2013; Toulmin, 1969; Van Eemeren and Garssen, 2012).

DHA also informs the whole article in providing a historical perspective on the con-struction of discourse on favelas. This approach is usually applied to studies of exclusion in the field of politics, providing insightful analyses of political discourse. The following section explores the intertextuality of the two texts (the newspaper story and the inter-view) and identifies the discursive strategies used: nomination (including categorization, metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche), predication (stereotypical and evaluative attribu-tions), argumentation (fallacies and topoi of arguments), perspectivation/framing (reporting, description, narration or quotation of events) and intensification/mitigation (of the illocutionary force).

For question 2, the relevant texts are: (a) official state press release A (327 words) explaining the services to minimize the impact of government work;4 and (b) official state press release B (236 words) on the work of the Public Defenders Office in prevent-ing slum evictions.5 Because of the contradictory dialectical relation between the two texts, the dialectical-relational approach (DRA) (Fairclough, 2001, 2009) was used. This approach is grounded in the work of authors such as Antonio Gramsci, Karl Marx and Michael Halliday, and its methodological objectives focus on grand narratives (i.e. macro discourses that subjugate the meaning of social practices).

DRA views semiosis as an irreducible part of material social practices, in which all practices are those of production, and for this reason it is an important instrument for analysing social exclusion and structural domination, such as in the case of favelas. This analysis is performed on three levels: text (structure, cohesion, grammar, vocabulary), discourse (interdiscursivity, production and consumption processes) and social order (dominant and marginalized ways of making meaning).

The analysis juxtaposes these two similar texts (as described above, official press releases extracted from the official government portal), to distinguish the different dis-courses that pervade them when referring to different classes of citizens. Many of the discursive devices analysed by DHA are also explored by Fairclough (2001: 116126),



who, nevertheless, focuses on the link between discursive strategies and social order, through the relationship of two important elements: ideology (a construction of reality that is enacted in various dimensions of discursive practice, contributing to the relations of domination) and hegemony (power over society exerted by the ruling class in alliance with various social forces in a condition of unstable equilibrium).

Finally, for question 3, the headlines and leads (summaries) of official press releases extracted from the state government official website were compiled into a corpus. A search was performed with the keywords comunidade (community), favela (slum) and morro (hill), for stories published from 15 February to 11 March 2013, which resulted in 128 stories. Repeated and non-applicable stories were excluded, leaving a corpus of 45 different press releases on favelas and their programmes.6 Each story abstract was then analysed to define the favela/community to which the story referred, whether it was paci-fied or not, and the topic.

The third analysis establishes the basis on which the cohesion of communications about favelas is established over several stories. The relatively small size of the corpus allowed for the manual annotation of each entry, without the support of concordance software, using the following codes: name of the favela object of the story, pacified (yes/no), topic of the story (event, publication of results, new investment) and whether there were residents involved (yes/no).

The approaches described share similarities and differences. Their selection is not random; rather, it aims at the articulation of perspectives deriving from multiple theoreti-cal standpoints but pointing towards common discursive practices. The data used here are in Portuguese, but the results of the analysis have been translated into English.

Data analysis: Discourse on favelas

Part 1: Criminalization of favelas

Text 1a (a newspaper story) was published on 15 July 2010 by the most widely read newspaper in Rio (O Globo), and one of the most famous in the country. It describes the new Morar Carioca public programme, which in 2014 was still one of the main policies of the city administration in office during 20082016, and which replaced the previous programme (Favela Bairro) for favela urbanization. The text has the following struc-ture: the first half summarizes the policy, focusing on the plan for eviction and contain-ment; the second half starts with the financial details of the plan and concludes by giving voice to the statements of the mayor and his secretary of housing which also focus on aspects of policy reinforcement. The text assumes the genre of neutral journal-istic coverage of facts, appealing to epistemic claims and objectifying events. Its main discursive structures are presented next.

One of the devices for providing cohesion to the text is the repetition of the words removed (5), urbanization (3) and order (3), which, associated with the repetition of favelas, communities and city council, suggests how the city administration under-stands its own role in terms of the new policy: to urbanize the city by removing com-munities of favelas to provide order. This conclusion is supported by how favelas are


Lacerda 81

constantly nominated, namely as counted instances. No community is referred to by its name; it is always generalized in terms of numbers or areas, as illustrated in the follow-ing example. Thus, favelas assume the status of things, impersonal and inanimated (Fowler cited in Billig, 2008).

Extract 1: newspaper story

14 The plan, which was defined by the city administration as a social legacy of the 201615 Olympic Games, previews the removal by 2012 of 123 communities16 where at least 12,973 families are currently living in risk areas. Of this total,17 4,900 have already been moved off. The number of slums to be eradicated is18 similar to what [the newspaper] anticipated in January (119), when the then Secretary19 of Housing, Jorge Bittar, announced a series of removals.

As can be seen in extract 1, the main object of the text the new government policy is predicated (defined by the city administration) as a social legacy of the Olympic Games to the city. The text does not refer to this claim again at any point, failing to explain in what sense the Games are providing a legacy for slums, since no extraordinary investment is provided because of the Games. This is a very common strategy of Brazilian politicians to justify their public interventions: linking their political actions to the requirements of the Olympic Games or presenting them as their legacy to the city, regardless of the nature of the action. The new public policy is actually about slum removal. The recurrent actions that enact the policy in extract 1 are moved, removal, eradicated lexical items that point to the topic and that most of the time do not have social actors.

This objectification of the process of removal/eviction is a form of mitigation (here a case of concealment), and is applied in about one-third of the text, which is dedicated only to the economic aspects of the programme. In other parts, when describing the removal/eviction of families from their houses, the text systematically appeals to mitiga-tion devices, inter alia the meiosis with an understatement of the action (moved off rather than evicted), minimization through the use of reduction words (only 416 houses evicted), hasty generalization of implicit mitigating circumstances (houses being con-structed as if they were necessarily going to be used by evicted residents) and the pas-sivization of the sentence to conceal the main actor of this process (have been moved off rather than the administration has moved the families off).

As illustrated by extract 1 and also present throughout the text, the topos that is, the contextual mental place in which a set of assumptions leads to an argument of risk areas is associated with favelas as a justification for removing them. This has been a common practice since time immemorial by the city administration: these buildings should be demolished because they have been built in areas regarded unsafe for construc-tion. This almost deictic reference is a tricky rule that opens up the theoretical possibility that risky areas could be urbanized. Context explains this possibility. The hilly geogra-phy of the city of Rio accommodates many mansions built in wealthy (Jardim Botanico, Jo, Quinta, etc.) and arguably risky areas, but that are not controlled with the same rigour. Yet it is remarkable that favelas are associated with a word (risk) ontologically close to a hazard, a threat, that they would represent not for themselves but for outsiders



(after all, favela is still considered a police issue). The text subsequently explains that, so far, only 416 houses have been demolished. The qualifier only understates the action as not having a significant impact, and the nature of these evictions is not discussed; when in fact, they are compulsory, determined by controversial assessment and usually not notified in advance (see Brum, 2011: 66153).

When further claiming that the removed families are not abandoned by the city admin-istration, the text also uses a fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam, that is, an appeal to the desirability of the consequences. It states that the number of projected or under construction houses comes to 54,000, which would be enough to house the removed families. The premise is already fallacious, in that all the planned houses will be built and offered to the evicted families, and is grounded on the desirability of this conse-quence that the final claim is true. This last appeal to consequences is associated with another common argumentation strategy, namely the use of different modalities in epis-temic claims. Arguments referring to the execution of the public policy affirm stances with high-valued modality, in other words close to the centre of certainty, such as [the plan] previews the removal of. In contrast, whenever the events are solutions offered to the affected residents, the epistemic claim shifts to low-valued modality, namely specu-lations of likely truth, such as [it] would be enough to house the removed families.

Claims with high-valued modality (certain truth), together with deontic claims, also usually lead to ludic fallacies, that is, the misuse of models in a real-life situation, by ignoring other constraints or resistance to the full application of the plan. One of the fal-lacious premises is that all favelas will be controlled and inspected. This is contested by the history of resistance against authoritative policies on favelas, but it is also contra-dicted by the text itself, which shows that the roles of local secretaries toward favelas are still loci of dispute. The mayor states that every secretary will also assume their role in the favelas, admitting that favelas were previously disregarded in usual duties. However, the only roles explicitly predicated to the nominated professional anthroponyms (e.g. secretaries) were to eradicate new favelas, to stop expansion, to inspect new build-ings and finally, to replac[e] lamps (see extract 2).

Extract 2: newspaper story

69 The mayor added:70 If the strategy is to integrate communities with the roads [rest of the city], we need71 identical treatment of public services. Seop [public order] will have a more intense role72 in the repression of unruly expansion, while the73 Secretary of Conservation will assume activities such as replacing74 lamps

Road (asfalto) is a synecdoche commonly used in Rio to refer to what is outside the favelas (which, in turn, are referred to as hill morro). This shows the imaginary of segregation between the two. But what is qualified in the text as an identical treatment of public services is rather only an identical imposition of legal obligations. Desirable public services, such as education and sanitation, are not qualifiers of these claims, and what this strategy produces is arguably a separation between the communities and the rest of the city. One of the strategies that allow this distribution is to predicate favelas as


Lacerda 83

illegitimate occupations, relegating them to an outlaw position. However, the legitimacy of occupations should be judged in light of the fact that the shortage of housing obligates the dwellers to settle wherever they are able to. Framing them as law offenders allows justifying a certain pattern of action from the government.

This can be seen, for example, in the applied epistemic intensifications. In the exam-ple of extract 2, Seop will have a more intense role in the repression of unruly expan-sion. The role qualifier used implies that the previous one was not diligently performed or, at least, not intensely. And the classification of expansion as unruly is one of the various predications of favelas as lawless environments. One of the fallacies involved is equating favela-occupied areas with invasions, an epistemic intensification that implies they are all illegal: inspections [] of occupied areas, in order to identify new inva-sions. This is associated with the topos of public order, greatly present in the interview. In many passages, the story presents favela communities as being in opposition to the formal city. The duty of protecting the formal city is given to the city administration, which speaks through the government representatives. The mayor and a secretary are directly quoted, as in extract 2, but the access to the process of discourse production is controlled here and no voice is offered to the families that were evicted.

Text 1b (an interview) is a transcription of an excerpt from an interview broadcast on 18 September 2012 by the most watched TV channel in the country. It comes from a sec-tion of the daily news show in which each candidate running for mayor in the 2012 municipal elections was interviewed. The excerpt transcribed contains a discussion in response to the following question: youve said before that you have been reducing the total area occupied by favelas [] isnt it pointless to control the area whilst favelas are growing vertically? The intertextuality of the two texts is evident in the direct reference to the programme Morar Carioca, the use of the common topos of risky areas and the production of the discourse on favela orbiting around the central issue of direct control and containment of growth. The turn that defines the theme of the conversation chal-lenges the recurrent claim that the government is successful in reducing the area of fave-las. Extract 3 gives the start of the mayors response.

Extract 3: interview, turn 2

Look, this is a difficult task, isnt it? Rio for a long time had only expansion, expansion, expansion, harming the community dwellers themselves. Besides, many times in risky areas.

The answer offered by the mayor is not an answer to the posed question. Digressing from what is asked is a common device in political speeches (Wodak, 2011). The mayor appeals to many fallacies in his argumentation as strategies for mitigation. In Extract 3, two of these are illustrated: first, the argumentum ad nauseam, that is, argument from repetition, by stating that for a long time there has been only expansion, expansion, expansion. Even though the claim may be true (at least for some territories), the repeti-tion suggests that this is a continuous and deliberate process. Using the same strategy, the mayor insists many times on the increase of slums, always associating it with illegal actions. The quoted clause follows a non sequitur formal fallacy, in this case an epistemic fallacy, in harming the community dwellers themselves. The fallacious premise is that



expansion is harmful to residents, when in reality only people from outside favelas might be majorly affected by their expansion.

The claim that for a long time favelas have only grown is followed further by the claim that his administration was able to reduce the area of favelas. One of the ways of obtaining legitimation for this control is, again, the use of the topos of risky areas (dis-cussed previously). It is arguable whether the topoi of slum control and risky areas were produced by civil society and incorporated by governmental actions or whether they were directly produced by the historical acts of the government.7 In any case, there is a dialectical relation between these practices.

Extract 4: interview, turn 6

What I can say is the following, Edmilson: the city administration now does not stand still when there is an irregularity, it goes and combats this irregularity, this is not what used to happen in the past. Then, we are urbanizing the favelas in Rio, Morar Carioca brings dignity to the residents of favela. But, not growing is also crucial, even for this urbanization to be worth it.

The construction of us versus them in the mayors speech is marked by the opposi-tion between trouble-shooters (us) and offenders (them) in the applied perspectiva-tions: control versus unruly expansion, restraint versus growing, urbanization versus favela expansion. The trouble-shooters are agents of the city administration, always reported as main actors of active processes (e.g. they act whenever denounced, they do not stand still whenever there is an irregularity, they combat the irregularity), which are related to tackling irregularities. The agency disappears when the goals of the action are not irregularities but evictions (not growing is also crucial). In addition, the use of material processes to describe ones own actions (e.g. act, combat) is also a strategy in political discourse to convey the idea of a dynamic and achieving agent (Wodak, 2011). This imagination of the dynamic administration is in constant opposition to an apathetic previous administration (not what used to happen in the past).

One of the argumentative devices used to construct a desired perspective of narration is the strawman fallacy, that is, distorting the opponents standpoint idea by magnifying what has been left unexpressed. The question was whether favelas had been growing vertically, but the mayor rejects the construction of an idle administration, which is a common popular image but not part of the interviewers question. The digression from the main topic is also reinforced with reference to the policy Morar Carioca, which according to the mayor brings dignity to the residents of communities. This is again a fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam an appeal to the desirability of the conse-quences (bringing dignity) that is unsound and flawed. The use of this fallacy, especially when combined with other rhetorical operations, is often very effective in convincing the other party, for the ordinary arguer is usually not aware of this manoeuvre (Van Eemeren et al., 2012).

The claim of an active and diligent administration is supported by the process of tack-ling irregularities. This carries the premise that expansions of favelas are always viola-tions, in a new reference to the imagination of an orderly city. The intertextuality of the two texts, given, for example, by the shared use of order, regularity and rules is strongly associated with the topos of public order, also present in many political


Lacerda 85

speeches of the current administration to leverage a valuable political asset that led them to the election in previous polls. Exploring this topos is also motivated by the interest of the dominating media. Whereas the newspaper story concentrates almost exclusively on the discourse of evictions, in the interview the mayor is compelled by the interviewer to explain the increase of slums.

The text genre (TV newscast) presupposes a production of discourse oriented to all citizens of the city, more than one-fifth of them being residents of favelas (see earlier) and the majority in similarly poor conditions (IBGE, 2013). However, the interviewer vocalizes the demand of prospective voters as if preventing and controlling the increase of favelas were the most important mission of the government concerning these areas. As previously shown, governmental actions towards favelas in Rio are historically associ-ated only with containment and control, leading in some periods to policies of removal. In the interview, the mayor predicates such expansions as irregularities against which the administration will engage. Thus, this utterance is oriented to a group of voters, rather than to the benefited slum inhabitant. The materiality of such expansions, fallaciously associated with the active decisions of residents, is in fact the struggle of common citizens to find a place to live.

If, by contrast, the perspective of dwellers were taken, the discussions would concern urbanization and improvement of living conditions. However, use of the term urbaniza-tion has been semantically appropriated as a political discourse indicating intervention on favelas, focused not on the provision of public services, but rather on the establish-ment of public order. The question to be posed then is: order to whom? From a CDA perspective, the idea of public order can be regarded as an order of discourse. It articu-lates discourses based on various topoi (such as risk areas and public order) and enacts public actions (inspections, fines, evictions) that are dialectically related.

This is only possible because the speech is tied to a specific ideology, which is grounded in specific topoi. The overall analysis of the argumentation of the text in Toulmin (1969)s terms, as suggested by Wodak and Meyer (2009), shows that a com-bined claim of the two texts would be the need to remove favela settlements, qualified by the belief that the containment of favela growth is the most important role of government regarding favelas. The grounds for this claim are backed by the historical warrant (i.e. implication about the data that makes the claim legitimate) that such spaces are loci of illegality and everybody must be equally regarded as accountable for the compliance with laws. Dominant representations of social order, particularly in Brazil, relate to the equal accountability of people, as if residents of informal settlements can choose whether they comply or not with public regulations concerning construction. This assumption is possible only within an ideological position whereby all people must be made equally accountable for their actions, regardless of their social and economic conditions. However, many would agree with a completely opposite concept of justice: to treat dif-ferently those who are different, in order to provide equal opportunities (Barry, 2005).

Part 2: From divided city to divided state

The following two analysed texts are press releases. This is a specific genre generally characterized by condensed summaries of larger reports, which presuppose factual



evidence and high assertiveness when transmitting official information of public interest. However, more pragmatically speaking, it should be contextually regarded as a media channel used to carry a range of rhetorical objectives (Lassen, 2006). The following two texts illustrate this second definition of different communicative purposes, illustrating the communication of public services of very different natures with different interests, despite their production having originated from the same department of the same admin-istration (20062014).

Text 2a (press release A) was published on 15 December 2011 during the execution of works for the construction of a new subway station in a wealthy zone of Rio de Janeiro. The headline reads Works on subway: Services to minimize trouble caused to the dwell-ers of Ataulfo de Paiva Street. In six paragraphs, the text describes in detail how the new service will work: a parking valet service will be made available 24/7 to the residents of the affected street. The service probably follows from complaints expressed by those dwellers who had already objected to the construction of the subway station on the basis that it would increase traffic in the area. Extract 5 introduces this text.

Extract 5: Press release A

1 Dwellers of residential and commercial buildings2 that hold a parking space and will be unable to use it during the works will be

provided with a3 24/7 valet service.

Text 2b (press release B) was published on 28 January 2013, in a period of intense activity of government works (the approaching mega sporting events and the timing between the 2012 and 2014 elections are possible explanations). This release also explains a public service aimed at mitigating the impact of public works, but the type of service offered and the discourse employed in the text are remarkably different. The story entitled Public defenders get decision that suspends demolition in Tabajaras community narrates, in five short paragraphs, the technical details of the legal trajec-tory of three lawsuits aimed at the protection of slum dwellers against eviction. Extract 6 introduces the text.

Extract 6: Press release B

1 On Tuesday, 22, the Coordination of Land Regularization and Tenure Assurance obtained a2 decision during judiciary night shift, determining the suspension of demolitions occurring at3 Ladeira dos Tabajaras, under the allegation that there4 could not be any act of property seizure against the assisted people until []

The cohesion of both texts is established by the reference to each provided service (service vs legal assistance) and to the users of each process (resident vs assisted). The nominalization of the participants in both cases is the strongest evidence of the difference between them. Dwellers of the affluent zone are directly nominated and qualified for the provision of the service: the residents of commercial and residential buildings. The


Lacerda 87

nomination of slum dwellers, on the other hand, is a concealment of their existence, rep-resented as goals in a passive sentence: the assisted people. The social condition of the assisted people is known only because of the nature of the service (prevention of house evictions).

Expanding the transitivity analysis (Halliday, 1985) reveals significant differences when comparing the two texts: in press release A, the citizens are active subjects (e.g. whenever they need the vehicle, residents should notify the porter, who will warn the valet team, Press release B), foregrounding the users of the service and empowering them as agentic participants in the process. These features contrast with the case of press release B, in which the public defenders (service providers) are the active participants (actors) in the narrative (they obtained, notified and visited), whilst the actual users of the services (poor citizens) are the passive participants (goals/recipients) or indirect objects of the actions: the assisted people did not have access to the administrative procedure which ordered the demolitions (lines 78); the community received public defenders from the coordination for a meeting in which the assisted peoples doubts were cleared (lines 1011); a decision obtained as preliminary injunction still protects the dwellers against possible removal (lines 1213). In addition, considering the word density of the texts, the users in press release A are mentioned twice as frequently as those in press release B.

Nominalizing the original public works that motivated the provision of the explained services was also a concern of the animators in the process of production. Public works that affect dwellers from press release A are mitigated by the euphemistic metonymy of interventions, which are only once referred to, giving space to focus on the description of the service itself. According to the text, they will communicate in advance with the (again individuated) dwellers and marketers of the region. On the other hand, the public works in press release B were already taking place. In the process of discursive produc-tion, there was no concern with avoiding an overt clarification of the impacted works: house demolitions, which produced evictions. These were mentioned in every para-graph of the text.

There is also a strong difference in the representation of the office that provides the services (providers) and their recipients (users). In the first case, the executive branch of state government (formed by elected representatives) provides the service, but no institu-tion is nominalized. By omitting the state as the participant in the process, no separation is claimed between users and providers (us). In the second case, the legislative branch of the state government (formed by public tenders) provides the service, and the exact sec-retary is specified. The distinction between the attorneys office (us) and the assisted people (them) is made very clear. Table 1 summarizes the linguistic contrasts between the two texts.

As shown in Table 1, the discursive structures in the two texts are very different, even though they have been posted by the same agency and describe services motivated by similar situations (prior public works). The main distinction is the description of the service itself. Both texts show public efforts to minimize the impact of necessary works on the city, but there is a huge gap in the level of rights assurance: whilst for the wealthy zone the right to park the car is assured by a high-standard service, in the slum, dwellers are still struggling legally to save their own houses from demolition.



Analysis of the discursive production shows that press release A incorporates elements of the genre of private advertising: the service is foregrounded, and the text functions as a mechanism for persuasion, targets its audience and provides instructions for consumption/acquisition (Bex, 1993). The text appropriates the discourse of advertising with a focus on exclusive services. The press release specifies that no car will be parked on the street, but will be taken to a private parking lot, demonstrating caution to ensure the safety and integ-rity of residents properties. In addition, an exclusive helpline is created to provide exclu-sive care. The exclusivity of the telephone service could be regarded as a metaphor for the exclusivity of the government as a whole. Public offices are dedicated to providing, and communicating about, exceptional services for this class of citizens, which is not the case for most services and was certainly not the case in text B.

In press release B, the concise description of the facts resembles the classical defini-tion of the genre of press release, highlighting the lawsuits and hiding the actual citizens involved in the story. The defenders serve three communities, and in all cases the focus is the work performed by the defenders rather than the service offered to the assisted resi-dents. The kind of service provided to the citizens is not described. We dont know, for example, if there have been any meetings with the residents or whether any channel for contacting the attorneys has been made available.

While text B is produced with a rough technical vocabulary, the sound and logical description of the service in text A demonstrates an anticipation of the wide distribution of its content: while the defence of evicted slum dwellers is reproduced only by websites of law and juridical news, the announcement of the valet service was reproduced by at least 10 other sources.8 Following the same careful preparation of political speeches, the text concludes with the appropriation of common political discourse to justify the unpleasant event and claim for a shared compromise of interests:Extract 7: Press release A

1 [] The contractor

Table 1. Linguistic contrasts between press release A and press release B.

Object of utterance Press release A Press release B

Nomination of dwellers dwellers of commercial and residential buildings

the assisted [people]

Nomination of public works

interventions demolitions

Nomination of service provider

not specified (State in general) Coordination of Land Regularization and Tenure Assurance

Services provided to alleviate effects

valet parking for car use legal representation against house demolitions

Predication of the service

24 hours; parked at private parking lots; carried out by trained professionals; requested by phone.

not specified


Lacerda 89

2 will promote constant and effective dialogue with the community, study case by case the impact of the

3 interventions on each of the residents and marketers so that, together, [they] can find suitable alternatives to

4 minimize impacts, which are inevitable for the development of the city.

As commonly found in political discourses (Wodak, 2011: 36), this claim pre-empts a debate over what is inevitable in the development of the city. It is not up to us to discuss the concept of development and its consequences; it is given by the producer, namely the political group who plans the interventions. However, in the quoted example of press release A, forms of alleviating the impact of the interventions are granted to the indi-viduated citizens, who according to the text together will find a suitable alternative constructed case by case. No restriction on the scope of the service to mitigate the impact is posed at any level, and it is for us to infer that an alternative is assured to respect the rights of the citizens. This example illustrates the points discussed above: individuation of the public, exclusivity of the service and euphemistic nomination of the impact. However, looking again at press release B, none of these elements are present, and the assurance of rights is not offered with the same predisposition in the service aimed at poor citizens.

The production of these discourses is based on the need of the capitalist social order to maintain this division. As suggested by Fairclough (2009: 134), the social order needs the problem. Silva et al. (2012) propose the concept of divided state as a reformulation of Zuenir Venturas (1994) divided city.9 Silva et al. view the city as traditionally occu-pied by all classes, but with each class receiving different treatment from the govern-ment. Even though citizens are full individuals in their social performance, the state is cloven, focusing the distribution of resources on the wealthiest zones and neglecting the poorer areas (especially the slums), thus reproducing inequality.

Part 3: Reinforcing exclusion through metonymical transgression

Text 3 is a corpus of 45 different press releases published in the interval of one month in the first quarter of 2013. Analysing official press releases is a way of exposing the dis-course legitimated by the ruling class, which is attached to the government. For this rea-son, the corpus has been compiled, including headlines and leads (summaries), of official press releases extracted from the state government official website. By the time of extrac-tion, the main public policy regarding favelas (the security programme of pacification UPPs) had been implemented in 24 territories (corresponding to 30 units) where 153 different communities were installed. Even though this is a considerable evolution, it still covers only about 20% of all favelas in Rio (IBGE, 2013). The 45 analysed headlines correspond to 16% of the overall corpus of published stories in the relevant period.

There were three identified topics of communication in the press releases: events organ-ized or funded by the government (e.g. UPP at Batan celebrates four years with a party for residents), new public investments (e.g. State starts enlargement of streets at Cantagalo); and results at different levels of the programme (e.g. Lieutenant of UPP at Vidigal cele-brates pacification in the community where he was born). The interdiscursivity among different texts is pre-determined by the criteria of corpus creation, that is, the cohesion



achieved through repetition of the keywords favela and community. However, there are other unforeseen interdiscursive elements in the corpus, namely the recurrent mention of the participation of residents (resident is the word of highest occurrence and 40% of the stories contained instances of residents, children or leaders) and the celebration of anniversaries of the implementation of UPPs in three communities (16% of the corpus). These recurrent instances are intended as a response to two common critiques made of the programme: the lack of involvement of the affected dwellers in the design and execution of the public policy, and the suspicions regarding the long-term nature of the programme.

If slum dwellers are victims of exclusion by the established order, the most alarming fact in the categorized corpus is the emphasis of state attention on a subset of slums in the city: only one out of 45 stories (2%) about slums referred to events, investments or results promoted in non-pacified communities, even though the non-pacified communi-ties represented two-thirds of the total number of communities (66%). In addition, the focus of attention and resources does not concern only the distinction between pacified versus non-pacified communities: only four communities Rocinha, Coroa/Fallet/Fogueteiro, Manguinhos and Barreira do Vasco accounted for almost half of the mentioned communities in the stories.

Therefore, the filtered corpus depicts a huge focus of governmental attention, which has been reproduced by the mass media in the creation of a synecdoche to re-signify favela (slum). In the texts, as in other sources, favela is semantically referred to as paci-fied slum, rather than slum in general, ignoring the others just as they all were ignored at the beginning of the century. The discursive concentration also follows the spatial concentration of the programme on the most affluent zones and their access, and this strategy supports the Olympic project of Rios State as an enlargement of the capitalist hegemony of the elite (Gramsci, 1971).

In this process, the order of discourse (as appropriated in Fairclough, 2001) is not only a crucial determinant force in constituting what is regarded as a relevant favela in public policies, but also here the discourse dialectically determines the semiosis of the word for society overall, which may result in further exclusion of the non-pacified favelas. This cycle sustains the mechanism by which favelas are recognized as legitimate only in so far as they serve to support the interests of a given group. At the same time, the success of the UPP programme is what assures peace for the wealthy zones, and votes for the administration that has implemented it. This arrangement is not totally unexpected if we consider that the social order needs the problem: it inherently generates a range of major problems which it needs in order to sustain itself (Fairclough, 2009: 126).

Concluding remarks

According to Fairclough (2001), there are two important elements in the analysis of social order: ideology and hegemony. Ideology is a construction of reality that is enacted in various dimensions of discursive practices, contributing to the relations of domination. Actions are oriented by ideologies, which subsist in the structures. Ideology is intimately related to the concept of hegemony, which is the power over society exerted by the ruling class in alliance with various social forces in a condition of unstable equilibrium. The


Lacerda 91

hegemonic struggle is highly discursive. The observation of hegemony supports identifi-cation of the ways of making meaning that are dominant or marginalized.

The discourse on favelas reproduced by political society is a product of hegemonic production, which is part of the project to attain and maintain power: there can, and indeed must, be hegemonic activity even before the rise to power, and one should not count only on the material force which power gives in order to exercise an effective leadership (Gramsci, 1971: 215). The elite of the city of Rio, which for Gramsci is the ruling class exercising power on the government, is accountable for the production of such discourses. And in that sense it is not difficult to understand the perspective from which these discourses are enacted. However, such discourses are also social practices, and the dominant ways of making sense can and should be challenged. Favelas (slums) are a convenient solution for the issue of lack of housing, an issue created by the same social order in which they are included, and should not be seen as the problem.

In the cases analysed here, slums are a problem to be tackled by the government (via the provision of security and public order). The common backdrop in the three analyses is the praxis reproducing a biased understanding of slums as a phenomenon detached from the rest of society. The focus on the precariousness of favelas ignores the cause of their conditions, that is, the inequality in overall wealth distribution. This alienated vision impacts on different utterances blaming the poor (analysis 1), perpetuating poverty (anal-ysis 2) and reinforcing exclusion (analysis 3). The aggravating factor of these findings is the nature of the utterances, extracted from political fields, which is likely to shape future public policies on favelas.

These characteristics are not new in the history of the city, as shown at the start of this article. Favela residents were blamed for their own conditions for the first half-century of the existence of favelas, and a politics of reinforcing exclusion was strongly practised until favelas acquired their legal right to the city. However, these victories are more sym-bolic than practical. As the present and other investigations on favelas reveal (e.g. Brum, 2011; Lacerda and Brulon, 2013; Leite, 2012), the general discourse on favelas perpetu-ates their struggle in the social arena.

More than the controversial equality of revenue distribution, what slum inhabitants can concretely demand is equality of access to their rights. Urbanization of the current settlements has become the solution to aim for in the last few decades. The remaining question is what type of urbanization will prevail in the struggle between political engagement with the city and the managerial planning of its wealth. More than one-fifth (22%) of Rios population already lives in favelas, and public policies directed at this population must acknowledge their right to the city as much as for the rest of the popula-tion. In concluding this article, then, any future policies should aim at providing oppor-tunities as a condition for demanding compliance, by means of redirecting investment to the most deprived areas, regardless of their media impact.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Joo de Almeida and Ruth Wodak, the anonymous reviewers and the editor, Teun Van Dijk, for their encouraging and helpful comments on early versions of this article. Responsibility for the content is, however, incumbent on the author.



Funding

The author is grateful to Capes Foundation (Brazil) for funding this research (proc. 1028/12-0).

Notes

1. Considering the set of aglomerados subnormais (non-normal territories) as classified by the IBGE [Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica] Census.

2. http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/prefeituralanca-novo-plano-para-favelas-que-preve-controle-gabarito-conservacaochoque-2974915

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glZpIYKG7DE4. http://www.rj.gov.br/web/imprensa/exibeconteudo?article-id=7155925. http://www.rj.gov.br/web/dpge/exibeconteudo?articleid=14254186. Corpus compiled from http://www.rj.gov.br/web/imprensa/listaconteudo?search-type=busca7. As Gramsci (1971) would argue, the distinction between civil society and government does

not exist, as the enlarged state incorporates civil society with a strong participation of the media for cultural production, and the mentioned topos is probably produced dialectically in both spheres.

8. Among the sources indexed online at the time of analysis.9. In his classic work The Broken City, Zuenir Ventura (1994) depicts the city of Rio as com-

posed of two separate fragments: that of rich people and that of poor people, operating distinct processes, services and social spaces.

References

Antunes L (2011) Google modificar seus mapas sobre o Rio [Google will modify its maps of Rio]. O Globo (online edition), 25 April. Available at: http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/ (accessed 2 April 2013).

Barry B (2005) Why Social Justice Matters. London: Polity.Bennett J (2013) Moralising class: A discourse analysis of the mainstream political response to

Occupy and the August 2011 British riots. Discourse & Society 24(1): 2745.Bex T (1993) The genre of advertising. Revue belge de philologie et dhistoire, Perse: Portail des

revues scientifiques en SHS 71(3): 719732.Billig M (2008) The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse

& Society 19(6): 783800.Brum M (2011) Cidade Alta: Histria, memrias e estigma de favela num conjunto habitacional

do Rio de Janeiro [High City: History, memories and favela stigma in a housing complex from Rio de Janeiro]. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF).

Cunha J (2011) Negociaes e conflitos em jogo no processo de implementao de polticas pbli-cas em uma favela da cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil [Negotiations and conflicts at stake in the process of implementation of public policies in a favela of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil]. In: Second International Conference of Young Urban Researchers, pp. 116. Lisbon: Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, 1114 October.

Davis M (2007) Planet of Slums. London: Verso.De Oliveira J (1985) Repensando a questo das favelas [Rethinking the issue of favelas]. Revista

Brasileira de Estudos de Populacao 2(1): 930.Fairclough N (2001) Discurso e mudana social. Brasilia: Ed. UnB.Fairclough N (2009) Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In: Wodak

R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 122138.


Lacerda 93

Fleury S (2012) Militarizao do social como estratgia de integrao: o caso da UPP do Santa Marta [Militarization of the social as strategy for integration: The case of UPP in Santa Marta]. Sociologia 14(30): 194222.

Gramsci A (1971) Selection from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Halliday M (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Hulme D, Kanbur R and Addison T (2009) Poverty Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

(Kindle version). New York: Oxford University Press.Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE) (2013) Uma anlise das condies

de vida da populao brasileira 2012 [An analysis of the life conditions of the Brazilian population in 2012]. Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/ condicaodevida/indicadoresminimos/sinteseindicsociais2012/default.shtm (accessed 29 November 2013).

Lacerda DS and Brulon V (2013) Politica das UPPs e Espaos Organizacionais Precrios: uma anlise de discurso [UPP policy and precarious organizational spaces: A discourse analysis]. Revista de Administrao de Empresas (RAE) 53(2): 130141.

Lassen I (2006) Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content. Discourse Studies 8(4): 503530.

Leite M (2012) Da metfora da guerra ao projeto de pacificao: favelas e polticas de segu-rana pblica no Rio de Janeiro [From the metaphor of war to the project of pacifica-tion: Favelas and public security policies in Rio de Janeiro]. Revista Brasileira de Segurana Pblica 6(2): 374389.

Neagu M (2013) Decoding Political Discourse: Conceptual Metaphors and Argumentation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Neuwirth R (2005) Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World. Oxon: Routledge.Ramos S and Paiva A (2007) Mdia e Violncia: novas tendncias na cobertura de criminalidade e

segurana no Brasil [Media and violence: New tendencies in the coverage of criminality and security in Brazil]. IUPERJ. Available at: http://www.sedh.gov.br (accessed 13 April 2013).

Reisigl M and Wodak R (2001) The discourse-historical analysis of the rhetoric of racism and antisemitism. In: Reisigl M and Wodak R (eds) Discourse and Discrimination. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 3190.

Resende VDM (2009) Its not a matter of inhumanity: A critical discourse analysis of an apart-ment building circular on homeless people. Discourse & Society 20(3): 363379.

Silva JS (2003) Adeus, Cidade Partida [Farewell, Broken City]. Boletim Rio de Janeiro: Trabalho e Sociedade 3(5). Available at: http://www.iets.org.br/biblioteca/adeus_cicade_partida.pdf (accessed 12 April 2013).

Silva JS, Barbosa JL and Faustini MV (2012) O novo carioca [The new carioca]. Rio de Janeiro: Morula.

Toulmin S (1969) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Valladares L (2000) A Gnese da Favela Carioca: A produo anterior s cincias sociais [Genesis

of Rio favelas: The production preceding social sciences]. Revista Brasileira de Cincias Sociais 15(44): 534.

Valladares L (2005) A Inveno da favela: do mito de origem a favela.com [The invention of favela: From the mith of origin to favela.com]. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV.

Van Dijk T (1997) What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics. Available at: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/What%20is%20Political%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf (accessed 8 November 2012).

Van Eemeren FH and Garssen B (2012) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. London and New York: Springer.



Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B and Meuffels B (2012) The extended pragma-dialectical argumenta-tion theory empirically interpreted. In: Van Eemeren F and Garssen B (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 323343.

Ventura Z (1994) Cidade Partida [Broken City]. So Paulo: Companhia das Letras.Wodak R (2006) Doing politics: The discursive construction of politics. Journal of Language

and Politics 5(3): 299303.Wodak R (2007) Discourses in European Union organizations: Aspects of access, participa-

tion, and exclusion. Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and Communication Studies 27(56): 639664.

Wodak R (2009) The discourse-historical approach. In: Reisigl M and Wodak R (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 6394.

Wodak R (2011) The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak R and Meyer M (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and method-ology. In: Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 133.

Author biography

Daniel S Lacerda is a PhD candidate in the department of Organization, Work and Technology at Lancaster University, UK. His research focuses on the discursive and spatial production of fave-las by organizations. Recent works explore the sociological aspects of the recent programme of pacification in the Brazilian favelas.


Discourse Society 2015 Lacerda 74 94

Documents

Transcript of Discourse Society 2015 Lacerda 74 94